Most Important MCQs of IPC - Chapter 4 - Indian Judiciary

Q)-To include ‘Accident’ in exceptions of crime, which of the following element is essential?
(a) It happened by accident misfortune
(b) It happened in doing a lawful act in a lawful manner
(c) Proper care and caution has been taken
(d) All of the above
Ans. (d) [MP APPO 2008]

Explanation-Section 80 IPC states that if anything is done by accident or misfortune and that too without any criminal intention in doing a lawful act in a lawful manner and by all lawful means with proper care and caution, it will not be defined as an offence. Hence, the essential elements of section 80 can be outlined as follows:
1. The act committed must be an accident or misfortune.
2. Such act must not be committed with criminal intention or knowledge.
3. The accident must be the outcome of a lawful act done in a lawful manner and by a lawful means.
4. The act committed must have been done with proper care and caution.
The burden of proof under section 80 of the Indian Penal Code lies upon the accused. It is on the accused to prove that his case falls within the exception provided under this section.

Q)-‘A’ is at work with a hatchet; the head flies off and kills a man who is standing nearby. Here, there was no want of proper care and caution on the part of ‘A’, ‘A’ is guilty of which of the following?
(a) Murder
(b) Causing death by negligence
(c) Culpable homicide not amount to murder
(d) No offence
Ans. (d)[DAPP 2008, LLM Entrance 2014]

Explanation- This is an illustration of section 80 IPC. Section 80 IPC states that if anything is done by accident or misfortune and that too without any criminal intention in doing a lawful act in a lawful manner and by all lawful means with proper care and caution, it will not be defined as an offence.

Q)-Nothing is an offence which is done by a child who is
(a) under 9 years of age
(b) under 7 years of age
(c) under 12 years of age
(d) under 16 years of age
Ans. (b) [MPJS 2015]

Explanation-
Under the Indian Penal Code, there is an absolute incapacity for crime under seven years of age.
According to Sec. 82, an act of a child under seven years is no offence.
It is to be noted that this immunity is not confined to offences under the Code only, but extends to offences under any special or local law.
An infant is, by presumption of law, doli incapax i.e., not endowed with any discretion so as to distinguish right from wrong, thus, the question of criminal intention does not arise.
Where persons get crimes committed through children below 7 years, they will be held liable while the child will be exempted.

Q)-The principle of Jus Necessitatis is incorporated as an exception to criminal liability under which section of the Indian Penal Code?
(a) Section 80
(b) Section 81
(c) Section 87
(d) Section 90
Ans. (b) [DU LLM Entrance 2010]

Section 81 lays down that, an act done with the knowledge that it is likely to cause harm, but done in good faith and without any criminal intention to cause harm, for the purpose of preventing or avoiding harm to person or property is not an offence.
The principle upon which Sec. 81 is based is that when in a sudden and extreme emergency, one or the other of two evils is inevitable, it is lawful so to direct events so that the smaller evil only shall occur. It is a question of fact in each case whether such circumstances exist.
It is on the principle of expediency that the law has recognized necessity as an excuse in criminal cases. In other words, what necessity forces it justifies, namely quod necessitas, cogit defendit.
Section 81 stresses three conditions to claim exemptions from criminal responsibility, namely:
1) The act must have been committed in order to avoid other harm;
2) The harm to be avoided must be such as to justify the risk of doing an act likely to cause harm; and
3) The act must have been committed in good faith without any criminal intention to cause harm.

Q)- ‘A’ pulls down houses in good faith of saving human lives and property in a great fire. In this case, which of the following statements is correct?
(a) He has committed an offence of mischief
(b) He has committed an offence of house trespass
(c) He has committed an offence house breaking
(d) He has committed no offence
Ans. (d) [DAPP 2008]

Section 81

Q)-The case of R v. Dudley and Stephens is known for its use as criminal defence of:
(a) Necessity
(b) Self defence
(c) Good faith
(d) Mistake of fact
Ans. (a) [UPSC CS 2007]

