Unit IV · Topic 1General principles of criminal liability – Actus reus and mens rea, individual and group liability and constructive liability – Previous Year Questions

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)