Unit IV · UGC NET Law PYQLaw of Crimes

Ans. (b) : To prove Section 149 (common object) of Indian Penal Code 1860: (1) An offence must be committed by a member of an unlawful assembly. (2) Such offence must be committed in furtherance of the common object of the assembly. (3) Every member of the assembly must have knowledge of the likelihood of committing the offence. Active participation of each member in the offence is not necessary.

Ans. (c) : Section 3 of the Indian Penal Code 1860 makes offences committed beyond India but triable according to the laws within India punishable. This is called extra-territorial jurisdiction. As per Section 188 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1973, proceedings shall be conducted at the place in India where the person is found.

Ans. (d) : Section 21 of the Indian Penal Code 1860 gives the definition of a public servant which is not exhaustive. In common parlance, a public servant is one who performs public work in an official capacity with authority and duty.

Ans. (c) : Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code 1860 states that when a criminal act is done by several persons in furtherance of "the common intention of all," each such person is liable for that act as "if it were done by him alone." Section 34 is a rule of evidence that this section itself does not create a separate offence. It does not create any specific offence. Therefore both (a) and (b) are correct.

Ans. (d) : Section 223 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1973 specifies the circumstances in which persons can be jointly charged and tried together. If two persons independently plan and separately inflict injuries on a person causing death, then they only have a similar intention. Therefore they cannot be tried jointly. Hence statement (A) is incorrect. According to Section 423(a) of the Code, persons who have been charged with the same offence committed in the same transaction can be charged together and tried. Any offence will only be considered a part of the same transaction when it is committed in furtherance of the common object of all. Therefore Reason (R) is correct.

Ans. (c) : The demarcating line between intention and knowledge is very thin. This principle is the basis of distinguishing between Sections 299 and 300 of I.P.C. as clarified by the Supreme Court in Bachhan Singh v. State of Punjab.

Ans. (b) : According to Section 34 of I.P.C. — when a criminal act is done by several persons in furtherance of the common intention of all, then each of such persons is liable for that act in the same manner as if it were done by him alone. The meaning of common intention — a pre-determined plan is inherent in it, a prior meeting of minds among all persons who form a group and discussion among them.

Ans. (d) : All three options are the chief elements of crime, that is: (1) To act in a particular way otherwise to undergo punishment. (2) An act committed or omitted in furtherance of criminal intent. (3) An act causing injury to another individual or society.

Ans. (d) : Criminal mens rea is inferred in the following cases: (1) By reason to believe (2) Voluntarily (3) Dishonestly (4) Fraudulently (5) Intentionally (6) By deception (7) Wantonly etc.

Ans. (a) : To determine criminal mens rea it is necessary that the act was intended (intentional). It is an established principle of criminal law that "an act does not make a person guilty unless his mind is also guilty." If the act was done with corrupt intention, only then the liability would arise, otherwise not.

Ans. (d) : Neither Z nor P is liable in the present problem. Because there was no legal duty on either of them to save the child. A person's legal duty arises from violation of legal duty, not from violation of moral duty, hence neither will have any liability.

Decide on whom criminal liability can be fixed on the following: The accused 'P' caught hold of the victim and extorted on the main accused 'L' to Strike the victim; upon which he inflicted a kirpan wound and consequently the victim died.

Ans. (c) : In the present problem both (P) and (L) are liable for the death of the victim with the same intention. In this case, an opportunity was provided by one person to grab the victim and commit a crime against another person and the second person attacked as a result, hence both are liable for the same purpose.

'M' a quack, the uneducated in matters of surgery, had performed an operation on a man for internal piles with the help of ordinary Knife, unlike previous occasions, for which the man died due to haemorrhage. Decide on M's liability.

'M' is a recognised quack and hence not liable

'M' profession is not legally acceptable hence liable

'M' is not liable because the man consented for such operation

'M' is not liable because the man operational syndrome

The probable answer is

(a) Statement 1 is correct (b) Statement 2 is correct (c) Statement 3 is correct (d) Statement 3 and 4 are correct

Ans. (b) : Statement (B) is correct, M's profession is not legally acceptable, hence he is liable. Section 92 of IPC 1860 provides for an act done in good faith for the benefit of a person without consent, but only when the act is lawful. In the present case, M's act is neither lawful nor done in good faith. Hence the answer is (b).

Ans. (b) : Valuable security is defined in section 30 of Indian Penal Code 1860 as follows- The word "valuable security" denotes a document which is or purports to be a document whereby any legal right is created, extended, transferred, restricted, extinguished or released, or by which any person acknowledges that he lies under legal liability or has not a certain legal right.

Ans. (b) : The meaning of this maxim is, the act done against my will is not my act. It is used to determine criminal liability. For a crime, both guilty mind and act in accordance with it are necessary. If there is no guilty mind, then the act is not criminal because of being without malice. Because malice is an essential element of criminal liability.

Ans. (d) : All the statements are based on the general principles relating to the protection of the accused.

Ans. (d) : Riot has been provided in section 146 of Indian Penal Code 1860. According to this section, the use of force or violence by the members of an unlawful assembly in pursuance of the common object of the assembly, which is in the form of a sign of danger, is called riot. The punishment for riot is given in section 147. Thus, all the features of riot are essential in the questioned options. Unlawful assembly is described in section 141.

Ans. (a) : After reading the above passage, the statement made by Russell in the columns given, that crime is not absolute because it depends on social tolerance, is correct. Blackstone, while defining crime, said that an act or omission committed in violation of public law forbidding or commanding it. According to Patton, the general characteristics of crime are state action, punishment and pardon of punishment.

Ans. (a) : Contributory negligence is not a defence in pure criminal charge but it is a defence in tort law.

Ans. (a)

Match List-I (Objectives) with List-II (Propositions) and select the correct answer using the codes given below:

List-I A. Inchoate crime B. Attempt C. Preparation D. Intention

List-II

'Whaton' says it is the beginning but not complete

It does not act towards the commissions of offence

Cuplrit commences to do something

Ans. (b) : A person commits an inappropriate act or crime due to mental imbalance, crime is an instructive and irresistible impulse, under the influence of which crime is committed. According to Indian Penal Code, both the statements are correct because as per section 53, due to having brutal criminal conduct, criminal deity is attracted.

Read Assertion I and Reason II and with the help of given codes point out the correct explanation

Ans. (b) : Malignantly and maliciously are synonyms. The provision of section 270 of Indian Penal Code 1860 is applicable on both. Section 270 provides that whoever malignantly does any act which is, and which he knows or has reason to believe to be, likely to spread the infection of any disease dangerous to life, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to six months, or with fine, or with both.

Ans. (c) : Indian Penal Code 1860 does not express positive bad intention for fixing liability. Yet, the acts related to the lack of care arising out of disregard of duty come under the criminal category, it is called rashness or negligence.

Ans. (d) : Common intention implies pre-arranged plan, prior meeting of minds and prior consultation among all the persons involved in the crime, and the law makes no distinction between the persons committing the crime or the role played by them in committing the crime. Section 34 of Indian Penal Code provides for the above principle. According to it, when a criminal act is done by several persons in furtherance of the common intention of all, each of such persons is liable for that act in the same manner as if it were done by him alone.

Ans. (a) : The application of the doctrine of vicarious liability in crimes was made possible because of necessity rather than desirability. Which is based on public policy. Sections 154, 155 and 156 of Indian Penal Code 1860 accept vicarious liability in offences. This principle was first propounded in R vs. Higgins.

Ans. (a) : A and Z agree to fence with each other for a game. Apart from being unbiased, 'Z' got injured due to playing wrongly. Therefore, there is no offence in agreement between A and Z.

Read Assertion-I and Reason -II and with the help of codes given below select the correct answer:

Assertion (A): Common intention is asserted.

Reason (II):

A period which is anterior in time among the offenders.

From the facts of pre-arranged plan.

From the act of conduct resulting from prior concert.

From the totality of circumstances in which the act was committed.

Codes: (a) 'a' is false becuse 'b', 'c' and 'd' do not support it (b) 'd' is true as 'a', 'd' and 'c' support it (c) 'c' is true irrespective of support of 'a', 'b' and 'd' (d) 'b' is true being supported by 'a', 'c' and 'd'

Ans. (b) : Assertion - Joint intention is asserted. The argument for this assertion is that the totality of the circumstances in which the act was done is correct because the following arguments support it- 1- A period which is prior to the offenders in point of time 2- From the facts of pre-determined plan, and 3- Consequently from prior consent.

Ans. (b) : The difference between giving false information and making false charges is that where in the former case there is omission of an act which ought to have been done. This includes giving wrong information to a public servant and concealing the correct information. Whereas in section 211 a false charge of committing an offence is leveled without any basis with the intention of causing harm. Section 177 of Indian Penal Code is related to giving false information.

Ans. (b) : There are four stages of crime-

Intention

Preparation

Attempt

Commission of offence The distinctive feature between preparation and attempt is that "the preparation involved in devising means is necessary at the time when the act is required for committing the crime, towards the act and direct conduct" is necessary. Therefore, both A and R are correct and R is the correct explanation of A.

Ans. (d) : Mens rea is a loose word whose meaning will be in chronological order as follows-

Criminal dispute of deep colour

Foresight of the consequences of the act

It depends on knowledge and belief

An act which is visible

Read Assertion (A) and Reason (R) and with the help of codes given below point out the correct explanation.

Ans. (b) : Generally, a master is not criminally liable for the negligent act of his servant, but if the servant is negligent in his daily work, then the master will be liable, even if he has not committed the act himself. The principle of vicarious liability will apply here. According to this, the senior should be liable.

Ans. (c) : According to section 34 of Indian Penal Code, when a criminal act is done by several persons in furtherance of the common intention of all, each of such persons is liable for that act in the same manner as if it were done by him alone, while according to section 149, if an offence is committed by any member of an unlawful assembly in prosecution of the common object of that assembly, or if an offence is committed which the members of that assembly knew to be likely to be committed in prosecution of that object, every person shall be guilty of that offence.

Ans. (c) : 'Malum Prohibitum' means innocent but made punishable by statute.

Ans. (c) : Section 52-A of Indian Penal Code defines harbouring, according to which, except in section 157 and section 130, where the harbouring is by the wife or husband of the person harboured, the word 'harbour' includes the supplying of shelter, food, drink, money, clothes, arms, ammunition or means of conveyance, or the assisting of a person by any means, whether of the same kind as those enumerated in this section or not, to evade apprehension.

Ans. (a) : Section 191 of Indian Penal Code defines giving false evidence according to which a false statement given under the influence of instigation is not false evidence in the discharge of public justice.

Ans. (a)

Ans. (a) : If the revenue inspector knowingly disobeys the directions while inspecting the place of demarcation line, then he will be punished under section 166-A of the Indian Penal Code. Section 166-A is related to public servant disobeying direction under law. (Inserted by the Amendment Act, 2013).

