Unit IV · Topic 3General exceptions – Previous Year Questions

48 previous year questions on General exceptions from UGC NET Law papers (2009–2026), including 4 assertion–reason, 5 match-the-list, 2 statement-based questions. The correct option is marked in green.

Questions

48 questions

2009

'Y' picks 'X's pocket Next day, 'X' while buying paan near his office finds 'Y' paying money from his (X's) purse. 'X' catches hold of 'Y' and tries to take back his purse. 'Y' resis. 'X' twists 'Y's' arm with such force that it is broken 'X is charged with causing hurt to 'Y'. In his defence 'X' can:

  1. (a)say that he was acting under right of private defence of property
  2. (b)not raise the plea of right of private defence since he had time to wseek the help of public authorities✓
  3. (c)say that his right of private defence revived as soon as he saw Y with his purse
  4. (d)say that he did not use more force than was required
Answer & explanation

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.

2010

The right of private defence is available to:

  1. (a)The aggressor
  2. (b)The person who has attacked
  3. (c)The aggressor and the victim
  4. (d)The Act done is defence of a person who was attacked✓
Answer & explanation

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.

2011

Right to private defence is not available on:

  1. (a)All acts of self-defence
  2. (b)All acts of aggression✓
  3. (c)All acts where danger is sensed
  4. (d)All the above
Answer & explanation

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.

2012Statements

Note: The case of Sukaru Kaviraj is important on this subject.

Fill in the gap. 'P' in support of a just claim of 'Q' has stated against 'Z', for a sum of rupees one thousand and falsely sweared on a trial that he heard 'Z' admitted as to the just claim of 'Q'. The court decides that it was an affirmation of .................

  1. (a)Statement of truth
  2. (b)False evidence✓
  3. (c)Making a declaration
  4. (d)None of them
Answer & explanation

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.

2012

State the age limit prescribed under section 82 of Indian Penal Code in which if a child commits an overt act is not considered as an offence?

  1. (a)Under the age of 12 years
  2. (b)Under the age of 7 years✓
  3. (c)Under the age of 16 years
  4. (d)Under the age of 18 years
Answer & explanation

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.

2012

'X' a Police Officer while executing a warrant of arrest againsat 'Y' asks 'Z' to identify consequently 'M' is arrested. What offence is committed by 'Z'?

  1. (a)Abetment by Instigation
  2. (b)Abetment by Aiding
  3. (c)Abetment by False representation✓
  4. (d)Abetment by Mischief
Answer & explanation

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.

2013Statements

Fill in the blanks using appropriate statements Non Compos Mentis means..............

  1. (a)Not of sound mind✓
  2. (b)Who lacks the requisite mens rea
  3. (c)Unable to know that the act is either wrong or contrary to law
  4. (d)A concussion of brain
Answer & explanation

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.

2013

Fill in the blanks using appropriate reason. Right to private defence by a friend is generally not available because.........

  1. (a)There was no specified circumstances
  2. (b)Explanation II of section 300, IPC is a bar for it
  3. (c)That act was not with an intention to protect the friend
  4. (d)The offending party was an aggressor
Answer & explanation

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

2013

The nature of injury was very minor

Codes: (a)

  1. (a)is true and (d) is the reason while✓
  2. (b)and
  3. (c)are not true (b) (b) is true and (c) is the reason while (a) and
  4. (d)are not true (c) (c) is true and (d) is the reason while (a) and (b) are not true (d) (d) is the only reason while all others (a), (b) and (c) are false
Answer & explanation

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.

2013Assertion–Reason

Assertion I: Disorder of mind which impairs the mental faculties is known as unsoundness of mind as such it acts as defence to a criminal charge.

Reason II: Insanity is the mental abnormality and when it impairs the cognitive faculty and if an act results during that period criminal liability could be exampled.

Code:

  1. (a)By I there is transgression of harmful acts while II refers to established rules of society for which no prosecution stands
  2. (b)Both I and II are correct explanations as per Section 84 if IPC✓
  3. (c)II is more precise while I is only a supportive factor
  4. (d)The true test of I and II is to apply McNaghten's Rule
Answer & explanation

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.

2013

The act of causing death to a person who has committed or attempted to commit house breaking by night is known as ..........

  1. (a)Marginal excess of right to private defence
  2. (b)Purported exercise of right of self defence✓
  3. (c)Murder
  4. (d)No detached objectivity would be possible to weigh the culpability
Answer & explanation

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.

2013

An offender claiming exemption of criminal liability under Section 84 of Indian Penal Code must be incapable of knowing

  1. (a)the nature of the act
  2. (b)the act was contrary to law
  3. (c)the act was wrong
  4. (d)All of the above✓
Answer & explanation

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.

