Important tricky questions on IPC | Indian Penal Code | Part 3 – Judiciary Exam – Free PDF

Q.) B is drowning and insensible.  A in order to save his life pulls him out of the water with the hook which injures him. A is guilty of

1. using criminal force
2. voluntarily causing hurt
3. voluntarily causing grievous hurt
4. no offence

Explanation:- D

92. Act done in good faith for benefit of a person without con­sent.—Nothing is an offence by reason of any harm which it may cause to a person for whose benefit it is done in good faith, even without that person’s consent, if the circumstances are such that it is impossible for that person to signify consent, or if that person is incapable of giving consent, and has no guardian or other person in lawful charge of him from whom it is possible to obtain consent in time for the thing to be done with benefit

Q.) A male teacher during the examination, while conducting search, put his hands in the pocket of the pant of a girl candidate thinking her to be a boy.  Here the teacher, under the IPC has committed the offence under section

1. 354
2. 323
3. 509
4. No offence

Answer – D

Q.) X and Y swimming in the sea after a shipwreck got hold of a plank. The plank was not large enough to support both. X having no other option, pushed Y who was drowned. X has committed

1. Culpable homicide
2. Murder
3. The offence of causing death by negligence
4. No offence

Explanations – D

Q.) Which one of the following is presumed under law to be Doli incapax to commit a crime?

1. a child of under 7 years of age
2. a child of under 10 years of age
3. a child below 7 years and under 12 years of age
4. a child between 10 years and 14 years of age

• Explanation:- A
  82. Act of a child under seven years of age.—Nothing is an offence which is done by a child under seven years of age.
• 83. Act of a child above seven and under twelve of immature understanding.—Nothing is an offence which is done by a child above seven years of age and under twelve, who has not attained sufficient maturity of understanding to judge of the nature and consequences of his conduct on that occasion.

Q.) Section 82 of the Indian Penal Code deals with the following

1. absolute immunity
2. qualified immunity
3. conditional immunity
4. contingent in unity

Explanation – A

Q.) The leading case on Section 83 of IPC is

1. Bishamber vs Rumal
2. Deo Narain vs State
3. Ullah vs King
4. Dayabhai Chhaganbhai Thakkar vs State of Gujarat

Explanation:- C
In the case of Ulla Mahapatra v. King AIR 1950 Orissa 262, a child of eleven years of age,  threatens the victim, saying that he would cut him into pieces while advancing towards him with a knife and he actually kills the victim. The Court held that it was fully evident by the conduct of the child that he was fully aware 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 the intention of the child of hurting the victim and therefore, Court found him guilty of the murder of the victim.

Q.) Assertion:  A  boy aged 9 years intentionally kills B. A is liable to be convicted.

Reason: A child upto the age of 12 years is immune from criminal liability.

1. Both A and R are true and R is the correct explanation of A
2. Both A and R are true but R is not the correct explanation of A
3.  A is true but R is false
4. A is false but R is true

Explanation – C

Q.) Insanity is

1. lack of free will
2. Incapacity produced due to drunkenness
3. Was incapable of knowing the nature of act committed
4. Diseased mind

Explanation:- C
84. Act of a person of unsound mind.—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.

Q.) In which of the following cases wild beast test was propounded

1. Hadfield’s case
2. Bowler’s case
3. Ferrer’s case
4. R vs Arnold case

Explanation:- D
A person can demand immunity if, due to his unsoundness of mind, he was incapable of distinguishing between good and evil and did not know the nature of the act committed by him. This test is known as the “Wild Beast Test.”

Q.) Unsoundness of mind has not been defined in Indian Penal Code and has mainly been treated as equivalent to insanity. An accused who seeks exoneration from liability of any act under section 84 of IPC is to prove legal insanity and not medical insanity. It was held by Supreme Court in which of the following cases

1. Abrar versus State of UP
2. Surendra Mishra vs State of Jharkhand
3. CM Sharma vs state of AP
4. Gita versus State of UP

Explanation – B

Q.) 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 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 nature which may be ignored

To claim the benefit of section 85 of IPC which of the above need to be proved

1. 1 and 4
2. 1 and 3
3. 1 and 2
4. 2 and 4

Explanation:- C
85. Act of a person incapable of judgment by reason of intoxication caused against his will.—
Nothing is an offence which is done by a person who, at the time of doing it, is, by reason of intoxication, incapable of knowing the nature of the act, or that he is doing what is either wrong, or contrary to law: provided that the thing which intoxicated him was administered to him without his knowledge or against his will.