Ans. (b) : Legal right involves freedom from punishment and legal right is that which is either enforceable or recognized.

Ans. (c) : The maxim 'ream linguam non facit nisi mens rea' was propounded by Augustine.

Ans. (a) : Disobedience of law is not ordinarily a crime unless the act is declared as a crime by any law.

Ans. (d) : The Indian Penal Code prohibits the fixation of liability on a person, when the act is authorized or done with consent. But in some offences consent or authority does not save, like libel, public nuisance and contempt of court, because such offences come under strict liability.

Ans. (a) : Nullum Crimen is a principle in criminal law and international criminal law that a person should not face criminal punishment except for the act, it is an injunction of the legislature that all the suspected persons being prosecuted should not be implicated and to avoid impossibility and to decide the question, the legislature must use administrative determination.

Read Assertion (A) and Reason (R) and with the help of codes given below find the correct explanation:

Assertion (A): Participation in some manner in the act constituting the offence of common intention by all the persons to be prosecuted is necessary.

Reason (R): Physical presence at the time of commission of crimes is not mandatory in all cases:

Codes: (a) Both (A) and (R) are true, but (R) is not the correct explanation of (A) (b) Both (A) and (R) are true and (R) is the correct explanation of (A) (c) (A) is correct, but (R) is false (d) (A) is false, but (R) is true

Ans. (b) : When there is participation in any manner in the act constituting the crime in any criminal law with same intention, it is necessary to prosecute all such persons because section 34 of the Indian Penal Code provides that when a criminal act is done by several persons in furtherance of the common intention of all, then every person in such persons is liable for that act in the same manner, as if he had done that act alone. But physical presence at the time of commission of the offence is not mandatory in all cases.

Ans. (a) : Section 120A of Indian Penal Code defines criminal conspiracy and section 120B provides for punishment of conspiracy. According to section 120A, the following are the elements- (1) Agreement between two or more persons, who are accused of conspiring. (2) Agreement- (A) Any illegal act or (B) Any act though not illegal, by illegal means. It is clear from the above definition that both (A) and (R) are correct and (R) is the correct explanation of (A).

Ans. (d) : According to section 191 of Indian Penal Code, provision has been made regarding giving false evidence. Its essential elements are- (1) Any person (A) was bound by an oath or by a provision of law to state the truth, or (B) Was legally bound to make a declaration on any subject (2) Such person made a false statement (3) His statement (A) He knows or believes to be false, or (B) Doesn't believe in being true. Hence, in order to hold a person criminally liable for giving false evidence, the fact of an offence having been committed but not having any consequence does not constitute knowledge.

Ans. (c) : Section 34 of Indian Penal Code provides for the principle of joint liability, according to which the following elements are necessary- (1) A criminal act. (2) The criminal act has been done by more than one person. (3) The criminal act has been done by such persons to further the common intention of all. (4) There must be a pre-arranged plan to act with common intention between such persons. (5) Participation in some manner by all the alleged accused of the offence is necessary.

Ans. (a) : According to section 149 of Indian Penal Code - This section has been divided into two parts. (1) Any offence committed by a member of an unlawful assembly in furtherance of the common object of the assembly. (2) Any offence committed in furtherance of the common object of the assembly, the commission of which every member of the assembly knew was probable.

Ans. (b) : This statement is true that the criminal is a victim of circumstances, he is sick so he needs treatment. The reason R that prisons are reformed for criminals and schools are established for children is correct. But this is not the correct explanation. Hence, A and R are correct but 'R' is not the correct explanation of A.

Ans. (d) : Section 149, section 141 and section 34 of Indian Penal Code determines joint liability for the offence while section 147 provides for punishment for rioting.

Ans. (a) : The principle of joint liability provides when two or more persons jointly commit an offence, each of them will be held liable under the same liability as if he had committed that offence alone. Section 34 of Indian Penal Code propounds the principle of joint liability. Essential conditions for joint liability- (1) Criminal act has been done (2) The crime has been done by more than one person (3) Common intention of all.

Ans. (b) : Section 201 of Indian Penal Code makes hiding the evidence of crime a punishable offence, if any person, knowing or having reason to believe that any offence has been committed, hides the evidence of the offence with the intention to save the offender from legal punishment, he will be guilty of hiding the evidence of the offence.

Ans. (b) : According to section 193 of Indian Penal Code, whoever intentionally gives false evidence in any stage of a judicial proceeding or fabricates false evidence for the purpose of being used in any stage of a judicial proceeding. He shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to seven years, and shall also be liable to fine.

Ans. (a) : A person cannot be punished for an act which is not prohibited by law. The appropriate meaning of "Nullum crimen sine lege, nulla poena sine lege" is. The self-evident principle of justice is based on this formula.

Ans. (c) : Causing damage to the reputation of a person is defamation. A defamatory statement may be expressed indirectly or indirectly or through question, conjecture, surprise or irony. Repetition of a defamatory matter is a new publication and a publisher is not only liable for publishing a defamatory statement for the first time, but is also liable for repeating it again and again and the editor printer associated with it is also responsible.

Ans. (a) : A person cannot be punished for an act which is not prohibited by law. The appropriate meaning of "Nullum crimen sine lege, nulla poena sine lege" is. The self-evident principle of justice is based on this formula.

Ans. (c) : Causing damage to the reputation of a person is defamation. A defamatory statement may be expressed indirectly or indirectly or through question, conjecture, surprise or irony. Repetition of a defamatory matter is a new publication and a publisher is not only liable for publishing a defamatory statement for the first time, but is also liable for repeating it again and again and the editor printer associated with it is also responsible.

Ans. (b) : Crime is necessarily an anti-social act

Explanation: Crime is always considered an anti-social act because it creates disorder within society, due to which people have to face social, economic and mental troubles. A crime is not necessarily an immoral, anti-communal or anti-religious act.

Ans. (b) : All accused are guilty of causing death

Explanation: In the present case, all the accused will be punished under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code 1860 for causing death because the intention of all the accused was to commit murder. In crime, the intention and knowledge have great importance even if any other person is harmed by such act.

Ans. (c) : A. Mehboob Shah v. Emperor - Common Intention (sec.34) (1945 PC) B. State of Maharashtra v. M.H. George - Mens rea (1964 SC) C. Director of Public Prosecutions v. Beard - Intoxication (sec. 85) (1976) D. R.V. Dudley v. Stephens - Necessity (sec. 81) (1884)

Ans. (c) : A. Punishment for causing death or resulting in persisting vegetative state of victim - sec.376 A B. Sexual intercourse by husband upon his wife during separation - Section 376 B C. Sexual intercourse by a person in authority - Section 376 C D. Gang rape - Section 376 D

Ans. (c) : Blackstone said that "an act committed or omitted in violation of public law either forbidding or commanding it" has been defined as such an offence.

Ans. (d) : According to Sections 3 and 4 of the Indian Penal Code 1862 - by the provisions of this Code -

A crime committed by a citizen of India in any place outside India.

An offence committed by any person on any ship or aircraft registered in India, wherever it may be.

Any person targeting a computer resource located in India from any place outside India commits any offence.

An Indian citizen commits any offence in foreign countries. Options 1, 2, 3 all are correct.

Ans. (d) : The present problem is based on the exception to Section 52A and Section 212 of the Indian Penal Code 1860. According to the exception of Section 212 - this provision does not extend to such cases in which the harbouring or screening is by the husband or wife of the accused, therefore the wife is not liable.

Ans. (c) :

General explanation of life - Section 45

Act of judge when acting judicially - Section 77

Act of children under 7 years of age - Section 82

Explanation of good faith - Section 52

Ans. (b) :

Vishwanath v. State of U.P. (1959) - Private defence

State of Punjab v. Major Singh (1966) - Modesty of women

S. Varadarajan v. State of Madras (1964) - Kidnapping

Amar Singh v. State of Rajasthan (2010) - Dowry death

Given below are two statements, one labeled as Assertion (A) and the other labeled as Reason (R). Read the statements and choose the correct answer using the code given below:

Ans. (c) : 'Actus non facit reum nisi mens sit rea' according to this maxim, no act of any person makes him guilty unless his mind is also guilty i.e. for the offence to be committed - (1) Mens rea and (2) Actus reus must be present In the case of Fowler v. Padget, Justice Kenyon laid down the two main essential elements of crime - (1) Mens-rea (2) Actus-reus

Ans. (a) : In the case of Ashok Kumar v. State of Punjab (2019 SC), the Supreme Court made the following observation regarding Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code -

"The existence of common intention among the participants in a crime is an essential element for the application of this section." It is not necessary that the act of the several persons charged with the commission of an offence jointly must be the same or identical.

Ans. (a) : Section 73 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 contains the provision relating to solitary confinement. The period of solitary confinement cannot exceed three months. If the term of imprisonment does not exceed six months, then maximum one month; if the term of imprisonment is more than six months and up to one year, then maximum two months; if the term of imprisonment is more than one year, then maximum three months of solitary confinement can be given.

According to Section 82 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860, nothing is an offence which is done by a child under seven years of age. In English law, a child under seven years of age is considered 'doli incapax' (incapable of committing crime).

According to Section 93 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860, no communication made in good faith is an offence by reason of any harm to the person to whom it is made, if it is made for the benefit of that person.

According to Section 95 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860, nothing is an offence by reason that it causes, or that it is intended to cause, or that it is known to be likely to cause, any harm, if that harm is so slight that no person of ordinary sense and temper would complain of such harm.

Given below are two statements: one is labeled as Assertion A and the other is labelled as Reasons R.

Assertion A : The right of private defence of body extends to causing of death to the Assailant in case of assault of throwing or administering acid or an attempt to throw or administer acid which may reasonably cause the apprehension that grievous hurt will otherwise be the consequences of such Act.

Reason R : This provision was inserted under clause (7) of section 100 IPC by Act 13 of 2013 in view of increasing cases of acid throwing on the girls and women in India.

In the light of the above statements, choose the correct answer from the options given below :

(a) Both A and R are correct and R is the correct explanation of A (b) Both A and R are correct and R is NOT the correct explanation of A (c) A is correct but R is not correct (d) A is not correct but R is correct

Ans. (a) : Section 100 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 extends the right of private defence of body to causing death. Clause seven of Section 100 has been inserted (effective from 3-2-2013) by the Criminal Law (Amendment) Act, 2013. According to clause seven of Section 100, the right of private defence of the body extends to the voluntary causing of death of the assailant, or of causing any other harm, if the offence is an act of throwing or administering acid or an attempt to throw or administer acid which may reasonably cause the apprehension that grievous hurt will otherwise be the consequence of such act.

After the Delhi gang rape case of 2012, a committee was constituted under the chairmanship of Justice (Retd.) J.S. Verma in the context of crimes against women. On its recommendation, the Criminal Law (Amendment) Act, 2013 was passed.

