Directions (Q.111-145) Follow the instructions carefully and choose the most appropriate optionThis section consist of legal proposition(s) (hereinafter referrred to as principle) and facts. Such principles may or may not be true in the real and legal sense, yet you have to conclusively assume them to be true for the purpose of this section. In other words, in answering the following question. Further, you must not assume any facts other than those stated in the question. The objective of this section is to test your interest towards study of law, research aptitude and problem solving ability, even if the most reasonable conclusion arrived at may be absurd or unacceptable for any other reason. To answer a question, the given principle is to be applied to the given facts so as to arrive at most reasonable conclusion.Principle :Intentional application of force to another person is action able in law.Facts :P and D are unknown to each other. When P is about to sit on a chair, D intentionally pulls it away as a result of which P falls on the floor and is injured. a)D is not liable as P is not seriously injured.b)D is liable as he intentinally caused injury to P.c)D is not liable as such jokes are common in the society.d)D is not liable as the injury is not directly caused.Correct answer is option 'B'. Can you explain this answer?

Explore Courses UPSC Exam UPSC Test Series Free Notes EduRev Infinity

Open App

CLAT Exam > CLAT Questions > Directions (Q.111-145) Follow the instruction...

Directions (Q.111-145) Follow the instructions carefully and choose the most appropriate option

This section consist of legal proposition(s) (hereinafter referrred to as 'principle') and facts. Such principles may or may not be true in the real and legal sense, yet you have to conclusively assume them to be true for the purpose of this section. In other words, in answering the following question. Further, you must not assume any facts other than those stated in the question. The objective of this section is to test your interest towards study of law, research aptitude and problem solving ability, even if the 'most reasonable conclusion' arrived at may be absurd or unacceptable for any other reason. To answer a question, the given principle is to be applied to the given facts so as to arrive at most reasonable conclusion.

Principle :

Intentional application of force to another person is action able in law.

Facts :

'P' and 'D' are unknown to each other. When 'P' is about to sit on a chair, 'D' intentionally pulls it away as a result of which 'P' falls on the floor and is injured.

a)
'D' is not liable as 'P' is not seriously injured.
b)
'D' is liable as he intentinally caused injury to P.
c)
'D' is not liable as such jokes are common in the society.
d)
'D' is not liable as the injury is not directly caused.

Correct answer is option 'B'. Can you explain this answer?

Join for Free

Join for Free

Most Upvoted Answer

Directions (Q.111-145) Follow the instructions carefully and choose th...

