Important tricky questions on IPC | Indian Penal Code | Part 5 – Judiciary Exam

Q) Which one of the following sections of the Indian penal code 1860 is an extension of the principle of respondent superior to criminal law?

Section 121
Section 159
Section 120A
Section 154

Explanation:- 4

If the agent or the owner had the knowledge that the riot or the unlawful assembly is going to take place on their property and they don’t take a proper step to prevent it then in that case they will be held responsible. It is their duty to report to the principal officer of the nearest police station. Also if they don’t take any step in order to prevent that then also in that case the owner and the agent will be held responsible.
Principle of vicarious liability.

Q) Which of the following statement is not true

Rioting and Affray have been defined in section 146 and 159 of IPC respectively
Rioting must be committed in public place, Affray may be committed in any place
Rioting is punishable with imprisonment extending to 2 years, affray is punishable with imprisonment extending to one month
Rioting is committed by five or more persons and affray is committed by two or more persons

Explanation:- 2

Affray.—When two or more persons, by fighting in a public place, disturb the public peace, they are said to “commit an affray”.

Q) A a candidate at an election propagated that he was Chalanti Vishnu and representative of Lord Jagannath himself and that anyone who does not vote for him would be sinner against the Lord and the Hindu religion:

He is guilty of committing the offence of undue influence at elections punishable under IPC
He is not guilty of an offence under IPC but his candidature shall be cancelled
He is not guilty under any law for the time being in force
He is guilty of the offence of presentation of election

Explanation:- 1

Section 171C deals with undue influence at an election. It refers to the voluntary interruption or an attempt to interrupt the free exercise of an electoral right.
Threatening (with injury of any kind) a candidate or a voter or a person in whom a candidate/voter is interested in, or; Misleading or attempting to induce a candidate/voter to believe that they, or any person that they are interested in, shall be subjected to Divine displeasure or spiritual censure.

Q) A, a landholder knowing of a murder committed within the limits of his estate, willfully misinforms the magistrate of the district that the death has occurred by accident in consequence of the bite of a snake. A is guilty of the offence under

Section 177
Section 179
Section 178
Section 182

Explanation:- 1

Section 177 of the IPC deals with the furnishing of false information. The person must be legally bound to produce information on a particular subject to a public servant. He must furnish that information as true information which he knows to be false.

Q) Whoever been legally bound by an oath or by an express provision of law to state the truth, or being bound by law to make a declaration upon any subject, makes any statement which is false and which he either knows or believes to be false or does not believe to be true is said to have committed

contempt of court
An offence of giving false evidence
An offence of fabricating false evidence
none of the above

Explanation:- 2

Q) A puts jewellery into a box belonging to B with the intention that they may be found in that box and this circumstances may cause B to be convicted of theft. A has committed the offence under which sections of IPC

Section 191
Section 193
Section 192
A has committed no offence

Explanation:- 3

Essentials of fabricating false evidence:-
Cause any circumstances to exist; or
Makes any false entry in any book or record etc containing a false statement ;
Intending that such circumstances, false entry or false statement may appear in evidence in a:
- a) Judicial proceeding, or
- b) In a proceeding taken by law before a public servant,
- c) Before an arbitrator; and
Helps form an opinion upon the evidence, to entertain an erroneous opinion;
Touching any point material to the result of such proceeding.

Q) A knowing that B has murdered C assists B to hide the body with intention of screening B from punishment. A is liable for punishment to

7 year imprisonment and fine
7 year imprisonment
5 year imprisonment
five year imprisonment and fine

Explanation:- 1

Harbouring offender who has escaped from custody or whose apprehension has been ordered

Q) A knowing that B C D E F G are about to commit the offence of dacoity in Kathmandu, Nepal harbours them in his house in Bihar with the intention of facilitating the commission of such dacoity

A has not committed any offence as the dacoity was yet to take place
not committed any offence that can be tried in India
committed the offence of harbouring dacoits
committed an offence which can be tried and punished only in Nepal

Explanation:- 3

Penalty for harbouring robbers or dacoits.—Whoever, knowing or having reason to
believe that any persons are about to commit or have recently committed robbery or dacoity, harbours them or any of them, with the intention of facilitating the commission of such robbery or dacoity, or of screening them or any of them from punishment, shall be punished with rigorous imprisonment for a term which may extend to seven years, and shall also be liable to fine.

Q) A sings obscene songs near the gate of Girls Degree College. What offence he has committed?

assault
outraging the modesty of a woman
criminal intimidation
obscenity

Explanation:- 4

Section 294- According to the Section, anyone who, in the absolute annoyance of others or the general public, commits an obscene act in any public place, or particularly commits to doing things like reciting, singing, or uttering an obscene song, ballad, or words, near or within any public place, shall be punished with imprisonment for a term that can extend to 3 months, or with a certain amount of fine, or with both.

