Deck 5: Legal Defenses and Principles in Criminal Law

Question 1

Point out incorrect response. The following are ingredients of the defence of necessity under section 81 of the Penal Code :

A)The act constituting the offence is known by the wrongdoer to be 29 likely to cause harm, but it is done without any criminal intention to cause harm.
B)The act must have been done in good faith.
C)The act must have been done for the purpose of preventing or avoiding other harm to person or property.
D)The act must be one done neither with the intention to cause harm nor with the knowledge to cause harm.

Answer 1

The act must be one done neither with the intention to cause harm nor with the knowledge to cause harm.

Question 2

Give incorrect response. The defence of necessity will be available in the following cases :

A)Browning was charged with reckless driving. He pleaded that he was trying to escape serious injury and illegal arrest by police officers who wished to ambush him.
B)A placed poison in his toddy pots knowing that if taken by a human being it would cause injury, but with the intention of thereby detecting an unknown thief who was in the habit of stealing the toddy from his pots. The toddy was drunk by soldier who purchased it from an unknown vendor.
C)A, a bargeman threw the goods of the plaintiff out of a barge in order to lighten it in a storm and for the safety of the passengers. It was found that the bargeman had overloaded the barge.
D)A sees a tiger attacking B and he feels sure that the tiger will be on him within a minute. A shoots the tiger fully knowing that B and the tiger are so close that he might kill B and not the tiger. A thus kills B.

Answer 2

A placed poison in his toddy pots knowing that if taken by a human being it would cause injury, but with the intention of thereby detecting an unknown thief who was in the habit of stealing the toddy from his pots. The toddy was drunk by soldier who purchased it from an unknown vendor.

Question 3

Give best response. A voted before he has attained the age of majority prescribed for exercising the right of franchise, believing that he was of age. Here:

A)A has violated the election law and cannot plead mistake in his defence.
B)A has committed no offence, he can plead mistake of fact in his defence as he believed in good faith to be of age.
C)Ignorance of law is no excuse; ignorance of fact only is an excuse. A is liable because he has committed mistake of law.
D)Since A was a minor not having attained the age of majority he can plead the defence under section 83 of the Penal Code.

Answer 3

A has committed no offence, he can plead mistake of fact in his defence as he believed in good faith to be of age.

Question 4

Give correct response. A, the accused was beating B with his fists, when the latter's wife with a baby on her shoulder interfered. A hit the woman but the blow struck the child on his head resulting in death. Held :

A)A was not liable for causing death of the child because he intended to hit the woman, and the blow unfortunately fell upon the child.
B)A was not liable for child's death because he never intended to kill the child who was hit only by accident.
C)A was liable for causing death of the child because he intended to hit the woman and did not act in good faith knowing it fully well that she was having her baby on her shoulder.
D)No doubt the child was hit by accident but the act of A was not a lawful act being done in lawful manner by lawful means, therefore, he would be liable.

Question 5

Give correct response. A, in a great fire, pulls down B's house in order to prevent the conflagration from spreading. He does this without the intention, in good faith, to saving human life or property. In this case :

A)A would be liable because no amount of necessity can justify causing of harm to innocent parties.
B)A would be liable for causing harm day doing mischief to B and will not succeed in his defence of necessity.
C)A would not be liable because he had no intention to cause harm to B's property but to save it from being damaged by fire.
D)A would not be liable because he has pulled down B's house in order to prevent the conflagration from spreading i.e. the act was done in good faith for the purpose of avoiding greater harm to person or property : the rule is that causing of lesser evil is justified to avoid greater evil.

Question 6

Give correct response. A, B and C three adults and D a boy were on a voyage in an open boat. They had no food after about 18 years of journey. C proposed to B and A to sacrifice the boy so that they may feed upon ut B did not agree. On 20th day C with the consent of A only killed the boy and all the three fed upon the boy for four days when they were picked up. It was found that the boy was in a weaker condition and was likely to die before others and also if the men would not have fed upon the boy, hey would not have survived. Held that:

A)A, B and C would be liable for murder of the boy because self-preservations not an absolute necessity and there can be no necessity that justifies homicide.
B)A, B, and C were not liable for murder of the boy because Sec.81 of the Penal Code justifies causing of lesser evil in order to avoid greater evil.
C)A, B and C were not liable for murder of the boy because to preserve one's life is generally speaking a duty and in the present case there was no other way of saving the life of all the three except that some one was killed to save others from death by starvation.
D)A, B and C would not be liable because, the rule that a necessity can never be a defence to a charge of homicide is not conclusive and justifies homicide in self-defence.

