Question Description
Directions: Read the following passage and answer the question.General Exceptions: Under Section 76 of the IPC, an act done by a person bound or by mistake of fact believing, himself to be bound by law is included. Nothing is an offence which is done by a person who is or by reason of a mistake of fact, not by mistake of law in good faith believes himself, to be, bound by law to do such act. It is derived from the legal maxim ignorantia facti doth excusat, ignorantia juris non excusat.Under Section 79, act done by a person justified or by mistake of fact believing, himself justified, by law is included. Nothing is an offence which is done by any person who is justified by law, or who by reason of mistake of fact and not mistake of law in good faith, believes himself to be justified by law, in doing that particular act. Accident under Section 80, includes an accident committed while doing a lawful act. Nothing is an offence which is done by accident or misfortune, without any criminal intention or knowledge in the doing of a lawful act in a lawful manner by lawful means and with proper care and caution.Infancy - Sections 82 and 83Section 82 includes an act of a child below seven years of age. Nothing is an offence which is done by a child under seven years of age. Suppose a child below seven years of age, pressed the trigger of the gun and caused the death of his father then, the child will not be liable. Section 83 includes an act of a child above seven and below twelve of immature understanding. Nothing is an offence which is done by a child above seven years of age and under twelve, who has not yet attained sufficient maturity of understanding to judge the nature and repercussions of his conduct during that occasion. For example, suppose a child of 10 years killed his father with a gun in the shadow of immaturity, he will not be liable if he has not attained maturity. Insanity under Section 84, is an Act of a person of unsound mind. Nothing is an offence which is done by a person who at that time of performing it, by reason of unsoundness of mind, is incapable of knowing the nature of the act, or that he is doing what is either wrong or contrary to law.[Source: Extracted with edits and revisions from General Exceptions under the IPC, https://blog.ipleaders.in/general-exception-under-ipc/]Q. Which of the following statements regarding X is accurate with respect to his ability to claim a defense under section 84, considering his occasional unsound mind and the act of killing someone who had been annoying him:a)X is ineligible to claim the defense under section 84 because he was of sound mind at the time of the incident.b)X can potentially claim the defense under section 84 due to his condition of occasional unsound mind.c)X can potentially claim the defense under section 84 because he may have been incapable of understanding the nature of his act.d)X is ineligible to claim the defense under section 84 due to the nature of the offense, which is murder.Correct answer is option 'A'. Can you explain this answer? for CLAT 2025 is part of CLAT preparation. The Question and answers have been prepared according to the CLAT exam syllabus. Information about Directions: Read the following passage and answer the question.General Exceptions: Under Section 76 of the IPC, an act done by a person bound or by mistake of fact believing, himself to be bound by law is included. Nothing is an offence which is done by a person who is or by reason of a mistake of fact, not by mistake of law in good faith believes himself, to be, bound by law to do such act. It is derived from the legal maxim ignorantia facti doth excusat, ignorantia juris non excusat.Under Section 79, act done by a person justified or by mistake of fact believing, himself justified, by law is included. Nothing is an offence which is done by any person who is justified by law, or who by reason of mistake of fact and not mistake of law in good faith, believes himself to be justified by law, in doing that particular act. Accident under Section 80, includes an accident committed while doing a lawful act. Nothing is an offence which is done by accident or misfortune, without any criminal intention or knowledge in the doing of a lawful act in a lawful manner by lawful means and with proper care and caution.Infancy - Sections 82 and 83Section 82 includes an act of a child below seven years of age. Nothing is an offence which is done by a child under seven years of age. Suppose a child below seven years of age, pressed the trigger of the gun and caused the death of his father then, the child will not be liable. Section 83 includes an act of a child above seven and below twelve of immature understanding. Nothing is an offence which is done by a child above seven years of age and under twelve, who has not yet attained sufficient maturity of understanding to judge the nature and repercussions of his conduct during that occasion. For example, suppose a child of 10 years killed his father with a gun in the shadow of immaturity, he will not be liable if he has not attained maturity. Insanity under Section 84, is an Act of a person of unsound mind. Nothing is an offence which is done by a person who at that time of performing it, by reason of unsoundness of mind, is incapable of knowing the nature of the act, or that he is doing what is either wrong or contrary to law.