2013

There is no right of private defence against an act done, by any person under the direction of a public servant but is subjected to fulfillment of certain condition like

  1. (a)the act must be done in good faith
  2. (b)the direction was not strictly justifiable by law
  3. (c)The directed act has not been generated reasonable apprehension of death
  4. (d)All of the above✓
Answer & explanation

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.

2013

A police officer arrested a person without warrant who was drunk and creating disturbance in a public street. The action of police amounts to

  1. (a)Detention
  2. (b)Wrongful confinement✓
  3. (c)Wrongful restrain
  4. (d)None of them
Answer & explanation

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.

2014Assertion–Reason

Assertion (A): The right of private defence does not depend upon the actual criminality of the aggressor but on the wrongful character of the act attempted

Reason (R): Even if an act is treated as offence the right of private defence arises against the author despite his personal incapacity.

Codes:

  1. (a)(A) is correct principle because (R) is the right reason✓
  2. (b)(A) is untenable under law while (R) is the justifiable cause
  3. (c)(A) is the law and unlawful act while (R) results without mens rea
  4. (d)(A) is not true while (R) is false
Answer & explanation

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.

2014

The maxin "De Minimis non curat lex" relates to.............

  1. (a)Slight harm✓
  2. (b)Trifles
  3. (c)Exhibition of disrespect
  4. (d)Annoyance
Answer & explanation

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.

2015

In which of the cases the measures of self-defence is considered to be proportionate to the quantum of force by the person accused for an offence?

  1. (a)Aggression
  2. (b)Accident
  3. (c)Apprehension✓
  4. (d)Assault of harmless nature
Answer & explanation

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.

2015

Ignorance of law does not permit acquittal as it is built against justification of a crime while in extreme cases it allows:

  1. (a)Pardon✓
  2. (b)Suspended sentence
  3. (c)Deferred sentence
  4. (d)Paper sentence
Answer & explanation

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.

2015Match the lists

Match List-I with List-II using the codes below:

List-I A. Right of a person not to be assaulted B. Right of person in his own property C. Right of person to enjoy his premises D. Right of person in the property of some one else

List-II

Right in re-propria

Right in rem

Right in personam

Right in re-aliena

Code:

  1. (a)A-2, B-1, C-3, D-4✓
  2. (b)A-4, B-3, C-1, D-2
  3. (c)A-1, B-2, C-4, D-3
  4. (d)A-3, B-4, C-2, D-1
Answer & explanation

Ans. (a)

2015

Read the following situations and state which combination is correct to claim benefit under the broad concept of unsoundness of mind:

Extreme Anger

Somnambulism

Irresistible impulse

Hallucination

Codes:

  1. (a)1 and 2 both
  2. (b)1 and 3 both
  3. (c)2 and 3 both
  4. (d)2 and 4 both✓
Answer & explanation

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

Somnambulism

Hallucination

2015

Read the following situations and choose the correct one, where right of private defence is available:

  1. (a)Against an act done or attempted to be done by a public servant
  2. (b)Where there is time available to have recourse to state authorities
  3. (c)Where there is a reasonable apprehension of causing injury to third person✓
  4. (d)Where harm caused in no case should exceed the quantum of harm
Answer & explanation

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.

2015Match the lists

Which one of the following is not an exception to the rule of volenti non fit injuria?

  1. (a)Surgeon aputates a limb of a patient to save his life
  2. (b)Injury is caused while play-fighting with naked swords at a religion function✓
  3. (c)Injury is caused while doing lawful acts under contract
  4. (d)Injury is caused to a player in football match
Answer & explanation

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.

2016Sequence / order

The principle of 'Quod necessitas non hobet legam' is applied in circumstances of

  1. (a)An act done in order to avoid consequence
  2. (b)in a little harm that resulted in the consequence
  3. (c)a harm resulted in order to do another evil
  4. (d)Self-preservation✓
Answer & explanation

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.

2016

In which of the circumstances the defense of necessity involves a collusion of interest and the consequencal judgement of values?

  1. (a)Stealing to avert hungers
  2. (b)Absolute necessity for self-preservation
  3. (c)Private homicide for keeping up the honour
  4. (d)Acts done against anarchy✓
Answer & explanation

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.

2016

Which of the factors fall under the limits within which the right of private defense should be exercised?

  1. (a)Where there is time to have recourse to the protection of the public authorities
  2. (b)When a public servant performs an act in good faith
  3. (c)An act committed strictly in conformity with law✓
  4. (d)Where the act was irregular and outside the scope of power
Answer & explanation

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.

2016

Acts done in moments of delusion are protect because:

  1. (a)By virtue of absence of free will
  2. (b)Lack of intelligence to distinguish between good and evil
  3. (c)Expediency grounds says so
  4. (d)Circumstance are such that they are incompatible to the existence of Mens rea.✓
Answer & explanation

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.