Answered by Glance Learning Institute · View profile

View all answers Start learning for free

Explore Courses for CLAT exam

Similar CLAT Doubts

The question is based on the reasoning and arguments, or facts and principles set out in the passage. Some of these principles may not be true in the real or legal sense, yet you must conclusively assume that they are true for the purpose. Please answer the question on the basis of what is stated or implied in the passage. Do not rely on any principle of law other than the ones supplied to you, and do not assume any facts other than those supplied to you when answering the question. Please choose the option that most accurately and comprehensively answers the question.The definition of abetment under Section 107 of the IPC requires a person to abet the commission of an offence. This abetment may occur in any of the three methods that the provision prescribes.The Section says that abetment basically takes place when a person abets the doing of a thing by instigating a person to do that thing engaging with another person (or persons) in a conspiracy to do that thing intentionally aiding a person to do that thingWhen any of these requirements exists, the offence of abetment is complete. Sometimes a person may commit more than one of these three circumstances in a single offence.Abetment by Conspiracy:Conspiracy basically means an agreement between two or more persons to commit an unlawful act. Merely intending to commit an offence is not sufficient for this purpose. Thus, the conspirators must actively agree and prepare themselves to commit that offence. It becomes a conspiracy. Instigation basically means suggesting, encouraging or inciting a person to do or abstain from doing something. Instigation may take place either directly or indirectly, by written or oral words, or even by gestures and hints. The instigation must be sufficient to actively encourage a person to commit an offence. It should not be mere advice or a simple suggestion. The instigator need not even possess mens rea (a guilty intention to commit the crim e). Furthermore, the act which the conspirators conspire to commit itself must be illegal or punishable. For example, in dowry death cases, the in-laws of the victim are often guilty of abetment by conspiracy. They may do so by constantly taunting, torturing or instigating the victim. Even suicides may take place in this manner through abetment by conspiracy.Abetment by Aiding:The third manner in which abetment may take place is by intentionally aiding the offender in committing that offence. This generally happens when the abettor facilitates the crime or helps in committing it. The intention to aid the offender is very important. Explanation of this Section throws some lights on what instigation may mean in this context. It says that instigation may generally happen even by wilful misrepresentation; or by willful concealment of a material fact which a person is bound to disclose. The concept of abetment widens the horizons of criminal law to incorporate these criminal intentions and penalise them even when the person who bought the knife did not actually kill anyone but handed it over to someone else to do it. To explain the concept of abetment, the word abet should be given a deep scrutiny. In general use, it means to aid, advance, assist, help and promote.Q.Mr X had committed a murder and was on a run. He went to his friends house to seek shelter. His friend did not know that he had committed a murder and gave him shelter. But after two days, Mr Xs friend was watching TV, from which he got to know that Mr X had committed a murder, but he did not do anything.After a week of knowledge, X ran away. When the police arrived, they charged Mr X for murder and his friend for abetmentas they saw X running out of the house where he had hid himself. Decide.

View answer

Directions:The question is based on the reasoning and arguments, or facts and principles set out in the passage. Some of these principles may not be true in the real or legal sense, yet you must conclusively assume that they are true for the purpose. Please answer the question on the basis of what is stated or implied in the passage. Do not rely on any principle of law other than the ones supplied to you, and do not assume any facts other than those supplied to you when answering the question. Please choose the option that most accurately and comprehensively answers the question.As per Section 107 IPC, a person is said to abet the doing of a thing, who instigates any person to do that thing or engages with one or more other persons in any conspiracy for the doing of that thing, if an act or illegal omission takes place in pursuance of that conspiracy, and in order to the doing of that thing or intentionally aids, by an act or illegal omission, the doing of that thing.Explanations to this section state that a person who, by willful misrepresentation, or by willful concealment of a material fact which he is bound to disclose, voluntarily causes or procures, or attempts to cause or procure, a thing to be done, is said to instigate the doing of that thing. To constitute the offence of abetment, it is not necessary that the act abetted should be committed, or that the effect requisite to constitute the offence should be caused.Whoever, either prior to or at the time of the commission of an act, does anything in order to facilitate the commission of that act, and thereby facilitates the commission thereof, is said to aid the doing of that act.Abetment is completely a separate and distinct offence from conspiracy. Most of the time, abetment is confused with conspiracy. However, abetment involves a mental process of instigating a person or the act of intentionally aiding that person in doing of a thing. Whereas, in the cases of conspiracy, it would also involve the mental process entering into the doing of an act. The act of abetment could take place by instigation, conspiracy or intentional aid. The offence for the abetment of which a person is charged with can only be linked with the proven offence.The term instigate here denotes incitement or urging to do some drastic or inadvisable action. In committing abetment, mens rea is a necessary ingredient. When a person provokes another to do an act prohibited by law, he is said to commit the offence of abetment by instigation.A person is said to abet the commission of an offence by conspiracy if he enters into an agreement with one or more persons to do an illegal act.A person is said to abet the commission of an offence if he intentionally provides assistance or gives aid by doing or omitting an act. Mere intention to provide assistance is not sufficient in these cases. To hold a person guilty and liable for abetment, there must be some active conduct on the part of the abettor and the act must be accomplished in furtherance of that.It is not necessary that the person abetted should be capable by law of committing an offence, or that he should have the same guilty intention or knowledge as that of the abettor, or any guilty intention or knowledge. A person abets an offence within the meaning of this Code who, in India, abets the commission of any act without and beyond India which would constitute an offence if committed in India.Q. Shikha instigates Madan to murder Shubh. Madan in pursuance of the instigation stabs Shubh. Shubh recovers from the wound. Decide the liability and answer accordingly.