Answer: (a) Both (A) and (R) are true and (R) is the correct explanation of (A)

Answer: (c) Section 39, IPC

Answer: (b) Both A and R are true But R is NOT the correct explanation of A

Answer: (a) Immaterial

Answer: (d) A, B and C only

Answer: (c) A, B, D and E only

Answer: (c) A, E, B, D, C

Answer: (a) Both A and R are true and R is the correct explanation of A

Answer: (d) Motive

Answer: (a) (A), (B), (C), (D)

Answer: (b) (A) Only

Answer: (c) Child

Answer: (c) Harm to body, mind, reputation or property

Explanation: The definition includes any harm illegally caused to a person in body, mind, reputation, or property.

Answer: (d) B, C, D only

Explanation: The principle of nulla poena sine lege (no punishment without law) requires that criminal laws be clear, certain, accessible, and strictly interpreted, avoiding retroactive or vague application.

Answer: (c) A and B only

Answer: (c) Doctrine of transfer of malice

Answer: (c) Where accused was having a duty arising out of a sense of religious obligation and he failed

Explanation: Under criminal law and Section 32 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC), an omission leads to criminal liability only if the accused was under a legal duty to act and failed to perform that duty. Legal duties that ground criminal liability for omissions typically arise from:

1. Statutory Legal Duty: Where a specific statute requires a person to act (e.g., a public servant's duty to report/act under law).

2. Contractual Duty: Where a legal contract creates an obligation to act to protect life or property (e.g., a railway gatekeeper failing to lower the gate).

3. Relational Duty: Special relationships recognized by law (e.g., parent to minor child, husband to wife, guardian to dependent).

4. Assumption of Responsibility: Voluntarily undertaking the care of a helpless person. Conversely, a moral or religious obligation does not create a legal duty. If a person fails to act purely out of a sense of religious duty or moral obligation (and no legal/statutory/contractual/relational duty exists), it does not attract criminal liability under criminal jurisprudence.

Answer: (a) D, A, B, C, E

Explanation: Arranging the given chapters of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS), 2023 in ascending order (first to last) according to their chapter numbers in the Bare Act:

• D. Chapter II – Of Punishments (Sections 4 to 13)

• A. Chapter III – General Exceptions (Sections 14 to 44)

• B. Chapter V – Of Offences against Woman and Child (Sections 63 to 99)

• C. Chapter VI – Of Offences Affecting the Human Body (Sections 100 to 146)

• E. Chapter XVII – Of Offences against Property (Sections 303 to 334)

Ans. (b) : Section 511 of the Indian Penal Code 1860 makes the attempt of such offences punishable which are not already punishable as attempts under this Code.

Ans. (b) : An offence has four stages. These stages are as follows: (1) Intention (2) Preparation (3) Attempt (4) Completion of offence. Generally the attempt and completion of an offence are punishable. In some situations preparation is also punishable, such as Sections 122, 33, 399 of the Indian Penal Code etc. Intention is generally not punishable, but it is punishable under Section 402. Therefore Dacoity is the only offence punishable in all four stages.

Ans. (c) : Chapter V (Section 107 onwards) of the Indian Penal Code 1860 deals with abetment. Section 107 defines abetment as a person who abets a thing: (i) instigates a person to commit it, or (ii) engages with one or more other persons in a conspiracy for its commission, if an act or illegal omission takes place in pursuance of that conspiracy, or (iii) intentionally aids, by any act or illegal omission, the doing of that thing. Abetment of abetment is also an offence. Since abetment under Section 108 Explanation IV is an offence because abetment is an offence, such abetment is also an offence. Whether C committed the act or not. Therefore, both A and B are guilty of the offence of abetment.

Ans. (c) : According to Section 120-A of I.P.C., the essential elements of conspiracy are: (1) an agreement between two or more persons (a) to do an illegal act (b) to do an act which though not illegal is done by illegal means. Conspiracy is an offence that has mens rea without actus rea and depends not on the act but on the circumstances.

Ans. (d) : According to Section 107 of I.P.C., abetment of an offence can be done as follows: (1) By instigation (2) By conspiracy (3) By intentional aid

Ans. (b) : According to Section 107 of the Indian Penal Code 1860, abetment occurs through: (1) instigation, (2) engaging in conspiracy, and (3) intentional aid. Giving suggestions comes under intentional aid in abetment, so the act of abetment results from suggestion.

Ans. (d) : There are four stages of crime-

(1) Intention - This is the first stage, which is never punishable.

(2) Preparation - Preparation is the second stage of crime, which is generally not punishable, but in some crimes, like preparation for war against the Government of India, it is punishable.

(3) Attempt - Here the accused makes his intention clear, hence it is always punishable.

(4) Completion of crime - This act is always punishable on the achievement of the desired result.

Ans. (b) : In the present case under section 307 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860, the accused has committed the offence of attempt to murder. The attempt to murder shall be punishable with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to ten years, and shall also be liable to fine.

Ans. (b)

Ans. (a) : Conspiracy is a judicious act because the general rule is that the chain of actions has to be inferred from the intention of any unlawful use. Knowledge of being involved in the crime is necessary to establish the charge. Section 120A of Indian Penal Code defines criminal conspiracy and section 120B provides punishment for criminal conspiracy.

Read Assertion I and Reason II and with the help of codes given below point out the correct explanation.

Ans. (c) : Section 107 of Indian Penal Code defines the offence of abetment, which is committed by instigation, conspiracy and assistance. According to the second paragraph of section 107, that person abets a thing, who joins with one or more other persons in any conspiracy for the doing of that thing. But the offence is not committed unless an act or illegal omission takes place in pursuance of that conspiracy.

Ans. (c) : According to section 309 of Indian Penal Code 1860, whoever attempts to commit suicide and does any act towards the commission of such offence, shall be punished with simple imprisonment for a term which may extend to one year or with fine, or with both. Here, after the commission of the offence, no punishment can be given. The case of Gyan Kaur vs. State of Punjab is related to this.

Ans. (d) : Generally, the Indian Penal Code makes a distinction between the main wrongdoer and the abettor and does not recognise the helper in matters of harbouring. But it recognises legal accessories in the following cases- (1) Instigating any person to commit an offence. (Section 107 first paragraph) (2) Joining any conspiracy to commit any crime. (Section 107 second paragraph) (3) Knowingly aiding. (Section 107 third paragraph)

Ans. (d) : Section 107 of Indian Penal Code defines abetment, according to which a person abets the doing of a thing, who-

Instigates any person to do that thing

Engages in any conspiracy for the doing of that thing

Ans. (c) : According to section 111 of Indian Penal Code, the act of abetment provides that the liability of the abettor is on such an act which is different from the intent of the abettor, in such circumstances incomplete instigation to commit the offence is considered.

Ans. (b) : Tempting or inducing another to act by exciting hope or desire (will) of others is known as enticing. It is an essential element of the offence of kidnapping. There are two types of kidnapping- (1) Kidnapping from India (2) Kidnapping from lawful guardianship. Kidnapping is described as an offence in section 361. Section 363 provides for its punishment.

Ans. (a) : The offence of inciting a crowd is formed when a member of an unlawful assembly incites a crowd, thus when one or more of a crowd of 10 or more people do so, the process of inciting the crowd is formed. (Section 228-A, IPC clarification) Under section 228-A of Indian Penal Code, revealing the identity of the victim party through newspaper or publication has been considered a punishable offence.

Ans. (b) : (1) Many arguments have been presented in support of the law relating to conspiracy. The general justification regarding this is that an incomplete crime is similar to other incomplete crimes. (2) The secondary support of conspiracy is on the ground that an agreement between two or more persons to do an illegal act, gives momentum to the act. Criminal conspiracy has been defined in section 120-A of Indian Penal Code.

Ans. (a) : The offence of inciting a crowd is formed when a member of an unlawful assembly incites a crowd, thus when one or more of a crowd of 10 or more people do so, the process of inciting the crowd is formed. (Section 228-A, IPC clarification) Under section 228-A of Indian Penal Code, revealing the identity of the victim party through newspaper or publication has been considered a punishable offence.

Ans. (b) : (1) Many arguments have been presented in support of the law relating to conspiracy. The general justification regarding this is that an incomplete crime is similar to other incomplete crimes. (2) The secondary support of conspiracy is on the ground that an agreement between two or more persons to do an illegal act, gives momentum to the act. Criminal conspiracy has been defined in section 120-A of Indian Penal Code.

Ans. (a) : Instigating B to commit murder

Explanation: A is guilty of instigating B to commit the murder of A and B. As per the second explanation of Section 108 of the Indian Penal Code, it is not necessary that for the offence of abetment to be constituted, the abetted act must be committed or the offence intended must occur. The required effect of the instigation must have been caused. The present problem is based on illustration (b) of explanation 2 of Section 108.

Ans. (b) : The present problem is based on illustration (ख) of Section 107 of the Indian Penal Code 1860. Section 107 provides for abetment. Under Section 107, abetment can be done in three ways:

Instigation

Conspiracy

By aid Therefore, B has abetted by instigating the apprehension of C.

Ans. (d) : The present problem is based on Section 511 of the Indian Penal Code and its illustration, according to which whoever attempts to commit an offence punishable by this Code with imprisonment for life or imprisonment, or to cause such an offence to be committed, and in such attempt does any act towards the commission of the offence, shall, where no express provision is made by this Code for the punishment of such attempt, be punished with the punishment provided under Section 511.

The accused at the time of committing the act because of unsoundness of mind is incapable of knowing

the nature of the act

that the act is wrong or contrary to law

that the act is unethical and wrong

that the act is morally wrong but not contrary to law

Ans. (d) : This problem is based on the illustration of "Section 108A" of the Indian Penal Code 1860. According to which -

A person abets an offence within the meaning of this Code who, in India, abets the commission of any act outside and beyond India which would constitute an offence if committed in India.

Therefore, 'A' will be guilty of abetment of murder.

Ans. (c) : Section 107 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 defines abetment.

Abetment is constituted in the following manner: (1) By instigating a person to commit an offence, or (2) By engaging in any conspiracy to commit an offence, or (3) By intentionally aiding a person to commit an offence.

According to Section 108A, a person abets an offence within the meaning of this Code who, in India, abets the commission of any act outside and beyond India which would constitute an offence if committed in India.

Criminal conspiracy is defined under Section 120A of the Indian Penal Code, 1860.

The following are the elements of criminal conspiracy: (1) An agreement between two or more persons who are charged with conspiracy, (2) The agreement is to do or cause to be done: (i) an illegal act, or (ii) an act which is not illegal, by illegal means.

The provision for punishment for criminal conspiracy is under Section 120B.

The case of State of Tamil Nadu through Superintendent of Police, CBI/SIT v. Nalini relates to criminal conspiracy.