2016

The right to private defence against an act done by a public servant is not available:

  1. (a)When it is discharged in good faith
  2. (b)When it is attempted to be done by him✓
  3. (c)When it was done while he was not in his office
  4. (d)When it is strictly to be justifiable by law
Answer & explanation

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.

2016

Non-Compos mentis denotes:

  1. (a)Every person is considered to be sone unless contrary is proved
  2. (b)When a criminal act is performed during derangement
  3. (c)When the cognitive facilities are such that he does not know what he has done✓
  4. (d)Non-secrene memory not from birth
Answer & explanation

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.

2017Sequence / order

The principle of 'Quod necessitas non hobet legam' is applied in circumstances of

  1. (a)An act done in order to avoid consequence
  2. (b)in a little harm that resulted in the consequence
  3. (c)a harm resulted in order to do another evil
  4. (d)Self-preservation✓
Answer & explanation

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.

2017

In which of the circumstances the defense of necessity involves a collusion of interest and the consequencal judgement of values?

  1. (a)Stealing to avert hungers
  2. (b)Absolute necessity for self-preservation
  3. (c)Private homicide for keeping up the honour
  4. (d)Acts done against anarchy✓
Answer & explanation

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.

2017

Which of the factors fall under the limits within which the right of private defense should be exercised?

  1. (a)Where there is time to have recourse to the protection of the public authorities
  2. (b)When a public servant performs an act in good faith
  3. (c)An act committed strictly in conformity with law✓
  4. (d)Where the act was irregular and outside the scope of power
Answer & explanation

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.

2017

Acts done in moments of delusion are protect because:

  1. (a)By virtue of absence of free will
  2. (b)Lack of intelligence to distinguish between good and evil
  3. (c)Expediency grounds says so
  4. (d)Circumstance are such that they are incompatible to the existence of Mens rea.✓
Answer & explanation

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.

2017

The right to private defence against an act done by a public servant is not available:

  1. (a)When it is discharged in good faith
  2. (b)When it is attempted to be done by him✓
  3. (c)When it was done while he was not in his office
  4. (d)When it is strictly to be justifiable by law
Answer & explanation

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.

2017

Non-Compos mentis denotes:

  1. (a)Every person is considered to be sone unless contrary is proved
  2. (b)When a criminal act is performed during derangement
  3. (c)When the cognitive facilities are such that he does not know what he has done✓
  4. (d)Non-secrene memory not from birth
Answer & explanation

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.

2018Assertion–Reason

Read Assertion (A) and Reason (R) and give the correct answer by using the code given below:

Assertion (A): 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 exact nuature of the act.

Reason (R): Mistake of fact is a good defence and mistake of law is no defence.

  1. (a)Both (A) and (R) are true, and (R) is the correct explanation of (A)
  2. (b)Both (A) and (R) are true, but (R) is not the correct explanation of (A)✓
  3. (c)(A) is true but (R) is false
  4. (d)(A) is false but (R) is true
Answer & explanation

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.

2018

'A' enters into the house of 'B' with the intention to commit theft. 'B' along with other members of his family surround and attack 'A' with wooden sticks. 'A' finding his life in danger fires with pistol causing death to 'B' Here 'A' has committed:

  1. (a)No offence, as he acted in self-defence
  2. (b)Theft
  3. (c)Culpable homicide not amounting to murder
  4. (d)Murder✓
Answer & explanation

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.

2018

"The right of private defence of body commences as soon as a reasonable apprehension of danger to the body arises and continues as long as such apprehension continues." This observation was made by the supreme Court in:

  1. (a)Deo Narain v. State of U.P.✓
  2. (b)Ram Swaroop v. State of U.P.
  3. (c)Ranga Billa v. Union of India
  4. (d)State of Punjab v. Nanak Chand
Answer & explanation

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.)

2018Assertion–Reason

Assertion (A): 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 exact nature of the act

Reason (R): Mistake of fact is a good defence and mistake of law is no defence

  1. (a)Both (A) and (R) are true and (R) is the correct explanation of (A)
  2. (b)Both (A) and (R) are true, but (R) is not the correct explanation of (A)✓
  3. (c)(A) is true, but (R) is false
  4. (d)(A) is false, but (R) is true
Answer & explanation

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.

2019

To claim the benefit of Section 84 of IPC which of the above needs to be proved? Give the correct answer:

  1. (a)1 and 4
  2. (b)1 and 2✓
  3. (c)2 and 3
  4. (d)3 and 4
Answer & explanation

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.