[Source: Extracted with edits and revisions from General Exceptions under the IPC, https://blog.ipleaders.in/general-exception-under-ipc/]Q. Which of the following statements regarding X is accurate with respect to his ability to claim a defense under section 84, considering his occasional unsound mind and the act of killing someone who had been annoying him:a)X is ineligible to claim the defense under section 84 because he was of sound mind at the time of the incident.b)X can potentially claim the defense under section 84 due to his condition of occasional unsound mind.c)X can potentially claim the defense under section 84 because he may have been incapable of understanding the nature of his act.d)X is ineligible to claim the defense under section 84 due to the nature of the offense, which is murder.Correct answer is option 'A'. Can you explain this answer? covers all topics & solutions for CLAT 2025 Exam. Find important definitions, questions, meanings, examples, exercises and tests below for Directions: Read the following passage and answer the question.General Exceptions: Under Section 76 of the IPC, an act done by a person bound or by mistake of fact believing, himself to be bound by law is included. Nothing is an offence which is done by a person who is or by reason of a mistake of fact, not by mistake of law in good faith believes himself, to be, bound by law to do such act. It is derived from the legal maxim ignorantia facti doth excusat, ignorantia juris non excusat.Under Section 79, act done by a person justified or by mistake of fact believing, himself justified, by law is included. Nothing is an offence which is done by any person who is justified by law, or who by reason of mistake of fact and not mistake of law in good faith, believes himself to be justified by law, in doing that particular act. Accident under Section 80, includes an accident committed while doing a lawful act. Nothing is an offence which is done by accident or misfortune, without any criminal intention or knowledge in the doing of a lawful act in a lawful manner by lawful means and with proper care and caution.Infancy - Sections 82 and 83Section 82 includes an act of a child below seven years of age. Nothing is an offence which is done by a child under seven years of age. Suppose a child below seven years of age, pressed the trigger of the gun and caused the death of his father then, the child will not be liable. Section 83 includes an act of a child above seven and below twelve of immature understanding. Nothing is an offence which is done by a child above seven years of age and under twelve, who has not yet attained sufficient maturity of understanding to judge the nature and repercussions of his conduct during that occasion. For example, suppose a child of 10 years killed his father with a gun in the shadow of immaturity, he will not be liable if he has not attained maturity. Insanity under Section 84, is an Act of a person of unsound mind. Nothing is an offence which is done by a person who at that time of performing it, by reason of unsoundness of mind, is incapable of knowing the nature of the act, or that he is doing what is either wrong or contrary to law.[Source: Extracted with edits and revisions from General Exceptions under the IPC, https://blog.ipleaders.in/general-exception-under-ipc/]Q. Which of the following statements regarding X is accurate with respect to his ability to claim a defense under section 84, considering his occasional unsound mind and the act of killing someone who had been annoying him:a)X is ineligible to claim the defense under section 84 because he was of sound mind at the time of the incident.b)X can potentially claim the defense under section 84 due to his condition of occasional unsound mind.c)X can potentially claim the defense under section 84 because he may have been incapable of understanding the nature of his act.d)X is ineligible to claim the defense under section 84 due to the nature of the offense, which is murder.Correct answer is option 'A'. Can you explain this answer?.

Solutions for Directions: Read the following passage and answer the question.General Exceptions: Under Section 76 of the IPC, an act done by a person bound or by mistake of fact believing, himself to be bound by law is included. Nothing is an offence which is done by a person who is or by reason of a mistake of fact, not by mistake of law in good faith believes himself, to be, bound by law to do such act. It is derived from the legal maxim ignorantia facti doth excusat, ignorantia juris non excusat.Under Section 79, act done by a person justified or by mistake of fact believing, himself justified, by law is included. Nothing is an offence which is done by any person who is justified by law, or who by reason of mistake of fact and not mistake of law in good faith, believes himself to be justified by law, in doing that particular act. Accident under Section 80, includes an accident committed while doing a lawful act. Nothing is an offence which is done by accident or misfortune, without any criminal intention or knowledge in the doing of a lawful act in a lawful manner by lawful means and with proper care and caution.Infancy - Sections 82 and 83Section 82 includes an act of a child below seven years of age. Nothing is an offence which is done by a child under seven years of age. Suppose a child below seven years of age, pressed the trigger of the gun and caused the death of his father then, the child will not be liable. Section 83 includes an act of a child above seven and below twelve of immature understanding. Nothing is an offence which is done by a child above seven years of age and under twelve, who has not yet attained sufficient maturity of understanding to judge the nature and repercussions of his conduct during that occasion. For example, suppose a child of 10 years killed his father with a gun in the shadow of immaturity, he will not be liable if he has not attained maturity. Insanity under Section 84, is an Act of a person of unsound mind. Nothing is an offence which is done by a person who at that time of performing it, by reason of unsoundness of mind, is incapable of knowing the nature of the act, or that he is doing what is either wrong or contrary to law.[Source: Extracted with edits and revisions from General Exceptions under the IPC, https://blog.ipleaders.in/general-exception-under-ipc/]Q. Which of the following statements regarding X is accurate with respect to his ability to claim a defense under section 84, considering his occasional unsound mind and the act of killing someone who had been annoying him:a)X is ineligible to claim the defense under section 84 because he was of sound mind at the time of the incident.b)X can potentially claim the defense under section 84 due to his condition of occasional unsound mind.c)X can potentially claim the defense under section 84 because he may have been incapable of understanding the nature of his act.d)X is ineligible to claim the defense under section 84 due to the nature of the offense, which is murder.Correct answer is option 'A'. Can you explain this answer? in English & in Hindi are available as part of our courses for CLAT. Download more important topics, notes, lectures and mock test series for CLAT Exam by signing up for free.