Q.) In Basudeo vs State of Pepsu the Supreme Court has explained the true scope of the following section of the Indian Penal Code

1. Section 84
2. Section 85
3. Section 86
4. Section 34

Explanation:- C
86. Offence requiring a particular intent or knowledge committed by one who is intoxicated.—
In cases where an act done is not an offence unless done with a particular knowledge or intent, a person who does the act in a state of intoxication shall be liable to be dealt with as if he had the same knowledge as he would have had if he had not been intoxicated, unless the thing which intoxicated him was administered to him without his knowledge or against his will.

Q.) A school teacher for the purpose of enforcing discipline inflicts  moderate punishment upon a student aged about 11 years.  In this case

1. A is entitled to claim defence under section 89 of IPC
2. A is guilty of causing simple hurt
3. A is guilty of using criminal force
4. A is entitled to claim defence

Explanation:- A
89. Act done in good faith for benefit of child or insane person, by or by consent of guardian.

Q.) In which of the following case consent is free

1. Consent given by a person under fear of injury
2. Consent given by an intoxicated person
3. Consent given under misconception of fact
4. Consent given by a child who is above 12 but below 14 years of age

Explanation:- D
90. Consent known to be given under fear or misconception.

Q.) The Maxim De minimis Non curat Lex is the foundation of which general exception under chapter 4 of the of the Indian Penal Code

1. Act causing slight harm
2. Act of child under 7 years of age
3. Act of child above 7 and under 12 of immature understanding
4. Accident in doing a lawful act

Explanation:- A 

Q.) A blacksmith is seized by a gang of dacoits and forced by threat of instant death to take his tools and to force the door of B’s house.  The dacoits ten in number loot B’s money and jewellery and killed B’s son.  A is guilty of

1. dacoity with Murder
2. is guilty of housebreaking and abetment of dacoity
3. is not guilty of any offence
4. is guilty of making preparation to commit dacoity

Explanations – C

Q.) In which of the following cases the Supreme Court has observed that there is no right of private defence against the right of private defence

1. State of Punjab vs Sohan Singh
2. Surjit Singh vs State of Punjab
3. State of UP vs Ram Swarup
4. Mr Singh vs State of Gujarat

Explanations – C

Q.) Which of the following statements is correct

1. The right of private defence under Indian penal code is available even against an act which is not offence under the code
2.  The right of private defence can be exercised to repel unlawful aggression and also to retaliate
3. The right of private defence is available to defend only one’s own person and property
4. The right of private defence extends to the causing of death when the assault is made with the intention of wrongfully confining a person

Explanations – A

Q.) In which of the following cases the right of private defence of body does not extend to causing of death

1. Assault with the intention of committing kidnapping
2. Assault with the intention of gratifying unnatural lust
3. Wrongful restraint
4. Assault with the intention of committing abduction

Explanation:- C
100. When the right of private defence of the body extends to causing death

Q.) The right of private defence of the body

1. commences as soon as reasonable apprehension of danger to the body arises from an attempt or threat to commit the offence and it continues as long as such apprehension of the danger to the body continuous
2. commences as soon as reasonable apprehension of danger to the body arises from an attempt or threat to commit the offence and it continues even after that apprehension ceases
3. commences only when the assault is actually done and continuous during the period of assault
4. commences only when the assault is actually done and continues even after the excellent has left

Explanation:- A
102. Commencement and continuance of the right of private defence of the body.—

Q.) Which one of the following is the correct group of offences against which right of private defence relating to property can be exercised?

1. theft, extortion, robbery, mischief.
2. theft, extortion, Mischief, criminal trespass
3. robbery, Mischief, criminal trespass, extortion.
4. theft, robbery, Mischief, criminal trespass

Explanation:- D
103. When the right of private defence of property extends to causing death.

Q.) Y picks X pocket. Next day X while buying Paan near his office finds Y paying money from X’s purse. X catches hold of Y and tries to take back his purse. Y resists. X twisted Y’s arm with such force that it is broken. X is charged with causing hurt to Y. X can

1. say that he was acting under right of private defence of property
2.  not raise the plea of right of private defence since he had time to seek the help of public authorities
3. say that his right of private defence was revived as soon as he saw Y with his purse
4. say that he did not use more force than was required

Explanation:- B
99. Acts against which there is no right of private defence.
There is no right of private defence in cases in which there is time to have recourse to protection of the public authorities.

Download| Free PDF

Sharing is caring!