View answer

Directions:The question is based on the reasoning and arguments, or facts and principles set out in the passage. Some of these principles may not be true in the real or legal sense, yet you must conclusively assume that they are true for the purpose. Please answer the question on the basis of what is stated or implied in the passage. Do not rely on any principle of law other than the ones supplied to you, and do not assume any facts other than those supplied to you when answering the question. Please choose the option that most accurately and comprehensively answers the question.As per Section 107 IPC, a person is said to abet the doing of a thing, who instigates any person to do that thing or engages with one or more other persons in any conspiracy for the doing of that thing, if an act or illegal omission takes place in pursuance of that conspiracy, and in order to the doing of that thing or intentionally aids, by an act or illegal omission, the doing of that thing.Explanations to this section state that a person who, by willful misrepresentation, or by willful concealment of a material fact which he is bound to disclose, voluntarily causes or procures, or attempts to cause or procure, a thing to be done, is said to instigate the doing of that thing. To constitute the offence of abetment, it is not necessary that the act abetted should be committed, or that the effect requisite to constitute the offence should be caused.Whoever, either prior to or at the time of the commission of an act, does anything in order to facilitate the commission of that act, and thereby facilitates the commission thereof, is said to aid the doing of that act.Abetment is completely a separate and distinct offence from conspiracy. Most of the time, abetment is confused with conspiracy. However, abetment involves a mental process of instigating a person or the act of intentionally aiding that person in doing of a thing. Whereas, in the cases of conspiracy, it would also involve the mental process entering into the doing of an act. The act of abetment could take place by instigation, conspiracy or intentional aid. The offence for the abetment of which a person is charged with can only be linked with the proven offence.The term instigate here denotes incitement or urging to do some drastic or inadvisable action. In committing abetment, mens rea is a necessary ingredient. When a person provokes another to do an act prohibited by law, he is said to commit the offence of abetment by instigation.A person is said to abet the commission of an offence by conspiracy if he enters into an agreement with one or more persons to do an illegal act.A person is said to abet the commission of an offence if he intentionally provides assistance or gives aid by doing or omitting an act. Mere intention to provide assistance is not sufficient in these cases. To hold a person guilty and liable for abetment, there must be some active conduct on the part of the abettor and the act must be accomplished in furtherance of that.It is not necessary that the person abetted should be capable by law of committing an offence, or that he should have the same guilty intention or knowledge as that of the abettor, or any guilty intention or knowledge. A person abets an offence within the meaning of this Code who, in India, abets the commission of any act without and beyond India which would constitute an offence if committed in India.Q. Nishas house was robbed by a group of robbers. The group of robbers included Prakash. The next day, Ramu, servant of Nisha, gave food and clothes to Prakash, an alleged offender, thinking him to be a beggar. Will Ramu be convicted for abetment for providing food and clothes to Prakash, an accused?