Here you can find the meaning of Directions: Read the following passage and answer the question.General Exceptions: Under Section 76 of the IPC, an act done by a person bound or by mistake of fact believing, himself to be bound by law is included. Nothing is an offence which is done by a person who is or by reason of a mistake of fact, not by mistake of law in good faith believes himself, to be, bound by law to do such act. It is derived from the legal maxim ignorantia facti doth excusat, ignorantia juris non excusat.Under Section 79, act done by a person justified or by mistake of fact believing, himself justified, by law is included. Nothing is an offence which is done by any person who is justified by law, or who by reason of mistake of fact and not mistake of law in good faith, believes himself to be justified by law, in doing that particular act. Accident under Section 80, includes an accident committed while doing a lawful act. Nothing is an offence which is done by accident or misfortune, without any criminal intention or knowledge in the doing of a lawful act in a lawful manner by lawful means and with proper care and caution.Infancy - Sections 82 and 83Section 82 includes an act of a child below seven years of age. Nothing is an offence which is done by a child under seven years of age. Suppose a child below seven years of age, pressed the trigger of the gun and caused the death of his father then, the child will not be liable. Section 83 includes an act of a child above seven and below twelve of immature understanding. Nothing is an offence which is done by a child above seven years of age and under twelve, who has not yet attained sufficient maturity of understanding to judge the nature and repercussions of his conduct during that occasion. For example, suppose a child of 10 years killed his father with a gun in the shadow of immaturity, he will not be liable if he has not attained maturity. Insanity under Section 84, is an Act of a person of unsound mind. Nothing is an offence which is done by a person who at that time of performing it, by reason of unsoundness of mind, is incapable of knowing the nature of the act, or that he is doing what is either wrong or contrary to law.[Source: Extracted with edits and revisions from General Exceptions under the IPC, https://blog.ipleaders.in/general-exception-under-ipc/]Q. Which of the following statements regarding X is accurate with respect to his ability to claim a defense under section 84, considering his occasional unsound mind and the act of killing someone who had been annoying him:a)X is ineligible to claim the defense under section 84 because he was of sound mind at the time of the incident.b)X can potentially claim the defense under section 84 due to his condition of occasional unsound mind.c)X can potentially claim the defense under section 84 because he may have been incapable of understanding the nature of his act.d)X is ineligible to claim the defense under section 84 due to the nature of the offense, which is murder.Correct answer is option 'A'. Can you explain this answer? defined & explained in the simplest way possible. Besides giving the explanation of Directions: Read the following passage and answer the question.General Exceptions: Under Section 76 of the IPC, an act done by a person bound or by mistake of fact believing, himself to be bound by law is included. Nothing is an offence which is done by a person who is or by reason of a mistake of fact, not by mistake of law in good faith believes himself, to be, bound by law to do such act. It is derived from the legal maxim ignorantia facti doth excusat, ignorantia juris non excusat.Under Section 79, act done by a person justified or by mistake of fact believing, himself justified, by law is included. Nothing is an offence which is done by any person who is justified by law, or who by reason of mistake of fact and not mistake of law in good faith, believes himself to be justified by law, in doing that particular act. Accident under Section 80, includes an accident committed while doing a lawful act. Nothing is an offence which is done by accident or misfortune, without any criminal intention or knowledge in the doing of a lawful act in a lawful manner by lawful means and with proper care and caution.Infancy - Sections 82 and 83Section 82 includes an act of a child below seven years of age. Nothing is an offence which is done by a child under seven years of age. Suppose a child below seven years of age, pressed the trigger of the gun and caused the death of his father then, the child will not be liable. Section 83 includes an act of a child above seven and below twelve of immature understanding. Nothing is an offence which is done by a child above seven years of age and under twelve, who has not yet attained sufficient maturity of understanding to judge the nature and repercussions of his conduct during that occasion. For example, suppose a child of 10 years killed his father with a gun in the shadow of immaturity, he will not be liable if he has not attained maturity. Insanity under Section 84, is an Act of a person of unsound mind. Nothing is an offence which is done by a person who at that time of performing it, by reason of unsoundness of mind, is incapable of knowing the nature of the act, or that he is doing what is either wrong or contrary to law.