2020-2021

'A' an officer of a court of justice, being ordered by that court to arrest 'Y', and after due enquiry, believing 'Z' to be 'Y', arrests 'Z'. 'A' has committed:

  1. (a)An offence of wrongful confinement
  2. (b)An offence of wrongful restraint
  3. (c)An offence of criminal trespass
  4. (d)No offence✓
Answer & explanation

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.

2020-2021

Section 102 of the Indian Penal code deals with the provision relating to:

  1. (a)When the right of private defence of property extends to causing death
  2. (b)Right of private defence against deadly assault when there is a risk of harm to an innocent person
  3. (c)Commencement and continuance of a right of private defence of the body✓
  4. (d)When the right of private defence of the body extends to cuasing death
Answer & explanation

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.

2020-2021Match the lists

Match List I with List II:

List-I (Provision under Indian Penal Code) A. An act done in good faith for benefit of a person without consent B. Dishonest or fraudulent execution of the deed of transfer containing false statements of consideration C. Voluntarily causing grievous hurt by use of acid etc. D. Theft by clerk or servant of property in possession of master

List-II (Section) (i) Section 423 (ii) Section 381 (iii) Section 92 (iv) Section 326 'A'

Choose the correct answer from the options given below:

  1. (a)(A)-(III), (B)-(I), (C)-(II), (D)-(IV)
  2. (b)(A)-(III), (B)-(I), (C)-(IV), (D)-(II)✓
  3. (c)(A)-(I), (B)-(II), (C)-(III), (D)-(IV)
  4. (d)(A)-(IV), (B)-(III), (C)-(II), (D)-(I)
Answer & explanation

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

December 2019 · Q8Match the lists

Match the following sections of Indian Penal

Code with provision given there under

A. Section 80/80 1. Act done by person justified or by mistake of fact believing himself justified by law

B. Section 82/82 2. Act of a child above seven and under twelve of immature understanding

C. Section 83/83 3. Act of child under seven years of age

D. Section 79/79 4. Accident in doing a lawful act

Choose the correct option from those given below

A B C D

  1. (a)4 2 3 1
  2. (b)2 4 1 3
  3. (c)4 3 2 1✓
  4. (d)3 4 2 1
Answer & explanation

Answer: (c) 4 3 2 1

June 2023 · Q52

The following fall under chapter IV (General Exceptions) of the Indian Penal Code, 1860

. Act done by a person bound, or by mistake of fact believing himself to be bound, by law

B. Act of judge when acting judicially

C. Omission to assist public servant when bound by law to give assistance

D. International resistance or obstruction by a person to his lawful apprehension

E. Accident in doing a lawful act

Choose the correct answer from the options given below

  1. (a)A and E only
  2. (b)A and B only
  3. (c)B only
  4. (d)A, B and E only✓
Answer & explanation

Answer: (d) A, B and E only

December 2023 · Q58

The right of private defence extends to causing death under which provision of IPC

  1. (a)Section 100 only
  2. (b)Section 100 and 103 only✓
  3. (c)Section 103 only
  4. (d)Section 100, 103, 105
Answer & explanation

Answer: (b) Section 100 and 103 only

December 2024 · Q139

Which of the following acts are exempted from criminal liability under the Indian Penal Code?

(A) Act likely to cause harm done without criminal intent to prevent other harm

(B) Act causing slight harm

(C) Act of a child above 7 and under 12 years, but of immature understanding

(D) Act likely to cause harm done with criminal intent

Choose the correct answer from the options given below

  1. (a)(A), (B), (C) Only✓
  2. (b)(B), (C), (D) Only
  3. (c)(A), (B), (D) Only
  4. (d)(C), (D), (A) Only
Answer & explanation

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

June 2025 · Q77

'X', an insane person, kills 'Y' by firing from a loaded gun. What offence has 'X' committed?

  1. (a)No offence at all✓
  2. (b)An offence of grievous hurt
  3. (c)An offence of murder
  4. (d)An offence of culpable homicide not amounting to murder
Answer & explanation

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.

June 2026 · Q94Match the lists

Match List I with List II LIST I (General Exceptions) LIST II (Section of IPC)

A. Act of a Child under Seven years of age I. Section 76 of IPC

B. Act likely to cause harm done without criminal intention to prevent other harm II. Section 85 of IPC

C. Mistake of fact III. Section 82 of IPC

D. Act of a person incapable of judgement by reason of intoxication against his will. IV. Section 81 of IPC

Choose the correct answer from the options given below

  1. (a)A-II, B-I, C-III, D-IV
  2. (b)A-III, B-IV, C-I, D-II✓
  3. (c)A-IV, B-III, C-I, D-II
  4. (d)A-IV, B-II, C-III, D-I
Answer & explanation

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.

← Back to all units All topics of Unit IV