View answer

Directions:The question is based on the reasoning and arguments, or facts and principles set out in the passage. Some of these principles may not be true in the real or legal sense, yet you must conclusively assume that they are true for the purpose. Please answer the question on the basis of what is stated or implied in the passage. Do not rely on any principle of law other than the ones supplied to you, and do not assume any facts other than those supplied to you when answering the question. Please choose the option that most accurately and comprehensively answers the question.As per Section 107 IPC, a person is said to abet the doing of a thing, who instigates any person to do that thing or engages with one or more other persons in any conspiracy for the doing of that thing, if an act or illegal omission takes place in pursuance of that conspiracy, and in order to the doing of that thing or intentionally aids, by an act or illegal omission, the doing of that thing.Explanations to this section state that a person who, by willful misrepresentation, or by willful concealment of a material fact which he is bound to disclose, voluntarily causes or procures, or attempts to cause or procure, a thing to be done, is said to instigate the doing of that thing. To constitute the offence of abetment, it is not necessary that the act abetted should be committed, or that the effect requisite to constitute the offence should be caused.Whoever, either prior to or at the time of the commission of an act, does anything in order to facilitate the commission of that act, and thereby facilitates the commission thereof, is said to aid the doing of that act.Abetment is completely a separate and distinct offence from conspiracy. Most of the time, abetment is confused with conspiracy. However, abetment involves a mental process of instigating a person or the act of intentionally aiding that person in doing of a thing. Whereas, in the cases of conspiracy, it would also involve the mental process entering into the doing of an act. The act of abetment could take place by instigation, conspiracy or intentional aid. The offence for the abetment of which a person is charged with can only be linked with the proven offence.The term instigate here denotes incitement or urging to do some drastic or inadvisable action. In committing abetment, mens rea is a necessary ingredient. When a person provokes another to do an act prohibited by law, he is said to commit the offence of abetment by instigation.A person is said to abet the commission of an offence by conspiracy if he enters into an agreement with one or more persons to do an illegal act.A person is said to abet the commission of an offence if he intentionally provides assistance or gives aid by doing or omitting an act. Mere intention to provide assistance is not sufficient in these cases. To hold a person guilty and liable for abetment, there must be some active conduct on the part of the abettor and the act must be accomplished in furtherance of that.It is not necessary that the person abetted should be capable by law of committing an offence, or that he should have the same guilty intention or knowledge as that of the abettor, or any guilty intention or knowledge. A person abets an offence within the meaning of this Code who, in India, abets the commission of any act without and beyond India which would constitute an offence if committed in India.Q. Siya, in India, instigates North, a foreigner in Pondicherry, to commit a murder in Pondicherry. Who would be held guilty?

View answer

Directions:The question is based on the reasoning and arguments, or facts and principles set out in the passage. Some of these principles may not be true in the real or legal sense, yet you must conclusively assume that they are true for the purpose. Please answer the question on the basis of what is stated or implied in the passage. Do not rely on any principle of law other than the ones supplied to you, and do not assume any facts other than those supplied to you when answering the question. Please choose the option that most accurately and comprehensively answers the question.As per Section 107 IPC, a person is said to abet the doing of a thing, who instigates any person to do that thing or engages with one or more other persons in any conspiracy for the doing of that thing, if an act or illegal omission takes place in pursuance of that conspiracy, and in order to the doing of that thing or intentionally aids, by an act or illegal omission, the doing of that thing.Explanations to this section state that a person who, by willful misrepresentation, or by willful concealment of a material fact which he is bound to disclose, voluntarily causes or procures, or attempts to cause or procure, a thing to be done, is said to instigate the doing of that thing. To constitute the offence of abetment, it is not necessary that the act abetted should be committed, or that the effect requisite to constitute the offence should be caused.Whoever, either prior to or at the time of the commission of an act, does anything in order to facilitate the commission of that act, and thereby facilitates the commission thereof, is said to aid the doing of that act.Abetment is completely a separate and distinct offence from conspiracy. Most of the time, abetment is confused with conspiracy. However, abetment involves a mental process of instigating a person or the act of intentionally aiding that person in doing of a thing. Whereas, in the cases of conspiracy, it would also involve the mental process entering into the doing of an act. The act of abetment could take place by instigation, conspiracy or intentional aid. The offence for the abetment of which a person is charged with can only be linked with the proven offence.The term instigate here denotes incitement or urging to do some drastic or inadvisable action. In committing abetment, mens rea is a necessary ingredient. When a person provokes another to do an act prohibited by law, he is said to commit the offence of abetment by instigation.A person is said to abet the commission of an offence by conspiracy if he enters into an agreement with one or more persons to do an illegal act.A person is said to abet the commission of an offence if he intentionally provides assistance or gives aid by doing or omitting an act. Mere intention to provide assistance is not sufficient in these cases. To hold a person guilty and liable for abetment, there must be some active conduct on the part of the abettor and the act must be accomplished in furtherance of that.It is not necessary that the person abetted should be capable by law of committing an offence, or that he should have the same guilty intention or knowledge as that of the abettor, or any guilty intention or knowledge. A person abets an offence within the meaning of this Code who, in India, abets the commission of any act without and beyond India which would constitute an offence if committed in India.Q. Sabya instigates Lovish to set fire to a dwelling house. Lovish, in consequence of the unsoundness of his mind, being incapable of knowing the nature of the act or that he is doing what is wrong or contrary to law, sets fire to the house in consequence of Sabyas instigation. Sabya takes the defence of Lovishs unsoundness. Decide.