Ans. (b) : In the case of Abhayanand Mishra v. State of Bihar (1961 SC), the Supreme Court said that there is a thin line between the preparation for and an attempt to commit an offence. Undoubtedly, a culprit first intends to commit the offence, then makes preparation for committing it and thereafter attempts to commit the offence. If the attempt succeeds, he has committed the offence. If it fails due to reasons beyond his control, he is said to have attempted to commit the offence.

In the case of State of Maharashtra v. Mohd. Yakub (1980 SC), the court concluded that mere preparation is not an offence unless it is completed or attempted.

In Malkiat Singh v. State of Punjab (1968 SC), the court observed that preparation consists in devising or arranging the means necessary for the commission of an offence. On the other hand, an attempt is a direct movement towards the commission after preparations are made.

In the case of Om Prakash v. State of Punjab (1962 SC), the court said that "Beginning of attempt is in itself an attempt."

Answer: (b) A, B, C, D, E

Passage for December 2022 Q96–Q100

Direction (Q. No. 96-100) : Sting operation is a phenomenon which became popular in 1970s. With the advent of technology and internet, sting operation is no more monopoly of media houses or big players. Being essentially a deceptive operation, though designed to nab a criminal, a sting operation raises certain moral and ethical questions besides legal issues. The victim who is otherwise innocent, is lured into committing a crime on the assurance of absolute secrecy and confidentially of the circumstances raising the potential question as to how such a victim can be held responsible for the crime which he would not have committed but for the enticement. Another issue that arises from such an operation is the fact that the means deployed to establish the commission of the crime itself involves a culpable act. In the U.S. a sting operation is recognized as a legal method of law enforcement in a limited manner. The same is not the position in India. A sting operation carried out in public interest has had the approval of Court in R.K. Anand v. Registrar, Delhi High Court (2009) though it will be difficult to understand the ratio in the said case as an approval of such a method as an acceptable principle of law enforcement valid in all cases. A crime does not stand obliterated or extinguished merely because its commission is claimed to be in public interest. Any such principle would be abhorrent to our criminal jurisprudence. At the same time the criminal intent behind the commission of the act will have to be established. The offence of abetment (Section 107), criminal conspiracy (Section 120A) s 354C, 354D under IPC and some provisions of the Information Technology Act, 2000 would, thus, require criminal intent

Answer: (c) Moral, ethical as well as legal questions

Answer: (d) All the above

Answer: (b) Not same

Answer: (a) not as an acceptable principle in all cases

Answer: (d) can commit offence like abetment etc

Answer: (a) 120 В

Answer: (c) B and C only

Explanation: Proximity and Impossibility theories analyze how close the accused's act was to the completion of the crime and whether impossibility of outcome negates attempt.

Answer: (c) Abhayanand Mishra V/s State of Bihar

Ans. (b) : Chapter 4, Section 105 of the Indian Penal Code 1860 deals with when the right of private defence begins and how long it continues. The present matter is related to theft. Private defence against theft continues: (1) Until the accused with the property goes out of the reach of the person, or (2) Until assistance from public authorities has been obtained, or (3) Until the property has been recovered.

Therefore in the above problem, (A) the pickpocket 'X' has already gone out of reach with the property, so 'X' cannot now take the right of private defence but cannot use private defence. Therefore (b) is correct.

Ans. (d) : The right of private defence is provided under Sections 96 to 106 of I.P.C. and Section 97 explains the circumstances under which the right of private defence is available. Section 97 provides that every person has the right to defend his own body and property and the body and property of another person.

Ans. (b) : Sections 102 and 105 of the Indian Penal Code provide that the right of private defence of body and property begins at the moment the reasonable apprehension of danger to the body from an attempt or threat to commit the offence arises, even if the offence has not been committed, and it continues as long as such apprehension of danger to the body remains.

Ans. (b) : The present problem is based on illustration (A) of section 191 of the Indian Penal Code 1860. In the present case P has given false evidence and will be punished under section 193. The following are the essential elements of the offence of giving false evidence (section 191):

(1) There should be a binding to state the truth by oath or any provision of law.

(2) Such a binding existed and a false statement was made or

(3) There must be such a statement which one does not believe to be true.

(4) Such statement should have been made in judicial proceedings.

One of the essentials of holding a person responsible for dowry death is

(a) subjected to harassment by peer groups (b) subjected to harassment for dowry (c) subjected to harassment under suspicious circumstances (d) All of them

Ans. (b) : Provision regarding dowry death has been made in section 304-B of Indian Penal Code, 1860. The following are the essential elements to hold one responsible for dowry death-

(1) Death of a woman should have occurred by bodily burns.

(2) Such death should have occurred within 7 years of marriage.

(3) Death should have occurred under abnormal circumstances.

(4) Demand for dowry should have been made by the husband or his relatives or cruelty should have been done shortly before death in connection with it.

Note- Punishment for dowry death-7 years to life imprisonment.

Fill in the gap: An act of grievous hurt is always inferred through enormity to ............... and not merely a slight more than a frolic.

(a) Murder (b) Bodily injury (c) Amputation (d) All of them

Ans. (c) : Grievous hurt has been defined in section 320 of Indian Penal Code. An act of grievous hurt is always understood through the enormity of amputation because not every bodily injury is grievous hurt, it can also be mere hurt. The act of grievous hurt is also not understood through the enormity of 'murder' because in murder a person's life ends, while in grievous hurt the person suffers bodily pain, disease or disability.

Ans. (b) : According to section 82 of Indian Penal Code nothing is an offence which is done by a child under 7 years of age. Since a child under 7 years of age is incapable of forming criminal intent, hence no act done by him will be a crime.

Ans. (c) : In the present case Z, M's apprehension causes abetment by instigation. (False representation by abetment) According to Explanation 1 of section 107 of Indian Penal Code, a person who, by knowingly misrepresenting, or by knowingly concealing, any material fact which he is bound to disclose, voluntarily causes or attempts to cause a thing to be done, is said to instigate the doing of that thing.

Ans. (a) : Non Compos Mentis means not of sound mind. When a person of unsound mind commits a crime, he is not held liable for it. Section 84 of the Indian Penal Code 1860 provides for unsoundness of mind. The McNaghten case is an important case on unsoundness of mind.

Ans. (*) : UGC has considered option 'B' as correct, which seems to be wrong because no explanation related to private defence is given in section 300 of Indian Penal Code, only exception 2 is given, which provides that if the accused, while exercising in good faith the right of private defence of body or property, exceeds the power given to him by law (sections 100 and 103) and causes the death of the person, he will be guilty of culpable homicide. Generally, this rule is that the right of private defence is available to that person whose body or property is harmed, but a person will have the right of private defence in defence of any other person's body or property. (Section 97 IPC)

Read Assertion (A) and Reason (R) and with help of code given below, point out the correct explanation

Assertion (A): Section 95 of IPC is intended to prevent penalization of negligible wrongs of trivial character because:

Reasons (B):

The injury is negligibl

The victim and the wrongdoer were related to each other

The injured and the offender were not related by cirumstancs

Ans. (a) : Section 95 of Indian Penal Code 1860 considers the act causing trivial injury as negligible and provides that nothing is an offence by reason that it causes any harm, if that harm is so slight that no person of ordinary sense and temper would complain of such harm. Therefore, it can be said that the nature of injury caused under section 95 is very minor and negligible.

Ans. (b) : The mental disorder which weakens the mental power is called unsoundness of mind. In this way, it has been provided as a criminal defence under section 84 of the Indian Penal Code, according to which nothing is an offence which is done by a person who, at the time of doing 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.

Ans. (b) : Causing the death of a person who is committing or attempting to commit house breaking at night will be called purported exercise of right of self-defence. Section 103 of Indian Penal Code provides for the extension of the right of private defence of property up to causing death. Robbery, house breaking by night, mischief by fire etc. offences come under it.

Ans. (d) : Section 84 of Indian Penal Code is related to the act of a person of unsound mind. According to it - Nothing is an offence which is done by a person who, at the time of doing 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. The case of R vs. McNaghten is an important case on this.

Ans. (d) : Sections 96 to 106 of Indian Penal Code are related to the right of private defence. According to section 99, no person has the right of private defence for an act done or attempted to be done under the direction of a public servant if such act- (i) is done in good faith (ii) the direction can be reasonably justified by law (iii) does not give rise to apprehension of death or grievous hurt from the directed act.

Ans. (b) : This is the offence of wrongful confinement. According to section 340 of Indian Penal Code- Whoever wrongfully restrains any person in such a manner as to prevent that person from proceedings beyond certain circumscribing limits, is said to "wrongfully confine" that person.

Read Assertion - I and Reason -II and with the help of codes given below decide what offence it any was committed?

Assertion (I): A and Z agree to fence with each other for a game. But because of foul, despite playing fairly, Z was injured.

Reason (II):

No offence by virtue of consent between A and Z.

Consent was obtaine in good faith to gain prize, so no offence by A.

Ans. (a) : According to section 98 of Indian Penal Code - When any act, which would otherwise be a certain offence, is not that offence, by reason of the youth, the want of maturity of understanding, the unsoundness of mind or the intoxication of the person doing that act, or by reason of any misconception on the part of that person, every person has the same right of private defence against that act which he would have if the act were that offence.

Ans. (a) : Section 95 of Indian Penal Code is related to De Minimis non curat lex, which provides that the law does not take notice of trifles.

Ans. (c) : Section 100 of the Indian Penal Code provides this that there is a possibility of a person being killed by the law - or there is a possibility of grievous hurt being caused to his body, this right empowers him to kill - the apprehension of being injured should be reasonable, merely imaginary.

Ans. (a) : Section 76 and 79 of Indian Penal Code are based on this maxim. Fact's ignorance is forgiveable, while law's ignorance is not forgiveable, on the basis of this maxim, ignorance of law is not allowed to be acquitted.

Ans. (a)

Ans. (d) : The following pair is the correct claim to benefit from the disturbed mental state-

Somnambulism

Hallucination

Ans. (c) : Where there is a reasonable apprehension of causing injury to a third party, the right of private defence is available there. Sections 96 to 106 of Indian Penal Code 1860 are related to the right of private defence. Section 97 clarifies that the right of private defence of body or property of self or any other person is obtained by any person.

Ans. (b) : The first defense of tortious liability under tort law is consent. If any act is done with the consent of a person, then no compensation can be brought for the damage caused due to such act, this is called the principle of Volenti non fit injuria, according to this, if a person harms himself by his own consent, then there is no remedy under tort law for it. Consent can be express. It can be implied too.

Ans. (d) : The principle of Quod necessitas non habet legam is applied in the circumstances of self-defence. It means that necessity does not know law. This maxim is related to section 81 of Indian Penal Code.

Ans. (d) : In the above four options, "act done against anarchy" involves the consequent prudence of conflict of interests and values in the defence of necessity.

Read Assertion (A) and Reason (R) and using the codes given below choose the appropriate answer.