Q) Culpable homicide means:-

attempt to cause death
causing death intentionally
causing grievous injury
causing injury which is likely to cause death

Explanation:- 2

Q) Which one of the following option is incorrect

all murders are culpable homicide but not vice versa
all culpable homicide are murder
An intention to kill is not always necessary to make out a case of Murder
Clause c of Section 299 requires knowledge of the probability of death

Explanation:- 2

All culpable homicides are murders, but not all culpable homicides are murders. So the distinction is between culpable homicide that amounts to murder and culpable homicide that does not amount to murder. The sole distinction between culpable homicide and murder is the degree of purpose and knowledge involved. The case would be classified as murder if there was a high level of purpose and knowledge. The case would be classified as responsible homicide if there was a lesser degree of purpose or knowledge.

Q) In Rex vs. Govinda the point of distinction between the provisions of the following sections of the IPC were explained

34 and 149
302 and 304
299 and 300
403 and 405

Explanation:- 3

In the case of Reg. v. Govinda ( 1877) ILR 1 Bom 342), the accused had knocked down his wife, kept a knee on her chest and gave two to three violent blows with the closed fist on her face. This act produced extraversion of blood on her brain and afterwards, the wife died due to this. The act was not committed with the intention of causing death and the bodily injury was not sufficient to cause death in the ordinary course of nature. The accused was liable to culpable homicide not amounting to murder. The difference between murder and culpable homicide is intention. If the intention is present the crime is said to be committed under Section 300 of IPC. If the intention is absent, then the crime is dealt under section 304 of IPC.

Q) Under which one of the following cases first time the Supreme Court of India has reaffirmed the distinction between culpable homicide and murder while adopting the view suggested in Govinda case

Inder Singh vs State of Pepsu
State of AP vs Punnayya
K.M Nanavati vs State of Maharashtra
Madhavan vs State of Kerala

Explanation:- 2

Both the accused confined by beating to the legs and arms of the deceased and therefore they had no intention of causing the death of the deceased within the section 299(a) or section 300 of Indian Penal Code, 1860. State of AP vs R Punnayya case is a celebrated IPC case that draws a thin line between Culpable Homicide and Murder along with giving the details why these two are different.

Q) A with intention to facilitate robbery put a residential house to fire in the night and causes death of a person due to this fire. A has committed the offence of

only for putting fire in a house
culpable homicide
intentionally causing death
causing death by accident

Explanation:- 2

Q) How many circumstances have been given under section 300 IPC under which culpable homicide is murder

Explanation:- 3

Murder.—Except in the cases hereinafter excepted, culpable homicide is murder, if the act by which the death is caused is done with the intention of causing death, or—
—If it is done with the intention of causing such bodily injury as the offender knows to be likely to cause the death of the person to whom the harm is caused, or—
—If it is done with the intention of causing bodily injury to any person and the bodily injury is sufficient in the ordinary course of nature to cause death, or—
—If the person committing the act knows that it is so imminently dangerous that it must, in all probability, cause death,

Q) Decision in which one of the following cases has been described by the supreme court to have attained the status of a landmark for bringing out correct test for application of section 300(3) of the IPC

Kapur Singh vs State of Pepsu
Virsa Singh vs State of Punjab
KM Nanavati vs State of Maharashtra
Rawal Penta Venkalu vs State of Hyderabad

Explanation:- 2

Accused, Virsa Singh, along with five other members by making unlawful assembly, attacked on deceased victim, i.e. Khem Singh with the spear thrust into his abdomen. The which resulted in abdomen’s fracture of the deceased and three coils of intestines were coming out of the wound, which causes his death. “The injury was sufficient to cause the death in ordinary course of nature”. The Honorable Supreme Court, by observing all facts, concluded that the accused had the intention to cause death that he used so much force that it penetrated the bowels and the three intestine coils came out of the wound. Therefore, the Court dismissed the appeal, and the accused person was held for a death sentence under section 302 of IPC.

Q) Which one is incorrect Culpable homicide does not amount to murder in certain cases of grave and sudden provocation provided:

the question whether the provocation was grave and sudden is a pure question of law
the provocation was not sought by the offender
the provocation is not given by anything done in the lawful exercise of right of private defence
the provocation is not given by anything done in obedience to law

Explanation:- 1

Q) A with intent to murder, administered a fatal dose of poison to Z and then while Z was still alive, a stranger B without A’s knowledge attacked Z and shot him dead

A and B both would be guilty of Murder
A would be guilty of culpable homicide and B would be guilty of Murder
A would be guilty of an attempt to murder and B would be guilty of Murder
A would be guilty of instigating B to commit murder and B would be guilty of Murder

Explanation:- 3

Q) Which of the following cases is considered as locus classicus on Section 330 thirdly of the Indian penal code 1860

Shivaji Sahara Bobade vs State of Maharashtra
Virsa Singh vs State of Punjab
Rudal Shah vs State of Bihar
None of the above

Explanation:- 2

Q) Z strikes B. B is by this provocation excited to violent rage. A, a bystander intending to take advantage of B’s rage and to cause him to kill Z puts a knife into B’s hands for that purpose. B killed Z with the knife. What offence A is guilty?