[Source: Extracted with edits and revisions from General Exceptions under the IPC, https://blog.ipleaders.in/general-exception-under-ipc/]Q. Which of the following statements regarding X is accurate with respect to his ability to claim a defense under section 84, considering his occasional unsound mind and the act of killing someone who had been annoying him:a)X is ineligible to claim the defense under section 84 because he was of sound mind at the time of the incident.b)X can potentially claim the defense under section 84 due to his condition of occasional unsound mind.c)X can potentially claim the defense under section 84 because he may have been incapable of understanding the nature of his act.d)X is ineligible to claim the defense under section 84 due to the nature of the offense, which is murder.Correct answer is option 'A'. Can you explain this answer?, a detailed solution for Directions: Read the following passage and answer the question.General Exceptions: Under Section 76 of the IPC, an act done by a person bound or by mistake of fact believing, himself to be bound by law is included. Nothing is an offence which is done by a person who is or by reason of a mistake of fact, not by mistake of law in good faith believes himself, to be, bound by law to do such act. It is derived from the legal maxim ignorantia facti doth excusat, ignorantia juris non excusat.Under Section 79, act done by a person justified or by mistake of fact believing, himself justified, by law is included. Nothing is an offence which is done by any person who is justified by law, or who by reason of mistake of fact and not mistake of law in good faith, believes himself to be justified by law, in doing that particular act. Accident under Section 80, includes an accident committed while doing a lawful act. Nothing is an offence which is done by accident or misfortune, without any criminal intention or knowledge in the doing of a lawful act in a lawful manner by lawful means and with proper care and caution.Infancy - Sections 82 and 83Section 82 includes an act of a child below seven years of age. Nothing is an offence which is done by a child under seven years of age. Suppose a child below seven years of age, pressed the trigger of the gun and caused the death of his father then, the child will not be liable. Section 83 includes an act of a child above seven and below twelve of immature understanding. Nothing is an offence which is done by a child above seven years of age and under twelve, who has not yet attained sufficient maturity of understanding to judge the nature and repercussions of his conduct during that occasion. For example, suppose a child of 10 years killed his father with a gun in the shadow of immaturity, he will not be liable if he has not attained maturity. Insanity under Section 84, is an Act of a person of unsound mind. Nothing is an offence which is done by a person who at that time of performing it, by reason of unsoundness of mind, is incapable of knowing the nature of the act, or that he is doing what is either wrong or contrary to law.[Source: Extracted with edits and revisions from General Exceptions under the IPC, https://blog.ipleaders.in/general-exception-under-ipc/]Q. Which of the following statements regarding X is accurate with respect to his ability to claim a defense under section 84, considering his occasional unsound mind and the act of killing someone who had been annoying him:a)X is ineligible to claim the defense under section 84 because he was of sound mind at the time of the incident.b)X can potentially claim the defense under section 84 due to his condition of occasional unsound mind.c)X can potentially claim the defense under section 84 because he may have been incapable of understanding the nature of his act.d)X is ineligible to claim the defense under section 84 due to the nature of the offense, which is murder.Correct answer is option 'A'. Can you explain this answer? has been provided alongside types of Directions: Read the following passage and answer the question.General Exceptions: Under Section 76 of the IPC, an act done by a person bound or by mistake of fact believing, himself to be bound by law is included. Nothing is an offence which is done by a person who is or by reason of a mistake of fact, not by mistake of law in good faith believes himself, to be, bound by law to do such act. It is derived from the legal maxim ignorantia facti doth excusat, ignorantia juris non excusat.Under Section 79, act done by a person justified or by mistake of fact believing, himself justified, by law is included. Nothing is an offence which is done by any person who is justified by law, or who by reason of mistake of fact and not mistake of law in good faith, believes himself to be justified by law, in doing that particular act. Accident under Section 80, includes an accident committed while doing a lawful act. Nothing is an offence which is done by accident or misfortune, without any criminal intention or knowledge in the doing