Understanding Our Criminal Justice System, Civics, Class 8 -Test - Class 8 MCQ

Who cannot be called to the police station only for questioning?

To determine who cannot be called to the police station only for questioning, we need to examine the options provided.
A: A boy under 15 years
- Children under the age of 15 are generally not called to the police station for questioning without the presence of a guardian or legal representative. Therefore, they can be excluded as an answer to the question.
B: Women
- Women can be called to the police station for questioning if they are involved in a criminal case or if they possess relevant information that can assist in an investigation. Therefore, they cannot be excluded as an answer to the question.
C: Government employees
- Government employees can be called to the police station for questioning if they are suspected of committing a crime or if they have information related to a criminal case. Therefore, they cannot be excluded as an answer to the question.
D: Both (a) and (b)
- Based on the analysis of the options, the correct answer is D. Both a boy under 15 years and women can be called to the police station for questioning depending on the circumstances.
In conclusion, only a boy under 15 years cannot be called to the police station only for questioning.

The Public Prosecutor represents the interests of the State in court.

The Public Prosecutor is an important legal official who represents the interests of the State in court. Their role is to ensure that justice is served and that the laws of the State are upheld. Here are some key points to understand:

• The State: The Public Prosecutor represents the government or the State in court. They act on behalf of the State to maintain law and order and to protect the interests of the general public.


• Prosecution: The Public Prosecutor is responsible for presenting the case against the accused in criminal proceedings. They gather evidence, interview witnesses, and present their arguments to prove the guilt of the accused.


• Legal Proceedings: The Public Prosecutor represents the State in various legal proceedings, such as trials, hearings, and appeals. They play a crucial role in ensuring that the legal process is fair and that justice is served.


• Protection of Society: The Public Prosecutor's primary duty is to protect the interests of society. They work towards maintaining law and order, punishing offenders, and deterring others from committing crimes.

Overall, the Public Prosecutor acts as a representative of the State in court and plays a vital role in the criminal justice system.

Who among the following does not play a role in the criminal justice system?
The correct answer is B: The public.
Explanation:
The criminal justice system involves various individuals and entities who play different roles in the administration of justice. Here is a breakdown of the roles played by each of the options listed:
A: The police
- The police are responsible for maintaining law and order, preventing crime, and investigating criminal activities. They play a crucial role in apprehending suspects and gathering evidence.
B: The public
- While the public has an important role to play in reporting crimes and acting as witnesses, they do not have an official role within the criminal justice system.
C: The defence lawyer
- The defence lawyer represents the accused and ensures their rights are protected throughout the legal process. They advocate for their clients' interests and present a defense against the charges.
D: The judge
- The judge is responsible for overseeing legal proceedings, ensuring fairness, and making decisions based on the law and evidence presented. They determine guilt or innocence, impose sentences, and ensure due process is followed.
In summary, all options except B (The public) play a role in the criminal justice system. The public's role is mainly to report crimes, act as witnesses, and participate in jury duty if called upon.

Explanation:
Mr. Shinde went to the police station for a specific reason. Let's examine the options one by one to determine the correct answer:
A: To meet a police officer who was his friend:
- There is no information provided that Mr. Shinde went to the police station to meet a friend who is a police officer.
B: To search his wife's gold chain:
- Again, there is no mention of Mr. Shinde going to the police station to search for his wife's gold chain.
C: To file an FIR:
- This option seems plausible as filing an FIR (First Information Report) is a common reason for visiting a police station. It is a legal document that is filed to report a crime or an incident.
D: To launch a campaign:
- There is no indication that Mr. Shinde went to the police station to launch a campaign. This option seems unrelated to the given scenario.
Based on the information provided, the most reasonable answer is C: To file an FIR. Mr. Shinde likely went to the police station to report a crime or an incident by filing an FIR.