Question 7

Give correct response. Section 83 of the Indian Penal Code deals with the defence of infancy. It provides that :

A)A child who is above 7 but below 12 years of age is deemed to be doli capax and he would not
B)A child who is above 7 but below 12 years of age is deemed to be doli incapax, therefore, he would be liable if it be proved that he was doli capax.
C)Section 83 is based on the principle of presumption of innocence of the accused unless the prosecution proves otherwise.
D)In order to avail the defence under section 83 it must be shown that the child was above 7 but below 12 years of age and if that much is proved the burden shall then lie upon the prosecution to prove that he was capable of knowing the nature and quality of his act.

Question 8

Point out incorrect response. The M' Neghten Rules relating to the defence of insanity provide :

A)If the accused was conscious that the act was one which he ought not too do and five that act was at the same time contrary to the law of the land, he is punishable.
B)That every man is presumed to be same and to possess a sufficient degree of reason to be responsible for his crimes until the contrary be proved to the satisfaction of the jury or the Court.
C)It must be shown that at the time of committing the act, the accused was laboring under such a defect of reason from desease of mind as not to know the nature and quality of the act he was doing, or if he did not know it that he did not know that what he was doing was wrong.
D)Where the criminal act is done under insane delusion as to the surrounding facts which conceal from him the true nature of the act he is doing he would not be under the same degree of responsibility as he would have been on the facts as he imagined them to be.

Question 9

Nothing is an offence which is done by a child under S.82

A)14 years of age.
B)18 years of age.
C)7 years of age.
D)10 years of age.

Question 10

Give the correct response

A)In England a child under 14 cannot be convicted of rape.
B)In India a child of 12 years can be convicted of rape.
C)Both (a) and (b).
D)None of the above.

Question 11

A child of 11 year stolen a neckless worth Rs. 1000 and sold it in Rs. 5/-

A)He cannot be held guilty as he did not attained sufficient maturity.
B)He is guilty of committing theft.
C)A child below 12 years of age cannot be held guilty of any offence.
D)None of the above.

Question 12

Nothing is an offence which is done by a child, who has not attained sufficient maturity of understanding to judge of the nature of his conduct and consequence. This provision applies to children of age group of :

A)Below 7 years.
B)7-12 years.
C)Below twelve years.
D)7-14 years.

Question 13

Under Sec. 84 a person is exonerated from liability for doing an act on the ground of unsoundness of mind :

A)Before the time of doing.
B)After the time of doing.
C)At the time of doing.
D)None of the above.

Question 14

A person is exonerated from liability for doing an act on the ground of unsoundness of mind if he is either incapable of knowing:

A)That he is doing what is either wrong or contrary to law.
B)The nature of the act.
C)Both (a) and (b).
D)None of the above.

Question 15

Nothing is an offence which is done by a child above the age of seven years and below the 12 years and who :

A)Is handicapped.
B)Is an orphan.
C)Has not attained sufficient maturity of understanding the nature and consequence of his conduct.
D)None of the above.

Question 16

Point out incorrect response. The following are the ingredients of section 83 I.P. Code.

A)An act done by a child above 7 years but under 12 years of age.
B)A child of above 7 but below 12 years is in India presumed to be doli incapax, therefore, the prosecution has to establish that he was doli capax.
C)The child must not have attained sufficient maturity of understanding to judge of the nature and consequences of his conduct.
D)Incapacity must exist at the time of commission of the act.

Question 17

Give correct response. A married girl, Sudha aged about 10 years slept in the night with her mother-in-law. Her husband Vinay aged about 19 years slept with his brother in another hut but in the same homestead. In the early hours of the fateful day the mother-in-law woke Sudha and told her to go about her household duties. Shortly after this Sudha was seen running out of the house and her husband was found mortally wounded on the neck by her. She was hiding herself in a field and could be found only in the afternoon.

A)Sudha was doli capax as it could be inferred from the case, therefore, she was liable unless proved to be doli incapax.
B)Sudha was doli incapax being below 12 years and was not liable.
C)The circumstances in which murder was committed and the conduct of Sudha were not so as to lead to an inference beyond reasonable doubt that she was guilty.
D)Sudha was not liable because a child below 12 years of age is absolutely immune from liability because of her immature age.

Question 18

A person cuts of the head of sleeping person because it would be great fun to see him looking for it when he woke up. He is :

A)Entitled to get benefit of see. 84.
B)Not entitled to get such benefit.
C)Guilty of causing death.
D)None of the above.