R V. Dudley and Stephens case (QBD 273 referred to in ibid at p 605)
This case, the crew of the yacht MIGNONNETTE’ were cast away in a storm and were compelled to put into an open boat, which had no water or food. On the twentieth day, having had nothing to eat for eight days and being 1000 miles away from land, two of the crew, Dudley and Stephens, agreed that the cabin boy should be killed with a knife so that they can feed upon his body. One of them carried out the plan. On the fourth day, they were rescued by a passing boat. The two men were charged with murder. The jury was ignorant if the prisoners were guilty and referred to court. The question was considered by 5 judges who held that the act was murder. However their sentence of death was commuted by the crown.
The crown sentenced them to 6 months imprisonment. In this case it is difficult to decide which is an act of greater harm and if the act can be justified.
The doctrine of self-preservation is of no avail in such cases.

Q)-B with the intent of temporarily use W’s money and later on return it, instructs C, his six years old son, to take away W’s purse containing Rs. 20,000 without W’s consent. C carried out the instructions. The criminal liability in this case is:
(a) C is guilty of theft and B of abetment to commit theft
(b) B does not commit any offence but C commits theft
(c) both B and C are not guilty of any offence
(d) B is guilty of abetment of theft and C is not guilty of any offence
Ans. (d)

An infant is, by presumption of law, doli incapax i.e., not endowed with any discretion so as to distinguish right from wrong, thus, the question of criminal intention does not arise. Therefore, according to Sec. 82, an act of a child under seven years is no offence.

Q)-The leading case on Section 83 of IPC is:
(a) Bishamber v. Roomal
(b) Deo Narain v. State
(c) Ulla v. King
(d) Dayabhai Chhaganbhai Thakkar v. Gujarat
Ans. (c) [Chhat ADPPO 2008]

Explanation- In the case of Ulla Mahapatra v King, 1950[7]
An 11-year-old boy threatens the victim, saying that he will cut him into pieces while advancing towards him with a knife. Later, the child kills the victim.
It was held that from the boy’s conduct, he was aware that he would inflict hurt to the victim by giving cuts with the knife. He was aware of the meaning of his words and that it was a threat and there was a weapon that fulfils the elements of assault. Thus, this proves that he had the intension of hurting the victim. He was aware of his actions and the consequences of his action. Hence, it was held that he was liable for murder.

Q)-Who among the following is liable for committing an offence?
(a) Child between 7 & 10 years of age.
(b) Child below 10 years of age.
(c) Child between 7 & 12 years of age having maturity of understanding
(d) Child below eight years of age
Ans. (c) [Raj APP 2005]

Explanation-
On the similar side Section, 83 mentioned about the acts done by a child under immaturity. This section lays down an important aspect of the children above 7 and under 12 years of age. This section states that “Acts done by a child from 7-12 years of age will not be considered under an offence, as at that time the child has not been able to cope with enough maturity of understanding and knowledge to relate facts and consequences to his or her conduct.

Q)-Section 83 of IPC enunciates:
(a) a presumption of fact
(b) an inconclusive or rebuttable presumption of law
(c) conclusive or irrebuttable presumption of law
(d) irrebuttable presumption of fact
Ans. (b) [AJS 2011, PJS 2011

Section 83 of IPC enunciates an inconclusive or rebuttable presumption of law because the question that determines its responsibility not on its age, but on its maturity at the time the crime was committed. Therefore, it is important for the defendant to determine that the offender was not only under 12 years of age at the time the crime was committed, but also did not reach the level of maturity needed to understand the nature and consequences of his actions. Opposite to that if it is proved that the child has the sufficient maturity and understanding then he can be made liable for his act.