Ans. (c) : The right of private defence can be exercised when an act is done in full conformity with law. According to section 99 of Indian Penal Code, where there is time to take refuge in the protection of public authorities, the right of private defence cannot be exercised there.

Ans. (d) : Delusion is a type of unsoundness of mind under which the acts done are saved because the circumstances are such that they are incompatible with the presence of the criminal state of mind. The main case related to delusion is R vs. McNaghten (1843) which is based on section 84 of IPC. According to section 84, nothing is an offence which is done by a person who, at the time of doing 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.

Ans. (b) : According to section 99(2) of Indian Penal Code- An act done under the direction of a public servant- The right of private defence is not available against any act done or attempted to be done by a person under the direction of a public servant. If the following conditions are met- (1) The act has been done or attempted to be done under the direction of a public servant. (2) The act has been done in good faith. (3) It has been done by such public servant under colour of office. (4) The act is such as not to cause reasonable apprehension of death or hurt or grievous hurt.

Ans. (c) : According to section 84 of Indian Penal Code- Nothing is an offence which is done by such a person who, at the time of doing it, by reason of unsoundness of mind, is incapable of knowing the nature of the act, or that what he is doing is either wrong or contrary to law.

Ans. (d) : The principle of Quod necessitas non habet legam is applied in the circumstances of self-defence. It means that necessity does not know law. This maxim is related to section 81 of Indian Penal Code.

Ans. (d) : In the above four options, "act done against anarchy" involves the consequent prudence of conflict of interests and values in the defence of necessity.

Read Assertion (A) and Reason (R) and using the codes given below choose the appropriate answer.

Ans. (c) : The right of private defence can be exercised when an act is done in full conformity with law. According to section 99 of Indian Penal Code, where there is time to take refuge in the protection of public authorities, the right of private defence cannot be exercised there.

Ans. (d) : Delusion is a type of unsoundness of mind under which the acts done are saved because the circumstances are such that they are incompatible with the presence of the criminal state of mind. The main case related to delusion is R vs. McNaghten (1843) which is based on section 84 of IPC. According to section 84, nothing is an offence which is done by a person who, at the time of doing 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.

Ans. (b) : According to section 99(2) of Indian Penal Code- An act done under the direction of a public servant- The right of private defence is not available against any act done or attempted to be done by a person under the direction of a public servant. If the following conditions are met- (1) The act has been done or attempted to be done under the direction of a public servant. (2) The act has been done in good faith. (3) It has been done by such public servant under colour of office. (4) The act is such as not to cause reasonable apprehension of death or hurt or grievous hurt.

Ans. (c) : According to section 84 of Indian Penal Code- Nothing is an offence which is done by such a person who, at the time of doing it, by reason of unsoundness of mind, is incapable of knowing the nature of the act, or that what he is doing is either wrong or contrary to law.

Ans. (b) : The present assertion is based on Section 84 of the Indian Penal Code. According to Section 84, nothing is an offence which is done by a person who at the time of doing it is incapable of knowing the exact nature of the act due to unsoundness of mind. Mistake of fact is a defence described in Sections 76 and 79 of the Indian Penal Code. An act done due to mistake of fact is not an offence. Therefore, both A and R are correct but R is not the correct explanation of A.

Ans. (d) : A has committed the offence of murder. The right of private defence can be exercised only under Section 99. A will be guilty of murder for having exceeded the limits of the right of private defence.

Ans. (a) : The Supreme Court in Deo Narain v. State of U.P. case said - "As soon as a reasonable apprehension of risk to the body arises, the right of private defence of the body of that person begins and it continues as long as the apprehension of danger persists." (Under Section 102 of the Indian Penal Code.)

Ans. (b) : The present assertion is based on Section 84 of the Indian Penal Code. According to Section 84 - any act done by a person who at the time of doing such act, due to unsoundness of mind, is unable to know the consequences of it.

According to Ignorantia facit excusat, Ignorantia juris non execusat, mistake of fact is a good defence, while mistake of law is not a defence. This Latin maxim is based on Sections 76 and 79 of the Indian Penal Code.

Ans. (b) : Section 84 of the Indian Penal Code provides a defence for acts done by a person of unsound mind, according to which, nothing is an offence which is done by a person who, at the time of doing it, by reason of unsoundness of mind, is incapable of knowing the nature of the act or that what he is doing is either wrong or contrary to law. This is related to R. v. M'Naghten 1843.

Ans. (d) : Under the effect of Section 76 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860, in the present problem 'A' has not committed any offence. According to Section 76, nothing is an offence which is done by a person who is bound by law to do it, or who, by reason of a mistake of fact and not by reason of a mistake of law, in good faith believes himself to be bound by law to do it. The present problem is based on illustration (b) of Section 76.

Ans. (c) : Under Section 102 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860, the right of private defence of the body commences as soon as a reasonable apprehension of danger to the body arises from an attempt or threat to commit the offence though the offence may not have been committed, and it continues as long as such apprehension of danger to the body continues.

Section 100 - When the right of private defence of the body extends to causing death.

Section 103 - When the right of private defence of property extends to causing death.

Section 106 - Right of private defence against deadly assault when there is risk of harm to innocent person.

Ans. (b) : The correct matching is as follows: A. An act done in good faith for the benefit of a person without consent - Section 92 B. Dishonest or fraudulent execution of the deed of transfer containing false statements of consideration - Section 423 C. Voluntarily causing grievous hurt by use of acid etc. - Section 326-A D. Theft by clerk or servant of property in possession of master - Section 381

Answer: (c) 4 3 2 1

Answer: (d) A, B and E only

Answer: (b) Section 100 and 103 only

Answer: (a) (A), (B), (C) Only

Answer: (a) No offence at all

Explanation: Under Section 84 IPC and Section 21 BNS, 2023, a person of unsound mind is exempted from criminal liability due to lack of mens rea.

Answer: (b) A-III, B-IV, C-I, D-II

Explanation: Matching each General Exception from List I to its corresponding section under the Indian Penal Code (IPC), 1860 in List II:

• A. Act of a child under seven years of age III. Section 82 of IPC:

Section 82 incorporates the absolute doctrine of Doli Incapax, stating that nothing is an offence which is done by a child under seven years of age.

• B. Act likely to cause harm, done without criminal intent, and to prevent other harm IV. Section 81 of IPC:

Section 81 embodies the Doctrine of Necessity, protecting acts done without criminal intention to prevent other greater harm to person or property.

• C. Mistake of fact I. Section 76 of IPC:

Section 76 protects a person who does an act bound by law, or who by reason of a mistake of fact (and not mistake of law) in good faith believes himself to be bound by law.

• D. Act of a person incapable of judgment by reason of intoxication caused against his will II. Section 85 of IPC:

Section 85 covers involuntary intoxication, protecting acts committed by a person who at the time of doing it was incapable of knowing the nature of the act due to intoxication administered without his knowledge or against his will.

Ans. (c) : The correct matching is as follows: (A) Grave and sudden provocation — Exception I to Section 300 IPC (B) Death caused by sudden quarrel — Exception IV to Section 300 IPC (C) Death caused by consent — Exception V to Section 300 IPC (D) Exceeding right of private defence — Exception II to Section 300 IPC

Ans. (c) : According to Section 377 of I.P.C., buggery is an offence of depravity against the natural order of sex. Section 377 was declared unconstitutional in the case of Navtej Singh Johar v. Union of India (2018) S.C. with respect to depravity against the natural order of sex.

Ans. (d) : Section 340 of I.P.C. defines wrongful confinement whose elements are as follows: (a) Wrongful restraint of a person. (b) Such restraint prevents the person from going beyond certain limits.

Ans. (d) : Liability for culpable homicide can be fixed if death is caused by effect of words if: (1) it results in excitement, (2) if the anticipated consequence becomes the result, and (3) by continuous torture instead of avoiding suffering.

Ans. (d) : The definition of the offence of wrongful confinement is given in Section 340 of the Indian Penal Code 1860 and punishment for it is provided in Section 342. The essential elements of the offence of wrongful confinement: (A) There must be wrongful restraint of a person (B) Such restraint prevents the person from going beyond certain fixed limits (C) The restraint must be complete.

Ans. (a) : Criminal homicide has been clarified under section 299 of Indian Penal Code 1860. According to Explanation I of this section- The person, who causes bodily harm to another person suffering from any disorder, disease or infirmity and thereby accelerates his death, is said to have caused his death.

Ans. (c) : Murder is defined under section 300 of Indian Penal Code. According to clause 3 of this section, if any injury is caused with the intention of causing bodily harm to someone and that bodily harm is sufficient to cause death in the ordinary course of nature, then such person causing harm shall be guilty of 'murder'.

Ans. (d) : Grievous hurt is described in section 320 of Indian Penal Code. According to this section 8 types of hurt are considered grievous. According to clause 8 of section 320, any hurt which endangers life or due to which the injured person remains in severe bodily pain for 20 days or is unable to do his ordinary work is a grievous hurt.

Ans. (b) : According to section 339 of Indian Penal Code if any person obstructs in such a way that the other person is prevented from going in the direction in which he has the legal right to go, then he wrongfully restrains.

Ans. (c) : The offence of culpable homicide presupposes knowledge of the possibility of causing death. The offence of culpable homicide is defined in section 299 of the Indian Penal Code. It is punishable under section 309. In culpable homicide there is only an imagination of the possibility of murder, whereas in murder there is full possibility of causing death. This is an important difference between murder and culpable homicide.

Ans. (a) : Defamation is both a tort and a punishable offence. That is, civil and punitive proceedings can be done together. Section 499 to 502 of Indian Penal Code is related to defamation. Ten exceptions are described in it. According to the fourth exception of section 499, publication of reports of court proceedings will not be considered defamation.

Read Assertion I and Reason II and with the help of codes given below point out the correct explanation

Ans. (d) : Section 299 of Indian Penal Code 1860 defines culpable homicide and section 300 defines murder. According to clause one of section 300, culpable homicide is murder if the act by which the death is caused is done with the intention of causing death. According to clause three of section 300, if culpable homicide is done with the intention of causing bodily injury to any person and the bodily injury intended to be inflicted is sufficient in the ordinary course of nature to cause death.

Ans. (b) : Section 328 of Indian Penal Code provides for causing hurt by means of poison etc. with intent to commit an offence. According to it, administering of unwholesome drug is strictly punishable under law even though no hurt is caused by it.

Ans. (a) : Section 299 of Indian Penal Code 1860 defines culpable homicide. According to the first exception of section 300, culpable homicide is not murder when the offender is deprived of the power of self-control by grave and sudden provocation.

Ans. (*) : Section 324 of Indian Penal Code 1860 provides for voluntarily causing hurt by dangerous weapons or means, while section 326 provides for voluntarily causing grievous hurt by dangerous weapons or means. This section 319 defines hurt. Note- All options are wrong. UGC has considered option 'c' as correct.