The answer to the given question is option A: The innocent is acquitted. Here is a detailed explanation:

1. Definition of a fair trial: A fair trial is a legal proceeding in which both the prosecution and defense have an equal opportunity to present their case, and the judge or jury impartially evaluates the evidence and arguments to determine the guilt or innocence of the accused.


2. Presumption of innocence: In a fair trial, the accused is presumed innocent until proven guilty. This means that the burden of proof lies with the prosecution to establish the guilt of the accused beyond a reasonable doubt.


3. Acquittal of the innocent: If the prosecution fails to meet the burden of proof and cannot provide sufficient evidence to prove the guilt of the accused, then the innocent person should be acquitted. Acquittal means that the person is found not guilty and is cleared of all charges.


4. Importance of acquitting the innocent: Acquitting the innocent is crucial to uphold the principles of justice and protect the rights of individuals. It ensures that innocent people are not wrongfully convicted and punished for crimes they did not commit.


5. Punishment for the guilty: In a fair trial, if the prosecution successfully proves the guilt of the accused, then the guilty person should receive appropriate punishment according to the laws and regulations of the jurisdiction. Punishment serves as a deterrent and reinforces the concept of accountability and responsibility for one's actions.


6. Summary: In a fair trial, the primary objective is to determine the guilt or innocence of the accused. If the prosecution fails to prove the guilt beyond a reasonable doubt, then the innocent person should be acquitted. However, if the guilt is established, then the guilty person should face appropriate punishment.

In conclusion, a fair trial ensures that the innocent are acquitted and the guilty are held accountable for their actions. This principle is fundamental to the justice system and ensures the protection of individual rights and the integrity of the legal process.

Explanation:
The given statement states that Shanti had stolen the gold chain of Mrs Shinde. We are asked to determine whether this statement is true or false. In order to come to a conclusion, we need more information or evidence to support or refute the claim. Without any further details or evidence, it is not possible to determine the truthfulness of the statement.
Reasoning:
- Lack of evidence: The statement does not provide any evidence or supporting information to prove or disprove the claim.
- Insufficient context: We do not have any information about the circumstances, time, or location of the alleged theft.
- No witness or confession: There is no mention of any witness or confession that could provide additional information.
- Presumption of innocence: In legal terms, a person is presumed innocent until proven guilty. Without any evidence or proof, it is unfair to assume that Shanti is guilty of stealing the gold chain.
Conclusion:
Based on the given information, we cannot definitively say whether Shanti stole the gold chain of Mrs Shinde. The statement is inconclusive and further investigation or evidence is required to determine the truthfulness of the claim.

Answer:
The duty of the police:
- The primary duty of the police is to enforce the law, maintain order, and protect the public.
- They are responsible for investigating crimes, apprehending suspects, and gathering evidence.
- The police play a crucial role in the criminal justice system by bringing cases to court and presenting evidence against the accused.
Deciding guilt or innocence:
- It is not the duty of the police to decide whether a person is guilty or innocent.
- The responsibility for determining guilt or innocence lies with the judicial system, specifically the courts and the jury.
- The police gather evidence and present it to the courts, but it is the role of the judge and/or jury to evaluate the evidence and make a determination of guilt or innocence based on the legal standards and the principles of due process.
Presumption of innocence:
- In most legal systems, individuals are presumed innocent until proven guilty.
- This means that the burden of proof lies with the prosecution to establish the guilt of the accused beyond a reasonable doubt.
- The police are responsible for conducting a fair and thorough investigation, but they must not assume guilt or act as judges.
Role of the police:
- The police are essential for maintaining law and order, protecting the public, and apprehending suspects.
- They are trained to collect evidence, conduct interviews, and ensure the safety of individuals involved in criminal cases.
- Their role is to present the evidence to the courts, allowing the judicial system to determine guilt or innocence.
Conclusion:
- The duty of the police is to enforce the law, maintain order, and protect the public.
- While they play a crucial role in the criminal justice system, it is not their responsibility to decide whether a person is guilty or innocent.
- That determination is made by the courts and the jury, based on the evidence presented during a fair and impartial trial.