View answer

Top Courses for CLATView all

Current Affairs: Daily, Weekly & Monthly

Legal Reasoning for CLAT

Lucent for GK

Crash Course for CLAT

CLAT Mock Test Series 2026

Top Courses for CLAT

View all

Directions (Q.111-145) Follow the instructions carefully and choose the most appropriate optionThis section consist of legal proposition(s) (hereinafter referrred to as 'principle') and facts. Such principles may or may not be true in the real and legal sense, yet you have to conclusively assume them to be true for the purpose of this section. In other words, in answering the following question. Further, you must not assume any facts other than those stated in the question. The objective of this section is to test your interest towards study of law, research aptitude and problem solving ability, even if the 'most reasonable conclusion' arrived at may be absurd or unacceptable for any other reason. To answer a question, the given principle is to be applied to the given facts so as to arrive at most reasonable conclusion.Principle :Intentional application of force to another person is action able in law.Facts :'P' and 'D' are unknown to each other. When 'P' is about to sit on a chair, 'D' intentionally pulls it away as a result of which 'P' falls on the floor and is injured. a)'D' is not liable as 'P' is not seriously injured.b)'D' is liable as he intentinally caused injury to P.c)'D' is not liable as such jokes are common in the society.d)'D' is not liable as the injury is not directly caused.Correct answer is option 'B'. Can you explain this answer?

Share with a Friend

Answer this doubt

Question Description
Directions (Q.111-145) Follow the instructions carefully and choose the most appropriate optionThis section consist of legal proposition(s) (hereinafter referrred to as 'principle') and facts. Such principles may or may not be true in the real and legal sense, yet you have to conclusively assume them to be true for the purpose of this section. In other words, in answering the following question. Further, you must not assume any facts other than those stated in the question. The objective of this section is to test your interest towards study of law, research aptitude and problem solving ability, even if the 'most reasonable conclusion' arrived at may be absurd or unacceptable for any other reason. To answer a question, the given principle is to be applied to the given facts so as to arrive at most reasonable conclusion.Principle :Intentional application of force to another person is action able in law.Facts :'P' and 'D' are unknown to each other. When 'P' is about to sit on a chair, 'D' intentionally pulls it away as a result of which 'P' falls on the floor and is injured. a)'D' is not liable as 'P' is not seriously injured.b)'D' is liable as he intentinally caused injury to P.c)'D' is not liable as such jokes are common in the society.d)'D' is not liable as the injury is not directly caused.Correct answer is option 'B'. 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 (Q.111-145) Follow the instructions carefully and choose the most appropriate optionThis section consist of legal proposition(s) (hereinafter referrred to as 'principle') and facts. Such principles may or may not be true in the real and legal sense, yet you have to conclusively assume them to be true for the purpose of this section. In other words, in answering the following question. Further, you must not assume any facts other than those stated in the question. The objective of this section is to test your interest towards study of law, research aptitude and problem solving ability, even if the 'most reasonable conclusion' arrived at may be absurd or unacceptable for any other reason. To answer a question, the given principle is to be applied to the given facts so as to arrive at most reasonable conclusion.Principle :Intentional application of force to another person is action able in law.Facts :'P' and 'D' are unknown to each other. When 'P' is about to sit on a chair, 'D' intentionally pulls it away as a result of which 'P' falls on the floor and is injured. a)'D' is not liable as 'P' is not seriously injured.b)'D' is liable as he intentinally caused injury to P.c)'D' is not liable as such jokes are common in the society.d)'D' is not liable as the injury is not directly caused.Correct answer is option 'B'. 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 (Q.111-145) Follow the instructions carefully and choose the most appropriate optionThis section consist of legal proposition(s) (hereinafter referrred to as 'principle') and facts. Such principles may or may not be true in the real and legal sense, yet you have to conclusively assume them to be true for the purpose of this section. In other words, in answering the following question. Further, you must not assume any facts other than those stated in the question. The objective of this section is to test your interest towards study of law, research aptitude and problem solving ability, even if the 'most reasonable conclusion' arrived at may be absurd or unacceptable for any other reason. To answer a question, the given principle is to be applied to the given facts so as to arrive at most reasonable conclusion.Principle :Intentional application of force to another person is action able in law.Facts :'P' and 'D' are unknown to each other. When 'P' is about to sit on a chair, 'D' intentionally pulls it away as a result of which 'P' falls on the floor and is injured. a)'D' is not liable as 'P' is not seriously injured.b)'D' is liable as he intentinally caused injury to P.c)'D' is not liable as such jokes are common in the society.d)'D' is not liable as the injury is not directly caused.Correct answer is option 'B'. Can you explain this answer?.