Ans. (d) : This is the offence of wrongful restraint. Wrongful restraint is defined in section 339 of Indian Penal Code 1860, according to which whoever voluntarily obstructs any person so as to prevent that person from proceeding in any direction in which that person has a right to proceed, is said wrongfully to restrain that person.

Match the statement that mens rea is a loose term of elastic significance with that of the meaning in sequential order.

Foresight of the consequences of the act

Criminal intention of deepest dye

An act which is visible

It depends upon knowledge and belief

Ans. (b) : The present problem is based on the case of Indu Beg, in this case there was some argument between the accused and his wife, during which he was hit hard on the left side of his body. As a result of this blow, he vomited many times and started bleeding from the nose, due to the injury, his death occurred after about an hour, during the post-mortem it was found that his death was due to rupture of the spleen. Hence, the accused was held guilty of grievous hurt.

Ans. (b) : According to sections 319 and 351 of Indian Penal Code, the offence will come under both hurt and assault. To pour boiling water on a person - throwing boiling water in a sequence is assault and as soon as the boiling water falls on the body, it is the offence of hurt.

Ans. (a) : Section 299 of IPC is the third category culpable homicide and section 300 is the fourth category of murder is concurrent. The words written in the third paragraph of Section 299 - With this knowledge that he will cause death by that act and it is probable that according to the fourth clause of Section 300, if the person doing the act knows that the act is so imminently dangerous that it must in all probability cause death, and is done without any excuse for the risk of causing death. It is clear from both these that 299 (3) and 300 (4) are concurrent to each other.

Ans. (a) : This assertion is true that 'Section 304 A' refers to those offences which are outside the area of articles 299 and 300 because it considers those acts in which neither intention nor knowledge has any entry. Section 304-A of Indian Penal Code is related to causing death by negligence.

Ans. (b) : According to section 350 of Indian Penal Code, 1860 - Force becomes criminal force if - (1) It is used to commit any offence, without the consent of the person against whom the offence is committed, or (2) If it is used with the intention of causing injury, fear or annoyance to any person. Under section 351, it is not necessary that any actual hurt should be caused to make the structure of assault. It can be created by mere threatening, it is necessary that the next person has the apprehension in his mind that criminal force is about to be used on him.

Read Assertion (A) and Reason (R) and using the codes given below write the correct answer.

Ans. (b) : Wrongful confinement is defined in section 340 of Indian Penal Code. According to which, whoever wrongfully restrains any person in such a manner as to prevent that person from proceedings beyond certain circumscribing limits, wrongfully confines that person. Malice is not an essential element of the offence of wrongful confinement.

Ans. (a) : This assertion is true that 'Section 304 A' refers to those offences which are outside the area of articles 299 and 300 because it considers those acts in which neither intention nor knowledge has any entry. Section 304-A of Indian Penal Code is related to causing death by negligence.

Ans. (b) : According to section 350 of Indian Penal Code, 1860 - Force becomes criminal force if - (1) It is used to commit any offence, without the consent of the person against whom the offence is committed, or (2) If it is used with the intention of causing injury, fear or annoyance to any person. Under section 351, it is not necessary that any actual hurt should be caused to make the structure of assault. It can be created by mere threatening, it is necessary that the next person has the apprehension in his mind that criminal force is about to be used on him.

Read Assertion (A) and Reason (R) and using the codes given below write the correct answer.

Ans. (b) : Wrongful confinement is defined in section 340 of Indian Penal Code. According to which, whoever wrongfully restrains any person in such a manner as to prevent that person from proceedings beyond certain circumscribing limits, wrongfully confines that person. Malice is not an essential element of the offence of wrongful confinement.

Ans. (a) : Section 356

Explanation: Under Section 356 of the Indian Penal Code, dealing with assault or use of criminal force in attempting to commit theft of property. According to Section 356 — "Whoever assaults or uses criminal force on any person in attempting to commit theft of any property which that person is then wearing or carrying, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to two years, or with fine, or with both."

Ans. (c) : Culpable homicide not amounting to murder

Explanation: The present problem is based on Exception 1 to Section 300 of the Indian Penal Code. According to Exception 1 of Section 300 — Culpable homicide is not murder if the offender, whilst deprived of the power of self-control by grave and sudden provocation, causes the death of the person who gave the provocation or causes the death of any other person by mistake or accident. That is, Y will be punished under Section 304.

Match List-I with List-II and give the correct answer by using the code given below:

List-I/सूची-I A. Dishonest taking of property B. Dishonestly inducing any person to deliver property C. Entrustment of property D. Conversion of property

List-II/सूची-II

Criminal breach of Trust

Extortion

Criminal Misappropriation

Ans. (a) : The present problem is based on illustration (b) of Section 330 of the Indian Penal Code. According to Section 330, whoever voluntarily causes hurt for the purpose of extorting confession or any information which may lead to the detection of an offence, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to seven years, and shall also be liable to fine.

Ans. (d) : The present problem is based on Section 312 of the Indian Penal Code, according to which, whoever voluntarily causes a woman with child to miscarry, shall, if such miscarriage be not caused in good faith for the purpose of saving the life of the woman, be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to three years, or with fine, or with both.

Answer: (b) Section 302 of IPC

Answer: (b) A-II, B-IV, C-III, D-I

Explanation: These are the established exceptions to murder under IPC. Each matches its respective clause correctly.

Answer: (a) Both A and R are correct and R is the correct explantion of A

Answer: (c) Question of fact

Answer: (b) A-II, B-I, C-III, D-IV

Ans. (c) : According to section 124-A of Indian Penal Code, the following are the essential elements of sedition- (1) Creating or attempting to create hatred or contempt or disaffection against the Government of India. (2) Such act or attempt, may be done in the following manner- (a) By spoken or written words (b) By signs (c) By visible representation

Ans. (c) : According to section 124-A of Indian Penal Code, the following are the essential elements of sedition- (1) Creating or attempting to create hatred or contempt or disaffection against the Government of India. (2) Such act or attempt, may be done in the following manner- (a) By spoken or written words (b) By signs (c) By visible representation

Ans. (d) : Section 124-A of the Indian Penal Code provides for the offence of sedition, according to this section, whoever by words, spoken or written, or by signs, or by visible representation, brings or attempts to bring into hatred or contempt, or excites or attempts to excite disaffection towards the Government established by law in India, shall be punished with imprisonment for life to which fine may be added, or with imprisonment which may extend to three years to which fine may be added.

Ans. (c) : Sedition is defined under Section 124A of the Indian Penal Code, 1860. According to it, whoever by words spoken or written, or by signs, or by visible representation, or otherwise, brings or attempts to bring into hatred or contempt, or excites or attempts to excite disaffection towards the Government established by law in India, shall be punished with imprisonment for life, to which fine may be added, or with imprisonment which may extend to three years, to which fine may be added, or with fine.

According to Section 121 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860, whoever wages war against the Government of India, or attempts to wage such war, or abets the waging of such war, shall be punished with death, or imprisonment for life, and shall also be liable to fine.

In the case of Kedarnath Singh v. State of Bihar (1962 SC), the Supreme Court upheld Section 124A and refused to declare it unconstitutional. But the Court set the limits of this section, holding that mere criticism of the government cannot be considered sedition.

Answer: (b) Section 152

Explanation: Section 152 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 replaces the sedition clause (124A IPC) with a more targeted provision addressing threats to national unity and sovereignty.

Answer: (d) B, A, D, C

Explanation: The question requires arranging the offences against the State under Chapter VI of the Indian Penal

Code (IPC), 1860 in ascending order of their statutory section numbers:

• B. Waging, or attempting to wage war against the Government of India: Section 121

• A. Sedition: Section 124A

• D. Waging war against any Asiatic power in alliance with the Government of India:

Section 125

• C. Public Servant voluntarily allowing prisoner of State or war to escape: Section 128 Arranging these sections strictly in ascending numerical order:

Ans. (a) : The definition of theft is given in Section 378 of the Indian Penal Code (1860) whose illustration (O) shows that if 'A', knowing that the wife is not entitled to give valuable property to him, still takes it, then he commits theft.

Ans. (a) : In the present case 'A' is not guilty of theft. Since A is a joint owner along with B and C, and he merely removed the property. There is an absence of dishonest intention here. All the necessary conditions for theft are not fulfilled here. Criminal misappropriation will not be committed because criminal misappropriation occurs when someone takes possession of property belonging to others for their own benefit. Here breach of trust also will not be committed because the condition of A's trust has not been violated.

Ans. (c) : Loosing wrongfully means that a person is wrongfully separated from his property. Wrongful loss and wrongful gain are defined in Section 23 of the Indian Penal Code.

Ans. (c) : Robbery is defined in section 390 of Indian Penal Code, according to this section in all kinds of robbery there is either theft or extortion. Extortion is robbery if the offender at the time of doing so puts the person in fear of instant death, instant hurt or instant wrongful restraint of himself or any other person, and thereby induces the person so put in fear to deliver the thing then and there. Thus in the present problem M is guilty of robbery.

Ans. (a) : Provision regarding criminal breach of trust has been made from section 405 to 409 of Indian Penal Code. The offence of criminal breach of trust is connected with entrustment.

Ans. (c) : Cheating means deceiving dishonestly by inducing a person to retain the property. Section 415 of IPC 1860 defines cheating. According to section 417, the punishment for cheating is imprisonment up to 1 year or fine or both.

Ans. (c) : According to section 403 of Indian Penal Code 1860, whoever dishonestly misappropriates or converts to his own use any movable property, shall be guilty of misappropriation and shall be punished with imprisonment which may extend to two years, or with fine, or with both.

Read Assertion I and Reason II and with the help of codes given below point out the correct explanation.

Ans. (a) : According to section 383 of Indian Penal Code, whoever intentionally puts any person in fear of any injury to that person, or to any other, and thereby dishonestly induces the person so put in fear to deliver to any person any property or valuable security, or anything signed or sealed which may be converted into a valuable security, commits "extortion".

Read Assertion I and Reason II and with the help of codes given below find out the correct explanation.

Ans. (c) : Extortion is robbery when it is committed by showing fear of instant hurt. Section 383 of Indian Penal Code defines extortion. Section 390 defines robbery.

Ans. (c) : Extortion is defined in section 383 of Indian Penal Code 1860. The intense form of extortion is robbery. Robbery is defined in section 390. It can be done by robbery, theft or extortion. Extortion is robbery if it is done by showing fear of instant hurt and the offender is required to be present near the person put in fear. The thing extorted has been delivered.

Ans. (a) : According to section 404 of Indian Penal Code 1860 - whoever dishonestly misappropriates or converts to his own use property, knowing that such property was in the possession of a deceased person at the time of that person's decease, and has not since been in the possession of any person legally entitled to such possession, shall be punished with imprisonment for a term which may extend to three years, or with fine, or with both.

