A. The act constituting the offence is known by the wrongdoer to be 29 likely to cause harm, but it is done without any criminal intention to cause harm.

B. The act must have been done in good faith.

C. The act must have been done for the purpose of preventing or avoiding other harm to person or property.

D. The act must be one done neither with the intention to cause harm nor with the knowledge to cause harm.

A. Browning was charged with reckless driving. He pleaded that he was trying to escape serious injury and illegal arrest by police officers who wished to ambush him.

B. A placed poison in his toddy pots knowing that if taken by a human being it would cause injury, but with the intention of thereby detecting an unknown thief who was in the habit of stealing the toddy from his pots. The toddy was drunk by soldier who purchased it from an unknown vendor.

C. A, a bargeman threw the goods of the plaintiff out of a barge in order to lighten it in a storm and for the safety of the passengers. It was found that the bargeman had overloaded the barge.

D. A sees a tiger attacking B and he feels sure that the tiger will be on him within a minute. A shoots the tiger fully knowing that B and the tiger are so close that he might kill B and not the tiger. A thus kills B.

A. A has violated the election law and cannot plead mistake in his defence.

B. A has committed no offence, he can plead mistake of fact in his defence as he believed in good faith to be of age.

C. Ignorance of law is no excuse; ignorance of fact only is an excuse. A is liable because he has committed mistake of law.

D. Since A was a minor not having attained the age of majority he can plead the defence under section 83 of the Penal Code.

A. A was not liable for causing death of the child because he intended to hit the woman, and the blow unfortunately fell upon the child.

B. A was not liable for child’s death because he never intended to kill the child who was hit only by accident.

C. A was liable for causing death of the child because he intended to hit the woman and did not act in good faith knowing it fully well that she was having her baby on her shoulder.

D. No doubt the child was hit by accident but the act of A was not a lawful act being done in lawful manner by lawful means, therefore, he would be liable.

A. A would be liable because no amount of necessity can justify causing of harm to innocent parties.

B. A would be liable for causing harm day doing mischief to B and will not succeed in his defence of necessity.

C. A would not be liable because he had no intention to cause harm to B’s property but to save it from being damaged by fire.

D. A would not be liable because he has pulled down B’s house in order to prevent the conflagration from spreading i.e. the act was done in good faith for the purpose of avoiding greater harm to person or property : the rule is that causing of lesser evil is justified to avoid greater evil.

A. A, B and C would be liable for murder of the boy because self-preservations not an absolute necessity and there can be no necessity that justifies homicide.

B. A, B, and C were not liable for murder of the boy because Sec.81 of the Penal Code justifies causing of lesser evil in order to avoid greater evil.

C. A, B and C were not liable for murder of the boy because to preserve one’s life is generally speaking a duty and in the present case there was no other way of saving the life of all the three except that some one was killed to save others from death by starvation.

D. A, B and C would not be liable because, the rule that a necessity can never be a defence to a charge of homicide is not conclusive and justifies homicide in self-defence.

A. A child who is above 7 but below 12 years of age is deemed to be doli capax and he would not

B. A child who is above 7 but below 12 years of age is deemed to be doli incapax, therefore, he would be liable if it be proved that he was doli capax.

C. Section 83 is based on the principle of presumption of innocence of the accused unless the prosecution proves otherwise.

D. In order to avail the defence under section 83 it must be shown that the child was above 7 but below 12 years of age and if that much is proved the burden shall then lie upon the prosecution to prove that he was capable of knowing the nature and quality of his act.

A. If the accused was conscious that the act was one which he ought not too do and five that act was at the same time contrary to the law of the land, he is punishable.

B. That every man is presumed to be same and to possess a sufficient degree of reason to be responsible for his crimes until the contrary be proved to the satisfaction of the jury or the Court.

C. It must be shown that at the time of committing the act, the accused was laboring under such a defect of reason from desease of mind as not to know the nature and quality of the act he was doing, or if he did not know it that he did not know that what he was doing was wrong.

D. Where the criminal act is done under insane delusion as to the surrounding facts which conceal from him the true nature of the act he is doing he would not be under the same degree of responsibility as he would have been on the facts as he imagined them to be.

A. 14 years of age.

B. 18 years of age.

C. 7 years of age.

D. 10 years of age.

A. He cannot be held guilty as he did not attained sufficient maturity.

B. He is guilty of committing theft.

C. A child below 12 years of age cannot be held guilty of any offence.

D. None of the above.