Question 19

An accused on being commanded in his dream by some one to kill his wife as being a denial, into the head of his wife. He is :

A)Entitled to the benefit of Sec. 84 IPC.
B)Not entitled as he knew the nature of act.
C)Not entitled to the benefit of Sec. 94 IPC.
D)None of the above.

Question 20

Give the correct response.

A)Mere absence of motive of crime cannot in the absence of legal insanity bring the case within Sec. 84.
B)A person is exonerated from liability for his acts on the ground of unsoundness of mind.
C)Both (a) and (b).
D)None of the above.

Question 21

A man suddenly murdered his wife and sister in law and he made no attempt to run away. This case :

A)Falls within Sec. 84.
B)Does fall within Sec. 84 because of absence of motive.
C)Does not fall within Sec. 84 because of presence of motive behind the act.
D)Does not fall within Sec. 84 because absence of motive does not imply unsoundness of mind.

Question 22

Give the correct response:

A)Medical insanity and legal insanity under Sec. 84 are different.
B)Medical, insanity and legal insanity under Sec. 84 are same thing.
C)Legal insanity under Se. 84 meant the person's consciousness of the bearing of his acts on those affected by it.
D)Both (b) and (c).

Question 23

A person suffering from fever killed his children as being annoyed at their crying. He :

A)Is entitled as he was annoyed.
B)Is entitled as he was suffering from decease.
C)Is not entitled to the benefit of Sec. 84 because he knows the nature of act.
D)Is entitled as he did not know the nature of act.

Question 24

Give the correct response : An intoxicated person is exonerated from liability of his acts provided

A)That the thing which intoxicated him was administered to him without his knowledge or against his will.
B)That at the time of doing it he was in such state of intoxication that he was unable to know the nature of his acts.
C)Both (a) and (b).
D)None of the above.

Question 25

Voluntary drunkenness is an excuse in case :

A)Delirium Tremens.
B)Where a specific intent is an essential element of an offence.
C)Both (a) and (b).
D)None of the above.

Question 26

The accused ravished a girl of 13 years in furtherance of the act of rape placed his hand upon her mouth thereby causing death by suffocation. The sole defence was a plea of drunkenness.

A)Accused is entitled to the benefit of Sec. 85 because drunkenness is excuse in every case.
B)Accused is entitled to the benefit of Sec. 85.
C)Accused is not entitled to the benefit of Sec. 85.
D)Cannot say.

Question 27

In the above stated case the accused

A)Is guilty of rape and murder unless it is established that at the time doing he was so drunk that he
B)Is guilty of murder only.
C)Is guilty of rape only.
D)Is not guilty of rape any offence.

Question 28

A drunken person killed his uncle. It was established that he was in such a state of intoxication, incapable of forming specific intent to kill. He is:

A)Guilty of Culpable homicide not amounting to murder.
B)Guilty of murder.
C)Entitled to the benefit of Sec. 85.
D)Not of these.

Question 29

In the above stated question the person is guilty of culpable homicide not amounting to murder because in this case

A)86 protect to assume specific intent.
B)Sec. 86 does not say any thing to assume knowledge on the part of accused.
C)Both (a) and (b).
D)None of the above.

Question 30

An accused committed murder without any motive under the epileptic fit . He :

A)Is guilty of murder.
B)Is entitled to get benefit under Sec. 84.
C)Is not entitled to get such benefit.
D)None of the above.

Question 31

Point out incorrect response. The following are the ingredients of the defence of unsoundness of mind under section 84 I.P.C. :

A)Act must be done by a person of unsound mind.
B)Such person must be incapable of knowing : (i) the nature of the act, or (ii) that the act was contrary to law, or (iii) that the act was wrong.
C)A person must be suffering from some defect of reason whether it is because of some disease of mind or otherwise at the time of commission of the crime.
D)Incapacity must be by reason of unsoundness of mind of the offender and incapacity must exist at the time of doing of the act constituting the offence.

Question 32

Point out incorrect response. Indian law relating to drunkenness as defence may be summed up in the following propositions :

A)Voluntary drunkenness is no excuse for a crime which requires the mere presence of "knowledge" as distinct from intention.
B)Voluntary drunkenness is an excuse only as regards "intention".
C)Where actual knowledge exists it gives rise to an inference of presumed intention so as to make voluntary drunkenness an excuse.
D)Involuntary drunkenness is an excuse.