Ans. (b) : According to section 425 of Indian Penal Code, mischief has been defined as- Whoever with intent to cause, or knowing that he is likely to cause, wrongful loss or damage to the public or to any person, causes the destruction of any property, or any such change in any property or in the situation thereof as destroys or diminishes its value or utility, or affects it injuriously, commits "mischief". Section 426 provides for imprisonment of 3 months or fine or both.

Ans. (c) : The present problem is based on section 425 of Indian Penal Code which defines mischief, according to which whoever with intent to cause, or knowing that he is likely to cause, wrongful loss or damage to the public or to any person, causes the destruction of any property, or any such change in any property or in the situation thereof as destroys or diminishes its value or utility, or affects it injuriously, commits mischief.

Ans. (b) : Section 24 of Indian Penal Code defines 'dishonestly'. For an offence committed dishonestly, it is necessary to cause wrongful gain or wrongful loss and not to commit the offence by deception or concealment.

Ans. (c) : According to section 378 of Indian Penal Code, the following are the essential elements of theft- (1) Intention to take property dishonestly (2) The property be movable (3) The property has been taken from the possession of another person (4) The property has been taken without the consent of the other person (5) Some movement of it from its place is necessary to take it. On the satisfaction of the above elements, the offence of theft takes place. The offence of theft is against movable property, the idol of Durga, cooking gas, forgotten umbrella etc. come under movable property, but running electricity does not come under it.

Ans. (b) : Section 405 of Indian Penal Code defines criminal breach of trust and section 406 provides for punishment. The following are the essential elements of criminal breach of trust under section 405- (1) A person has entrusted any property or any interest in property (2) The person having dominion over the property- (A) Has dishonestly misappropriated or converted to his own use that property. (B) Violates any legal contract entered into by him regarding the discharge of such trust. (C) Dishonestly chose that property. It is clear from the above definition that (A) is true and (R) is wrong.

Ans. (c)

Ans. (c) : According to section 378 of Indian Penal Code 1860, it is theft because the object of X's right was taken without his consent. Even though X had stolen that mobile phone from his master's house. Theft is an offence against possession.

Ans. (b) : To convert extortion into robbery, it is not important that the person threatening should be present there or far away. Section 383 of Indian Penal Code defines extortion and section 390 defines robbery. The offence of robbery is the intense form of theft or extortion. The above statement in the context of robbery 'it is not important that the threatening person should be present there or far away' is wrong because as per the explanation of section 390 of Indian Penal Code, at the time of committing the offence of robbery the accused needs to be close enough to put another in fear. Therefore, even for robbery the presence of the accused person is required. Because robbery is the intense form of robbery.

Ans. (a) : In the case of Tulsi Ram vs. State of Uttar Pradesh, the Supreme Court said that there are two facts of the definition of dishonesty and it is enough to establish the existence of any one of them. There is no need in law to bring both into existence. Dishonesty has been defined in section 24 of Indian Penal Code. Dishonestly means doing an act with the intention that a person will cause wrongful gain or wrongful loss. Therefore, any act will be done dishonestly if it has the intention of causing gain or loss to a person.

Ans. (a) : Section 378 of Indian Penal Code defines the offence of theft. Whose elements are as follows- (1) Intention to take property dishonestly (2) The property be movable (3) The property be taken from the possession of another person (4) The property be taken without the consent of the other person (5) Such property is moved from its place for taking it.

Ans. (c) : In the present problem A has committed the offence of theft. Theft is defined in section 378. The present problem A has acted dishonestly. The following are the essential elements- (i) Intention to take property dishonestly (ii) The property be movable (iii) The property be taken from the possession of another person (iv) The property be taken without the consent of the other person (v) The property be moved from its place.

Ans. (b) : Section 290 of Indian Penal Code defines robbery and theft in the present problem becomes robbery when- (i) any person voluntarily of any person (ii) Death, hurt or wrongful restraint or (iii) Causes or attempts to cause instant death, instant hurt or instant wrongful restraint, in order to fulfill the purpose of carrying away the property to be acquired by stealing, or in stealing, or by stealing. In the present problem, criminal misappropriation will be the offence under the provisions contained in section 404.

Ans. (a) : Section 362 of Indian Penal Code, 1860 has been defined. For abduction it is necessary that (1) To compel any person to go from any place by force or (2) Induce by means of deceit. Therefore, if a married woman herself gives consent to her abduction, then there will be no criminal liability of the woman because that act has not been done in a deceitful manner.

Ans. (a) : Section 362 of Indian Penal Code, 1860 has been defined. For abduction it is necessary that (1) To compel any person to go from any place by force or (2) Induce by means of deceit. Therefore, if a married woman herself gives consent to her abduction, then there will be no criminal liability of the woman because that act has not been done in a deceitful manner.

Ans. (b) : A. Dishonest taking of property - Theft (Section 378) B. Dishonestly inducing any person to deliver property - Extortion (Section 383) C. Entrustment of property - Criminal breach of trust (Section 405) D. Conversion of property - Criminal misappropriation (Section 403)

Ans. (a) : The present problem is based on Section 405 of the Indian Penal Code, according to which the essential elements of this offence are - (1) Property was entrusted to the person (2) He dishonestly misappropriated the property (3) Or converted it to his own use (4) Such use was in violation of any direction of law or any legal contract regarding such trust.

Ans. (b) : Theft has been defined under Section 378 of the Indian Penal Code 1860. The essential elements for the offence of theft are -

Movable property.

The property must be in the possession of a person.

Taking away without the consent of the owner of the property.

Taking the property with dishonest intention and

The property must be moved.

To constitute the offence of kidnapping from lawful guardianship under Section 361 of Indian Penal Code the age of the minor should be

Under eighteen years if male

Under sixteen years if male

Under eighteen years if female

Ans. (b) : According to Section 15 of the Indian Contract Act, 1872, "Coercion" is the committing, or threatening to commit, any act forbidden by the Indian Penal Code, or the unlawful detaining, or threatening to detain, any property, to the prejudice of any person whatever, with the intention of causing any person to enter into an agreement.

Ans. (d) : The chronological order of sections of the Indian Penal Code is as follows: B. Section 449 - House-trespass in order to commit offence punishable with death A. Section 450 - House-trespass in order to commit offence punishable with imprisonment for life D. Section 451 - House-trespass in order to commit offence punishable with imprisonment C. Section 454 - Lurking house-trespass or house-breaking in order to commit offence punishable with imprisonment E. Section 457 - Lurking house-trespass or house-breaking by night in order to commit offence punishable with imprisonment

Ans. (d) : Section 384 of the Indian Penal Code provides for punishment for extortion. According to Section 384, whoever commits extortion shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to three years, or with fine, or with both.

According to Section 403 of this Code, whoever dishonestly misappropriates or converts to his own use any movable property, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to two years, or with fine, or with both.

Given below are two statements, one is labelled as Assertion A and the other is labelled as Reason R:

Assertion A: Whoever assaults or uses criminal force on any person, in attempting to commit theft on any property which that person is then wearing or carrying. Shall be punished with with both.

Reason R: Section 356 of Indian Penal Code provides for the punishment of imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to two years, or with fine, or with both if a person assaults or uses criminal force on any person in attempting to commit theft or any property which that person is then wearing or carrying.

Ans. (a) : According to Section 356 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860, whoever assaults or uses criminal force on any person in attempting to commit theft on any property which that person is then wearing or carrying, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to two years, or with fine, or with both.

Thus both Assertion (A) and Reason (R) are correct and Reason (R) is the correct explanation of Assertion (A).

Ans. (b) : Theft is defined under Section 378 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860. According to it, whoever, intending to take dishonestly any movable property out of the possession of any person without that person's consent, moves that property in order to such taking, is said to commit theft.

Extortion is defined under Section 383 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860. Section 384 provides for its punishment, according to which, whoever commits extortion shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to three years, or with fine, or with both.

Dacoity is defined under Section 391 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860. According to it, when five or more persons conjointly commit or attempt to commit a robbery, or where the whole number of persons conjointly committing or attempting to commit a robbery, and persons present and aiding such commission or attempt, amount to five or more, every person so committing, attempting or aiding, is said to "commit dacoity".

The punishment for dacoity is provided in Section 395.

Robbery is defined in Section 390 and punishment is provided in Section 392.

So statements (A), (B) and (D) are correct.

Answer: (c) A, C, D and E only

Answer: (a) A, B and D only

Answer: (c) (A)-(III), (B)-(IV), (C)-(I), (D)-(II)

Answer: (d) (D), (C), (E), (B), (A)

Ans. (c) : Illicit intercourse refers to the situation where sexual relations occur between two persons not united by lawful marriage.

Ans. (d) : According to Section 375 of I.P.C., sex with a girl with fraudulent consent falls under the offence of rape. Physical assault is punishable under Section 352 of the Indian Penal Code. Outraging modesty of a woman is punishable under Section 354 of the Indian Penal Code. Molestation of a woman is punishable under Section 509 of the Indian Penal Code.

Ans. (b) : According to Section 362 of I.P.C., the elements of abduction are: (1) Compelling or inducing a person by force or deceitful means (2) Such compulsion or inducement has the purpose of taking the person from some place.

Wrongful confinement (Section 340) in its aggravated form is called abduction.

Ans. (d) : According to Section 304-B of I.P.C. — where the death of a woman is caused by burns or bodily injury or occurs under abnormal circumstances within seven years of her marriage and it is shown that she was subjected to cruelty or harassment by her husband or any relative of her husband for any demand of dowry or in connection with it, such death is called dowry death.

Ans. (b) : If there is a bonafide reason to believe that the spouse has died, then in such a situation the law of bigamy does not apply. In such a situation the husband/wife can marry and shall not be punishable. Bigamy is declared an offence under Section 494 of the Indian Penal Code.

Ans. (c) : An act that involves bare solicitation of customers in public places is an act in prostitution that becomes a cause of public nuisance. Section 268 of the Indian Penal Code relates to public nuisance.

Ans. (a) : Enticing a minor girl is considered kidnapping. It is a punishable offence under Section 363 of the Indian Penal Code.

Ans. (d) : According to section 366A whoever, by any means whatsoever, induces any girl under the age of 18 years to go from any place with the intent that she may be forced or seduced to illicit intercourse with another person shall be punishable with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to ten years, and shall also be liable to fine.

Ans. (b) : The expression 'seduced' as used in section 366 of the Indian Penal Code means to deceitfully induce a woman to submit to illicit intercourse at any time. This act is referred to as 'seduction of an unaged girl' under section 166A, if it is done with a girl under the age of 18 years.

Preparation consists in devising or arranging means necessary for the commission of the offence. Such attempt is not punishable because.

Ans. (b) : In the present case, the father has committed the offence of kidnapping. According to section 361 of the Indian Penal Code, whoever takes or entices any minor under sixteen years of age if a male, or under eighteen years of age if a female, or any person of unsound mind, out of the keeping of the lawful guardian of such minor or person of unsound mind, without the consent of such guardian, is said to kidnap such minor or person from lawful guardianship.