Solutions for Directions (Q.111-145) Follow the instructions carefully and choose the most appropriate optionThis section consist of legal proposition(s) (hereinafter referrred to as 'principle') and facts. Such principles may or may not be true in the real and legal sense, yet you have to conclusively assume them to be true for the purpose of this section. In other words, in answering the following question. Further, you must not assume any facts other than those stated in the question. The objective of this section is to test your interest towards study of law, research aptitude and problem solving ability, even if the 'most reasonable conclusion' arrived at may be absurd or unacceptable for any other reason. To answer a question, the given principle is to be applied to the given facts so as to arrive at most reasonable conclusion.Principle :Intentional application of force to another person is action able in law.Facts :'P' and 'D' are unknown to each other. When 'P' is about to sit on a chair, 'D' intentionally pulls it away as a result of which 'P' falls on the floor and is injured. a)'D' is not liable as 'P' is not seriously injured.b)'D' is liable as he intentinally caused injury to P.c)'D' is not liable as such jokes are common in the society.d)'D' is not liable as the injury is not directly caused.Correct answer is option 'B'. 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 (Q.111-145) Follow the instructions carefully and choose the most appropriate optionThis section consist of legal proposition(s) (hereinafter referrred to as 'principle') and facts. Such principles may or may not be true in the real and legal sense, yet you have to conclusively assume them to be true for the purpose of this section. In other words, in answering the following question. Further, you must not assume any facts other than those stated in the question. The objective of this section is to test your interest towards study of law, research aptitude and problem solving ability, even if the 'most reasonable conclusion' arrived at may be absurd or unacceptable for any other reason. To answer a question, the given principle is to be applied to the given facts so as to arrive at most reasonable conclusion.Principle :Intentional application of force to another person is action able in law.Facts :'P' and 'D' are unknown to each other. When 'P' is about to sit on a chair, 'D' intentionally pulls it away as a result of which 'P' falls on the floor and is injured. a)'D' is not liable as 'P' is not seriously injured.b)'D' is liable as he intentinally caused injury to P.c)'D' is not liable as such jokes are common in the society.d)'D' is not liable as the injury is not directly caused.Correct answer is option 'B'. Can you explain this answer? defined & explained in the simplest way possible. Besides giving the explanation of Directions (Q.111-145) Follow the instructions carefully and choose the most appropriate optionThis section consist of legal proposition(s) (hereinafter referrred to as 'principle') and facts. Such principles may or may not be true in the real and legal sense, yet you have to conclusively assume them to be true for the purpose of this section. In other words, in answering the following question. Further, you must not assume any facts other than those stated in the question. The objective of this section is to test your interest towards study of law, research aptitude and problem solving ability, even if the 'most reasonable conclusion' arrived at may be absurd or unacceptable for any other reason. To answer a question, the given principle is to be applied to the given facts so as to arrive at most reasonable conclusion.Principle :Intentional application of force to another person is action able in law.Facts :'P' and 'D' are unknown to each other. When 'P' is about to sit on a chair, 'D' intentionally pulls it away as a result of which 'P' falls on the floor and is injured. a)'D' is not liable as 'P' is not seriously injured.b)'D' is liable as he intentinally caused injury to P.c)'D' is not liable as such jokes are common in the society.d)'D' is not liable as the injury is not directly caused.Correct answer is option 'B'. Can you explain this answer?, a detailed solution for Directions (Q.111-145) Follow