Question 33

In cases where an act is not an offence unless done with particular knowledge and intents a person who does the act in state of intoxication shall be liable to the be dealt as if he :

A)Had the same intent and knowledge as he would have had if he had not been intoxicated.
B)Had the same knowledge as he would have had if he had not been intoxicated.
C)Had the acknowledge and intent.
D)Had the knowledge.

Question 34

The above stated provision applies to the person who :

A)Has drunk himself highly intoxicated thing.
B)Is highly intoxicated.
C)Is intoxicated by someone without his knowledge and intent.
D)None of the above.

Question 35

Give incorrect response. In order to avail the defence under section 87 of the I.P.C. the following conditions must be fulfilled:

A)Person giving consent is above 18 years of age.
B)If the act is done neither with the intention of causing death nor with the knowledge that it is likely to cause death or grievous hurt.
C)Harm is caused to any person with his consent whether express or implied.
D)Section 87 does not fix any age of the person consenting but section 90 says that consent in order to be valid must be of a person who is above 12 years, therefore, under section 87 also person giving consent must be above 12 years and not 18 years.

Question 36

Give correct response. A was charged with the murder of his wife, takes the defence of insanity and in the alternative of being drunk at the time of commission of the crime and being thus incapable of forming the intent required in murder. It is also pleaded in defence that the accused was a psychopath. The evidence further discloses that the accused had indicated an intention to kill his wife before taking alcohol. Here :

A)A is liable for murder, because the rule is that if the accused had been too drunk to form an intention to kill or do grievous bodily harm, he would, nevertheless have been guilty of manslaughter, either because he intended to commit a battery upon his wife or else because he would have been guilty of gross negligence.
B)A is liable for murder because he had indicated his intention to kill his wife before taking alcohol.
C)Since a was so deeply intoxicated that he was incapable of forming the criminal intent required in murder, therefore, A was not liable.
D)A is not liable for murder because the rule is that when due to alcoholic excess actual insanity supervenes, although temporarily, at the time of commission of the act, the prisoner is not to be held guilty for the act.

Question 37

Give correct response. A was charged with the murder of a boy aged 15 or 16 years who had accompanied him to a wedding party. A was drunk at the time he fired the fatal shot, when he asked the boy to step aside to enable him to occupy a convenient seat but the boy did not move. In this case it was held that :

A)A would be liable because he was voluntarily drunk and voluntary drunkenness is never a defence.
B)A would not be liable and would be entitled to the defence of intoxication.
C)A would be liable because the rule is that we must attribute to the intoxicated person the same knowledge as if he was quite sober, but so far as the intent is concerned we must gather it from the attending circumstances of the case with due regard to the degree of the intoxication.
D)A would not be liable because his mental faculties were so much affected by intoxicating drink that he was unable to know the nature of the act.

Question 38

Give correct response. A girl of 13 years while going to the market passed through the gate of a mill where B was the only watchman on duty. B in a bid to commit rape caught the girl. She struggled but the accused shut her mouth and pressed the thumb of the other hand on her throat to prevent her from screaming. The girl died. The accused was tried for murder. B pleaded intoxication in his defence. It was held that :

A)B was not liable for murder because he never intended to commit murder but intended only to commit rape.
B)B was not liable because he was so deeply drunk that he was unable to know that what he was doing was either wrong or contrary to law.
C)B was liable for murder because the capacity of the mind of the accused to form the criminal intent which murder involves was to be explored in relation to the ravishment and not in relation to the violent acts which gave effect to the ravishment.
D)B was liable for murder because he was voluntarily drunk and voluntary drunkenness is no defence to a charge of murder.

Question 39

Give correct response. A, a surgeon knowing that a particular operation is likely to cause the death of Z, who suffers under the painful complaint but not intending to cause Z's death and intending in good faith Z's benefit performs that operation on Z with Z's Consent :

A)A would not be liable because Z consented to the performing of the operation and Z must be presumed to be aware with the evil consequences of it.
B)A would be liable because he knew that the operation was dangerous and was likely to cause death.
C)A would not be liable for any offence because the death was caused while performing an operation which act was done with the consent of Z, in good faith, for his benefit and without any intention to cause death.
D)A would be liable because operation though claimed to be performed in good faith and with Z's consent was performed by obtaining Z's consent unlawfully. Z's consent was not a free consent.