of a lawful act in a lawful manner by lawful means and with proper care and caution.Infancy - Sections 82 and 83Section 82 includes an act of a child below seven years of age. Nothing is an offence which is done by a child under seven years of age. Suppose a child below seven years of age, pressed the trigger of the gun and caused the death of his father then, the child will not be liable. Section 83 includes an act of a child above seven and below twelve of immature understanding. Nothing is an offence which is done by a child above seven years of age and under twelve, who has not yet attained sufficient maturity of understanding to judge the nature and repercussions of his conduct during that occasion. For example, suppose a child of 10 years killed his father with a gun in the shadow of immaturity, he will not be liable if he has not attained maturity. Insanity under Section 84, is an Act of a person of unsound mind. Nothing is an offence which is done by a person who at that time of performing it, by reason of unsoundness of mind, is incapable of knowing the nature of the act, or that he is doing what is either wrong or contrary to law.[Source: Extracted with edits and revisions from General Exceptions under the IPC, https://blog.ipleaders.in/general-exception-under-ipc/]Q. Which of the following statements regarding X is accurate with respect to his ability to claim a defense under section 84, considering his occasional unsound mind and the act of killing someone who had been annoying him:a)X is ineligible to claim the defense under section 84 because he was of sound mind at the time of the incident.b)X can potentially claim the defense under section 84 due to his condition of occasional unsound mind.c)X can potentially claim the defense under section 84 because he may have been incapable of understanding the nature of his act.d)X is ineligible to claim the defense under section 84 due to the nature of the offense, which is murder.Correct answer is option 'A'. Can you explain this answer? theory, EduRev gives you an ample number of questions to practice Directions: Read the following passage and answer the question.General Exceptions: Under Section 76 of the IPC, an act done by a person bound or by mistake of fact believing, himself to be bound by law is included. Nothing is an offence which is done by a person who is or by reason of a mistake of fact, not by mistake of law in good faith believes himself, to be, bound by law to do such act. It is derived from the legal maxim ignorantia facti doth excusat, ignorantia juris non excusat.Under Section 79, act done by a person justified or by mistake of fact believing, himself justified, by law is included. Nothing is an offence which is done by any person who is justified by law, or who by reason of mistake of fact and not mistake of law in good faith, believes himself to be justified by law, in doing that particular act. Accident under Section 80, includes an accident committed while doing a lawful act. Nothing is an offence which is done by accident or misfortune, without any criminal intention or knowledge in the doing of a lawful act in a lawful manner by lawful means and with proper care and caution.Infancy - Sections 82 and 83Section 82 includes an act of a child below seven years of age. Nothing is an offence which is done by a child under seven years of age. Suppose a child below seven years of age, pressed the trigger of the gun and caused the death of his father then, the child will not be liable. Section 83 includes an act of a child above seven and below twelve of immature understanding. Nothing is an offence which is done by a child above seven years of age and under twelve, who has not yet attained sufficient maturity of understanding to judge the nature and repercussions of his conduct during that occasion. For example, suppose a child of 10 years killed his father with a gun in the shadow of immaturity, he will not be liable if he has not attained maturity. Insanity under Section 84, is an Act of a person of unsound mind. Nothing is an offence which is done by a person who at that time of performing it, by reason of unsoundness of mind, is incapable of knowing the nature of the act, or that he is doing what is either wrong or contrary to law.[Source: Extracted with edits and revisions from General Exceptions under the IPC, https://blog.ipleaders.in/general-exception-under-ipc/]Q. Which of the following statements regarding X is accurate with respect to his ability to claim a defense under section 84, considering his occasional unsound mind and the act of killing someone who had been annoying him:a)X is ineligible to claim the defense under section 84 because he was of sound mind at the time of the incident.b)X can potentially claim the defense under section 84 due to his condition of occasional unsound mind.c)X can potentially claim the defense under section 84 because he may have been incapable of understanding the nature of his act.d)X is ineligible to claim the defense under section 84 due to the nature of the offense, which is murder.Correct answer is option 'A'. Can you explain this answer? tests, examples and also practice CLAT tests.