Ans. (c) : Gang rape is a punishable offence under section 376-D of the Indian Penal Code. This offence is committed by men. The victim of this crime is a woman.

Ans. (d) : Section 497 of Indian Penal Code provides for the offence of adultery, but the Supreme Court has declared this section unconstitutional in the case of Joseph Shine, hence now it is not an offence.

Ans. (d) : According to section 361 of Indian Penal Code 1860, whoever takes or entices any minor under sixteen years of age if a male, or under eighteen years of age if a female, or any person of unsound mind, out of the lawful guardianship, is said to be guilty of kidnapping.

Ans. (a) : Given "Assertion I" is correct but not with "Reason II" because the offence of bigamy is related to strict liability, hence the consent of the wife or husband of the victim does not grant immunity from the offence of bigamy. Section 494 of Indian Penal Code is related to remarriage during the lifetime of husband or wife. Adultery is related to section 497.

Read Assertion I and Reason II and with the help of codes given below point out the correct explanation.

Ans. (b) : Section 304B of Indian Penal Code is related to dowry death which was inserted by 1986 amendment. Conditions for application of section 304B- (1) Death of a woman should have been caused by burns or bodily injury (2) It should have occurred within seven years of marriage in other than normal circumstances (3) Cruelty should have been done by her husband or husband's relative before death. Explanation- The meaning of dowry is the same as in section 2 of Dowry Prohibition Act 1961.

Ans. (b) : According to the sixth clause of section 375 of Indian Penal Code 1860, with or without the consent of a woman, when she is below 18 years of age, if anyone has intercourse, then he commits the offence of rape. Therefore, 'B' will be guilty of the offence of rape.

Ans. (b) : A man making physical contact with a woman with an unwelcome sexual proposition will be guilty of sexual harassment for soliciting sexual relations as per section 354(1)(i) of Indian Penal Code. (Inserted by the Amendment Act, 2013)

Ans. (b)

Ans. (a) : In Ravindra vs. M.P. State (2015), the Supreme Court has made it clear that compromise for any survivor of rape is not a free choice, rather it is an unspoken secret of law, where justice is reduced and becomes a deal between the victim's relative, state authority and the accused.

Ans. (c) : According to section 317 of IPC, when a child under twelve years of age is left unprotected and abandoned by a mother or a person taking care of him, then under such circumstances he will be punished with imprisonment of seven years and fine. Under this, a school master who is teaching the infants placed under him for education, will be included under this section.

Ans. (c) : In a judgment given by the High Court or the Supreme Court on the basis of social oppression or (ostracism), it has been considered that revealing the identity of the victim party through the newspaper or publication will not be considered punishable.

Given below are two statements, one labeled as Assertion (A) and the other labeled as Reason (R). Read the statements and choose the correct answer using the code given below:

Ans. (a) : In any case of attempted rape, there must be such an unlawful assault or act, which the victim has opposed in any way. There should be such an act that shows that he (man) wanted to have sexual relations with her (woman). The attempt to rape will be punishable under section 511 of Indian Penal Code.

Ans. (c) : A married woman giving consent to her abduction does not have any criminal liability of the woman because that act has not been done in a deceitful manner.

Ans. (d) : Section 509 of Indian Penal Code, 1860 makes such acts punishable - words, gestures or acts which are intended to insult the modesty of a woman. Section 506 provides for punishment for criminal intimidation. Section 507- Criminal intimidation by anonymous communication. Section 508- An act done by causing a person to believe that he will be subjected to divine displeasure.

Ans. (a) : According to section 366-B of Indian Penal Code, whoever imports any girl below the age of 21 years from any country outside India or from the State of Jammu and Kashmir, with intent to compel or induce her to have illicit intercourse with any other person, or knowing it to be likely that she will be so compelled or induced, shall be punishable with imprisonment which may extend to 10 years, and shall also be liable to fine.

Ans. (c) : In a judgment given by the High Court or the Supreme Court on the basis of social oppression or (ostracism), it has been considered that revealing the identity of the victim party through the newspaper or publication will not be considered punishable.

Given below are two statements, one labeled as Assertion (A) and the other labeled as Reason (R). Read the statements and choose the correct answer using the code given below:

Ans. (a) : In any case of attempted rape, there must be such an unlawful assault or act, which the victim has opposed in any way. There should be such an act that shows that he (man) wanted to have sexual relations with her (woman). The attempt to rape will be punishable under section 511 of Indian Penal Code.

Ans. (c) : A married woman giving consent to her abduction does not have any criminal liability of the woman because that act has not been done in a deceitful manner.

Ans. (d) : Section 509 of Indian Penal Code, 1860 makes such acts punishable - words, gestures or acts which are intended to insult the modesty of a woman. Section 506 provides for punishment for criminal intimidation. Section 507- Criminal intimidation by anonymous communication. Section 508- An act done by causing a person to believe that he will be subjected to divine displeasure.

Ans. (a) : According to section 366-B of Indian Penal Code, whoever imports any girl below the age of 21 years from any country outside India or from the State of Jammu and Kashmir, with intent to compel or induce her to have illicit intercourse with any other person, or knowing it to be likely that she will be so compelled or induced, shall be punishable with imprisonment which may extend to 10 years, and shall also be liable to fine.

Ans. (a) : The present problem is based on Section 366-B of the Indian Penal Code. According to Section 366-B, if any person imports into India from any country outside India or from the State of Jammu and Kashmir a girl with the intention that she may be forced or seduced to illicit intercourse with another person, he shall be punished with imprisonment which may extend to ten years.

Therefore both A and R are correct and R is the correct explanation of A.

Given below are two statements, one labeled as Assertion (A) and the other labeled as Reason (R). Read the statements and choose the correct answer using the code given below:

Ans. (c) : Section 361 of the Indian Penal Code 1860 relates to kidnapping from lawful guardianship. According to which, for the constitution of this offence, the age of the minor should be as follows - (1) Under 16 years in case of being male, (2) Under 18 years in case of being female.

Ans. (d) : According to Section 361 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860, whoever takes or entices any minor under sixteen years of age if a male, or under eighteen years of age if a female, or any person of unsound mind, out of the keeping of the lawful guardian of such minor or person of unsound mind, without the consent of such guardian, is said to kidnap such minor or person from lawful guardianship.

Ans. (a) : Section 372 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 provides for 'selling minor for purposes of prostitution, etc'.

Section 373 - Buying minor for purposes of prostitution etc. Section 371 - Habitual dealing in slaves. Section 370-A - Exploitation of a trafficked person.

Ans. (c) : Section 376DB of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 provides for punishment for gang rape on a woman under twelve years of age, Section 376DA provides for punishment for gang rape on a woman under sixteen years of age and Section 376AB provides for punishment for rape on a woman under twelve years of age.

The above sections have been inserted by the Criminal Law (Amendment) Act, 2018.

Section 376-A provides for punishment for causing death or resulting in persistent vegetative state of victim (substituted by the Criminal Law (Amendment) Act, 2013).

Ans. (d) : Stalking is defined under Section 354D of the Indian Penal Code, 1860. According to Section 354D(1), any man who—

(1) follows a woman and contacts, or attempts to contact such woman to foster personal interaction repeatedly despite a clear indication of disinterest by such woman; or

(2) monitors the use by a woman of the internet, email or any other form of electronic communication, commits the offence of stalking.

Section 354 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 provides for assault or use of criminal force with intent to outrage a woman's modesty and its punishment.

Section 354A of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 provides for sexual harassment and punishment for sexual harassment.

According to Section 354A(1)(iii), a man showing pornography against the will of a woman shall be guilty of the offence of sexual harassment.

Section 354B of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 provides for assault or use of criminal force to woman with intent to disrobe and its punishment.

Answer: (b) Punishment for rape on women under Twelve Years of age

Answer: (a) A - IV, B – II, C - I, D - III

Answer: (d) The Amendment has fixed the age for consensual sex as 18 years

Answer: (d) Section 497

Answer: (d) A, B, C and D only

Answer: (c) Imprisonment of not less then 3 years but which may extend to 7 years and fine

Answer: (b) B, C, D and E only

Answer: (d) (A)-(I), (B)-(IV), (C)-(II), (D)-(III)

Answer: (b) B and D only

Ans. (a) : Counterfeit has been defined under section 28 of Indian Penal Code- under which a person who causes one thing to resemble another thing intending by means of that resemblance to practice deception or knowing it to be likely that deception will thereby be practiced, is said to counterfeit.

Ans. (c) : According to section 230 of IPC, the currency is the metal which is then being used in the form of money and is currently and stamped by the authority of any state or empowered powers for this purpose for use in the form of money. Which is not considered an offence in the order of providing protection to the current coin.

Ans. (d) : Section 463 of IPC defines forgery. Whoever makes any false document or false electronic record or any part of a document or electronic record, with intent to cause damage or injury to the public or to any person, or to support any claim or title, or to cause any person to part with property, or to enter into any express or implied contract, or with intent to commit fraud or that fraud may be committed, commits forgery. In the present problem, knowingly making faulty entries initially in the official record by the official officer by his own authority. This is not forgery because it cannot cause any damage or injury to the public or to any person. This forgery is not because it does not support any property claim, nor does it show any intention of a person to alienate property and commit fraud, thus no offence has been committed under section 463.

Ans. (a) : According to Section 232 of the Indian Penal Code, whoever counterfeits Indian coin or knowingly performs any part of the process of counterfeiting Indian coin, shall be punished with imprisonment for life or with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to ten years, and shall also be liable to fine.

Ans. (c) : Defamation is defined in Section 499 of I.P.C. When a person is motivated by a feeling of hatred, he commits the offence of defamation.

Ans. (a) : Wantonly means things done recklessly, without thinking, and without considering the justification or consequences.

Ans. (c) : Section 146 of Indian Penal Code defines riot, according to which whenever an unlawful assembly or any member of such assembly uses force or violence in furtherance of the common object of such assembly, until every member of such assembly is guilty of the offence of rioting. For the offence of rioting, it is necessary that there should be five or more persons and all should be active with one common object (Common Intention).

Ans. (b) : Section 153-A

Explanation: Under Section 153-A of the Indian Penal Code 1860 — whoever does any act on the grounds of religion, race, place of birth, residence, language, etc., promoting enmity between different groups and prejudicial to maintenance of harmony, shall be punished with imprisonment for three years or with fine or with both.

Ans. (c) : The correct match is -

Fighting by two or more persons in public place - Affray

Intentional aiding in commission of an offence - Abetment

Violence is caused by five or more persons - Riot

Offence committed against state by words, signs or visible representation - Sedition

Ans. (b) : Affray has been defined under Section 159 of the Indian Penal Code 1860. According to which when two or more persons by fighting in a public place disturb the public peace, then it is said that they commit affray.

Therefore, options 2 and 3 are included in the offence of affray.