Explanation:
The given statement is True. The FIR (First Information Report) is a legal document that is filed by the police when they receive information about the commission of a cognizable offense. It serves as the basis for initiating a criminal investigation. The FIR usually includes the following details:
1. Date, Time, and Place: The FIR mentions the specific date, time, and location where the offense took place. This helps in establishing the jurisdiction of the police station.
2. Basic Facts of the Offense: The FIR provides a brief description of the offense, outlining the nature and type of crime committed. This includes details about the victim, the accused, and any witnesses present.
3. Description of Events: The FIR includes a narrative of the events that occurred leading up to and during the offense. This may include the sequence of actions, the weapons used, or any other relevant details.
4. Complainant Details: The FIR also includes the name, address, and contact information of the complainant who reported the offense. This helps in identifying the person who initiated the legal proceedings.
Overall, the FIR is a crucial document that provides a summary of the offense and serves as a starting point for the investigation. It helps in recording the key details related to the incident and sets the foundation for further legal proceedings.

Statement:
The statement is that the Public Prosecutor has no role to play in the investigation.
Explanation:
The role of the Public Prosecutor varies from country to country, so it is important to consider the legal context in which this statement is being made. However, in many legal systems, the Public Prosecutor does have a role to play in the investigation. Here are some key points to consider:
1. Legal Systems:
- Common Law Systems: In common law systems, such as the United States and the United Kingdom, the Public Prosecutor (usually called the District Attorney or Crown Prosecutor) is responsible for initiating and conducting criminal prosecutions. This includes investigating the alleged crimes and gathering evidence.
- Civil Law Systems: In civil law systems, such as France and Germany, the Public Prosecutor (usually called the Public Prosecutor's Office or Prosecutor General) is responsible for supervising and coordinating investigations conducted by the police or other law enforcement agencies. They play a crucial role in ensuring that the investigation is conducted properly and in accordance with the law.

2. Investigative Powers:
- In many legal systems, the Public Prosecutor has investigative powers, which allow them to gather evidence, interview witnesses, and issue subpoenas.
- These investigative powers are often necessary for the Public Prosecutor to determine whether or not there is enough evidence to proceed with a criminal prosecution.

3. Decision to Prosecute:
- The Public Prosecutor is typically the one who decides whether or not to proceed with a criminal prosecution based on the evidence gathered during the investigation.
- They are responsible for evaluating the strength of the evidence, the public interest in prosecuting the case, and the likelihood of obtaining a conviction.

4. Role in Court Proceedings:
- The Public Prosecutor also plays a key role in court proceedings. They present the case against the accused, examine witnesses, and make legal arguments.
- They are responsible for representing the state or the public interest in criminal cases.

5. Independence:
- It is important to note that the Public Prosecutor is expected to act independently and impartially in the pursuit of justice.
- They are not supposed to be influenced by political or other external pressures.

Based on these points, it can be concluded that the statement "The Public Prosecutor has no role to play in the investigation" is False in many legal systems. The Public Prosecutor often has a significant role in the investigation process, including gathering evidence, supervising investigations, and making the decision to prosecute.

Explanation:

In Shanti's case, it is stated that justice was finally done to her because she was given a fair trial. To determine whether this statement is true or false, we need to consider the following points:

Key Points:
- Shanti was given a trial: It is mentioned that Shanti was given a trial, which implies that she was given the opportunity to present her case and defend herself in a court of law.
- The trial was fair: The statement suggests that the trial conducted for Shanti was fair, indicating that she was treated impartially and given a fair chance to present her evidence and arguments.
- Justice was done: The statement concludes that justice was done to Shanti, implying that the outcome of the trial was just and in accordance with the law.
Conclusion:
Based on the given information, we can conclude that the statement is true. Shanti was given a fair trial, and justice was done to her.