Author name: Admin

198. Point out incorrect response. The M’ Neghten Rules relating to the defence of insanity provide :

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.
✅ The correct answer is option D.

199. Give correct response. Section 83 of the Indian Penal Code deals with the defence of infancy. It provides that :

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.
✅ The correct answer is option A.

181. Give correct response. A, B and C three adults and D a boy were on a voyage in an open boat. They had no food after about 18 years of journey. C proposed to B and A to sacrifice the boy so that they may feed upon ut B did not agree. On 20th day C with the consent of A only killed the boy and all the three fed upon the boy for four days when they were picked up. It was found that the boy was in a weaker condition and was likely to die before others and also if the men would not have fed upon the boy, hey would not have survived. Held that:

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.
✅ The correct answer is option A.

187. Point out incorrect response. The following are ingredients of the defence of necessity under section 81 of the Penal Code :

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.
✅ The correct answer is option D.