Q)-Z, a person of unsound mind, attempts to kill A. Which one among the following statements, as per the provisions of IPC 1860, is correct?
(a) Z is not guilty of any offence and A has no right of private defence against Z
(b) A has no right of private defence against Z
(c) Z is guilty of attempt to murder
(d) Z is not guilty of any offence but A has a right of private defence against Z
Ans. (d) [DAPP 2010]

Section 84 of the Indian Penal Code says that any act done by a person who is of unsound mind at the time of doing act and the person is incapable of knowing the nature of the act and the person does not know that the act which he is doing is wrong or contrary to Law.
In India the law on this subject is mentioned under section 84 of IPC, the provisions are same as mentioned in McNaughten case held by House Of Lords. By the way Section 84 use a more comprehensive term unsoundness of mind rather than the word Insanity.
Essential ingredients of section 84 of Indian Penal Code (IPC)

1.Act must be done by a person of unsound mind
2.Such person was unsound at the time of committing the act
3.Such incapacity should be of unsoundness of mind of the accused
4.Such person was not capable to know the nature of the act or the act he was doing was either wrong or contrary to law.
Q)-Consider the following statements:
The accused at the time of committing the act because of intoxication, which was administered to him without his knowledge or against his will, is incapable of knowing
1 the nature of the act
2 that the act is wrong or contrary to law
3 that the act is immoral or wrong
4 that the act is of the nature which may be ignored
To claim the benefit of Section 85 of IPC, which of the above need to be proved?
(a) 1 and 4
(b) 1 and 3
(c) 1 and 2
(d) 2 and 4
Ans. (c) [DAPP 2008]

EXPLANATION- According to IPC Section 85, nothing is an offence that includes:
There should be the presence of an act of the person
The person must be unable to know the nature of the act
Disability must be the result of a person’s intoxication
Intoxication must be administered without one’s will or even without one’s Knowledge
Such incapacity should be there at the time of the act

Q)-Which of the following is a leading case on intoxication
(a) Nathulal v. State of M.P.
(b) Director Public Prosecutions v. Beard
(c) Barrow v. Issacs
(d) None of the above
Ans. (b) [UP APO 2006]

Explanation-
DPP V. Beard :In this case, the accused was intoxicated and raped an underage girl. He placed his hand on the girl’s mouth and the other on her throat. As a result, the girl death by suffocation & he made a plea that he was unable to understand the consequences of the act. But the court found him guilty of the offence of murder under the Section 300 because this act of suffocation was different from the act of rape and it intending to kill the girl.
So, we can say that voluntary intoxication is a mitigation factor and, in some cases, this is an aggravating factor. In cases where the person is heavily drunk and he will not be able to form an intention for the commission of the act and then voluntary intoxication can be a mitigating factor.
But in most cases, it will be an aggravating factor because people will be encouraged to commit a crime & escape punishment by taking plea of voluntary intoxication. In the case of regular offenders voluntary intoxication is aggravating factor & also mean that increased alcohol consumption and finally increase the crime rate.

Q)-Basudev v. State of Pepsu, AIR 1956 SC is a leading case on
(a) Infancy
(b) Insanity
(c) Intoxication
(d) All the above
Ans. (c) [UP PCS CJ 2008]

Explanation- Basudev v state of pepsu:
In this case, the accused, who is a retired military officer & the deceased attend a wedding ceremony in the village & mid-day meal was going on. Some have been sat in the chair and some were sitting on the floor. The deceased who is 13-year-old boy years, sat in a chair. The accused came and asked this boy to get up from his place that the boy refused. The accused, who was intoxicated, pulled a pistol out of his pocket & shot the boy. The injuries were fatal and the boy died at the scene. In court, the accused defended the influence of high intoxication and has not been able to understand the circumstances his act. The court rejected his plea, stating that the accused himself house and he was able to walk so that he would have had the ability to predict the consequences of the act. The court found him guilty under section 300 of the IPC i.e., is murder.

Q)-A, a school teacher for the purposes of enforcing discipline inflicts moderate punishment upon a student aged about 11 years. In this case
(a) A is entitled to claim defence under Section 89 of IPC
(b) A is guilty of causing simple hurt.
(c) A is guilty of using criminal force.
(d) A is entitled to claim defence under Section 88 of IPC
Ans. (a) [UP APP 2006, UK APO 2010, UJS 2012]

Section 89- Act done in good faith for benefit of child or insane person, by or by consent of guardian.— Nothing which is done in good faith for the benefit of a person under twelve years of age, or of unsound mind, by or by consent, either express or implied, of the guardian or other person having lawful charge of that person, is an offence by reason of any harm which it may cause, or be intended by the doer to cause or be known by the doer to be likely to cause to that person