Question 40

Give correct response. A, the accused who professed to be a snake-charmer, persuaded D, the deceased to be bitten by a poisonous snake, by inducing him to believe that he has power to protect him from harm :

A)A was liable because he obtained D's consent deceptively and fraudulently knowing if fully well that he would not be able to cure the deceased.
B)A was not liable because death was caused by snake biting with the consent of D, the deceased.
C)A was not liable because he did not induce D to give his consent, A only represented that he would be able to cure and D volunteered to be bitten by snake on his own.
D)A was liable because the consent was not a valid one as it was given under a misconception of fact i.e., in the belief that accused had power by charms to cure snake bites and the accused knew that the consent was given inconsequence of such misconception.

Question 41

Give best response. Z is carried off by a tiger. A fires at the tiger knowing it to be likely that the shot may kill Z, but not intending to kill Z and in good faith intending Z's benefit, A's bullet gives Z a mortal wound:

A)A is not liable because he never intended to kill and o person can be held liable unless the act resulting in death was done with the intention of causing death.
B)A is not liable because he is entitled to the defence under section 92. In this case the act was done in good faith for the benefit of the child (i.e. to save him from being taken off by the tiger) the likelihood of the harm was known but was not intended.
C)A is liable for murder and is not entitled to the defence under section 92 that 'an act done in good faith, for the benefit of a person without consent is not an offence'.
D)A is liable for murder because he knew that the shot may kill Z, in homicide intention to kill is not always necessary merely knowledge that the act is likely to cause death is sufficient.

Question 42

Give correct response. A is in a house which is on fire, with Z, a child. People below hold out a blanket, A drops the child from the house top, knowing it to be likely that the fall may kill the child, but not intending to kill the child, and intending in good faith the child's benefit. The child is killed by fall, Held that :

A)A is liable because he knew or had reasons to believe that fall was very likely to result in the death of the child.
B)A is liable because A's act cannot be said to have been done in good faith in as much as he kne that the boy was very likely to be killed by such fall, even then he did not take precautions to save him.
C)A has committed no offence, because A dropped the child to save him from being killed by fire, the act being done in good faith and intending child's benefit without any intention to harm him.
D)A is not liable because he had no intention to kill and no person can be held liable for homicide in absence of such intention.

Question 43

Give the correct response.

A)Consent can justify intentional causing of death.
B)Sec. 88 allows any harm to be inflicted for his benefit in good faith by anyone with the consent of other.
C)Both (a) and (b).
D)None of the above.

Question 44

A person attacked by lion in a jungle asked his friends to fire. They fired and one bullet hit that person.

A)They are guilty of causing death.
B)They are not entitled to get benefit of Sec. 88.
C)They are entitled to get benefit.
D)They are guilty of causing death

Question 45

Under Section 88 the age of consenting party shall be :

A)At least 12 years.
B)At least 18 years.
C)At least 10 years.
D)At least 7 years.

Question 46

A VADHYA not qualified as medical practitioner perform a major operation with the consent of that person :

A)He is not entitled as such vadhya can hardly be said to act in good faith.
B)He is entitled to get benefit because he knows that it is likely to cause his death.
C)He is not entitled to the benefit because he knows that it is likely to cause his death.
D)None of the above.

Question 47

Give the correct response

A)A headmaster who administers in good faith reasonable corporeal punishment to the children is entitled to the benefit of Sec. 88.
B)A surgeon who performs major operation with consent of patient is entitled to the benefit of Sec.88.
C)Both (a) and (b).
D)None of the above.

Question 48

Give incorrect response. In order to avail the defence of section 88 I.P.C. :

A)Act must be done in good faith and without ay intention to cause death or to cause any harm as may result in death.
B)Act must be done with the consent of the sufferer whether consent is express or implied.
C)Act must be done in good faith and without intention to cause death though it might have been done with the intention such harm as may result in death.
D)The act done must be for the benefit of the person who suffers injury.

Question 49

A in good faith for his minor girl's benefit without her consent, had her hair cut for the removal of stone by the surgeon.

A)A is not within the exception.
B)A is within the exception.
C)Although A is not within the exception.
D)but he did not commit the offence.

Question 50

Point out incorrect response. The following cases are covered by the exception from criminal liability as contained in section 89 I.P.C. :

A)A, in good faith, for his child's benefit, has his child cut for the stone by a surgeon knowing it to be likely that the operation will cause the child's death but not intending to cause the child's death.
B)A, in good faith, for his child's pecuniary benefit emasculates his child.
C)A confines his child for its benefit.
D)A whips his child moderately for the child's benefit