the instructions carefully and choose the most appropriate optionThis section consist of legal proposition(s) (hereinafter referrred to as 'principle') and facts. Such principles may or may not be true in the real and legal sense, yet you have to conclusively assume them to be true for the purpose of this section. In other words, in answering the following question. Further, you must not assume any facts other than those stated in the question. The objective of this section is to test your interest towards study of law, research aptitude and problem solving ability, even if the 'most reasonable conclusion' arrived at may be absurd or unacceptable for any other reason. To answer a question, the given principle is to be applied to the given facts so as to arrive at most reasonable conclusion.Principle :Intentional application of force to another person is action able in law.Facts :'P' and 'D' are unknown to each other. When 'P' is about to sit on a chair, 'D' intentionally pulls it away as a result of which 'P' falls on the floor and is injured. a)'D' is not liable as 'P' is not seriously injured.b)'D' is liable as he intentinally caused injury to P.c)'D' is not liable as such jokes are common in the society.d)'D' is not liable as the injury is not directly caused.Correct answer is option 'B'. Can you explain this answer? has been provided alongside types of Directions (Q.111-145) Follow the instructions carefully and choose the most appropriate optionThis section consist of legal proposition(s) (hereinafter referrred to as 'principle') and facts. Such principles may or may not be true in the real and legal sense, yet you have to conclusively assume them to be true for the purpose of this section. In other words, in answering the following question. Further, you must not assume any facts other than those stated in the question. The objective of this section is to test your interest towards study of law, research aptitude and problem solving ability, even if the 'most reasonable conclusion' arrived at may be absurd or unacceptable for any other reason. To answer a question, the given principle is to be applied to the given facts so as to arrive at most reasonable conclusion.Principle :Intentional application of force to another person is action able in law.Facts :'P' and 'D' are unknown to each other. When 'P' is about to sit on a chair, 'D' intentionally pulls it away as a result of which 'P' falls on the floor and is injured. a)'D' is not liable as 'P' is not seriously injured.b)'D' is liable as he intentinally caused injury to P.c)'D' is not liable as such jokes are common in the society.d)'D' is not liable as the injury is not directly caused.Correct answer is option 'B'. Can you explain this answer? theory, EduRev gives you an ample number of questions to practice Directions (Q.111-145) Follow the instructions carefully and choose the most appropriate optionThis section consist of legal proposition(s) (hereinafter referrred to as 'principle') and facts. Such principles may or may not be true in the real and legal sense, yet you have to conclusively assume them to be true for the purpose of this section. In other words, in answering the following question. Further, you must not assume any facts other than those stated in the question. The objective of this section is to test your interest towards study of law, research aptitude and problem solving ability, even if the 'most reasonable conclusion' arrived at may be absurd or unacceptable for any other reason. To answer a question, the given principle is to be applied to the given facts so as to arrive at most reasonable conclusion.Principle :Intentional application of force to another person is action able in law.Facts :'P' and 'D' are unknown to each other. When 'P' is about to sit on a chair, 'D' intentionally pulls it away as a result of which 'P' falls on the floor and is injured. a)'D' is not liable as 'P' is not seriously injured.b)'D' is liable as he intentinally caused injury to P.c)'D' is not liable as such jokes are common in the society.d)'D' is not liable as the injury is not directly caused.Correct answer is option 'B'. Can you explain this answer? tests, examples and also practice CLAT tests.

Explore Courses for CLAT exam