UPSC Archives

5251. Give correct response. A concerts with B a plan of poisoning Z. It is agreed that A shall administer the poison. B then explains the plan to C mentioning that a third person is to administer the poison, but without mentioning A’s name. C agrees to procure the poison, and procures and delivers it to B for the purpose of its being used in the manner explained. A administers the poison; Z dies in consequence. In this case C’s liability is as follows :

A. C will not be liable for abetment by conspiracy because C can only be held liable if he had concerted with A and B.

B. C would be liable for attempting to commit murder but not for committing murder because the poison was administered by A.

C. C is not liable for murder because he never conspired with A.

D. Though A and C have not conspire together yet C has been engaged in the conspiracy in pursuance of which Z has been murdered. C has, therefore, abetted the offence of murder and would be liable to the punishment of murder.

✅ The correct answer is option D.

5252. Give best response. A and B have been married for some time. Due to acute financial difficulties they decide to commit suicide. A procures some poison which both of them take. But A, the husband survives whereas B, the wife dies as a result of taking the poison. In this case :

A. A is liable for abetment. A by deciding to commit suicide with his wife has abetted her by counselling to commit suicide.

B. A is liable for murder and not for abetment. Where the parties mutually agreed to commit suicide, and one only accomplished that object the survivor will be guilty of murder and not for abetment only.

C. A is neither liable for murder not for abetment but attempting to murder his wife.

D. A is liable for murder as well as for abetment of murder.

✅ The correct answer is option A.

5253. Point out incorrect response. The exercise of the right of private defence under the Penal Code is subject to the following limitations as contained in section 99 of the code :

A. If the right of private defence is exceeded by the person exercising such right, the other party apprehended shall also have the right of private defence.

B. There is no right of private defence against an act done by public servant acting in good faith under colour of his office unless it causes apprehension of death or grievous hurt.

C. The right of private defence in no case extends to the inflicting of more harm than it is necessary to inflict for the purposes of defence.

D. There is no right of private defence in cases in which there is time to have recourse to the protection of public authorities.

✅ The correct answer is option A.

5254. Point out incorrect response. The right of private defence of property extends to the voluntarily causing of death if the offence apprehended be of the following description:

A. House trespass under such circumstances as may be reasonably cause the apprehension of death or grievous hurt.

B. Theft under such circumstances as may reasonably cause the apprehension of death or grievous hurt.

C. Mischief under such circumstances as may reasonably cause the apprehension of death or grievous hurt.

D. Public nuisance under such circumstances as may reasonably cause the apprehension of death or grievous hurt.

✅ The correct answer is option D.

5255. Point out incorrect response. The right of private defence of body extends to the causing of death if the offence which occasions the exercise of the right of private defence is of the following description :

A. An assault with the intention kidnapping or abducting.

B. An assault with the intention of wrongfully restraining a person.

C. An assault with the intention of committing rape.

D. An assault with the intention of gratifying unnatural lust.

✅ The correct answer is option B.

5256. Point out incorrect response. In order to avail the defence under section 94 I.P.C. the following conditions must be fulfilled.

A. Murder and offences against the State punishable with death are the two exceptions to the defence of compulsion as contained in section 94 I.P.C.

B. Act must be done by a person who is compelled to do it by threats.

C. The threat must be such, which at the time of doing of the act, reasonably causes the apprehension of instant death to that person.

D. However the person doing the act did not of his own or from reasonable apprehension of any harm to himself, place himself in the situation by which he became subject to such constraint.

✅ The correct answer is option D.

5257. Give correct response. A is attacked by a mob who attempt to murder him. He cannot effectually exercise his right of private defence without firing on the mob and he cannot fire without risk of harming children who are mingled with the mob. One of the children is killed by such firing. In this case:

A. A is liable for committing only culpable homicide not amounting to murder because he did not intend to cause death but death was caused in doing an act in the exercise of his right of private defence and this right was exceeded.

B. A is liable for committing murder because he knew that his act was dangerous and some one was very likely to be killed.

C. A is not liable for murder because the law relating to the right of private defence of body permits causing of any harm in the exercise of right of private defence provided that the apprehension was either of death or of grievous hurt.

D. A commits no offence because section 106 of the Penal Code permits taking of risk of causing any harm to innocent persons, by doing an act in the exercise of the right of private defence against an assault which reasonably causes the apprehension of death.

✅ The correct answer is option D.

5258. Give best response. A is attacked by a mob who attempt to cause grievous hurt to him. He cannot effectually exercise his right of private defence without firing on the mob and he cannot fire without taking the risk of harming young children who are mingled with the mob. In this case :

A. A cannot claim the defence under section 106 because the right of private defence under this section permits taking of risk to cause harm to innocent persons only against deadly assault.

B. A commits no offence if by so firing he harms any of the children because section 106 permits taking of such risk in private defence.

C. A is liable for the offence committed because the right of private defence in no case permits taking risk of causing any harm to innocent persons.

D. A is not liable for any offence because the right of private defence justifies causing of any harm to avoid death or grievous hurt.

✅ The correct answer is option A.

5259. Give correct response. A finding a thief B entering into his house at night, through an entrance made in the side-wall seized B while intruding his body and held him with his face down to the ground to prevent his further entrance and thereby caused his death by suffocation. Held :

A. A is liable for culpable homicide and is not entitled to the defence of right of private defence of property.

B. Since B was a thief, A could cause B any harm other than death in defence of his property. A has exceeded his right by causing death, he would, therefore, be liable not for murder but for culpable homicide.

C. A was entitled to claim private defence in his justification, he has not exceeded his right of private defence as he was only holding him to prevent his further entrance. The harm caused is proportionate and justifiable.

D. Since the rule under section 99 of the I.P.C. is that no harm more than that is necessary to inflict for the purpose of defence is justified and A has inflicted more harm than was necessary but he has no intention to cause death or bodily injury likely to cause death, therefore, A is liable for causing hurt only.

✅ The correct answer is option C.

5260. Give best response. A entered the house of B at the dead of night with the intention of committing theft. B struck him with a lathi in the dark and A fell down unconscious. B gave him one more blow which fell on A’s head, causing extensive bleeding and A’s death. B is prosecuted for murder and takes the plea that the death was caused in exercise of the right of private defence of property. Here :

A. B acted in the exercise of his right of private defence and is, therefore, not liable.

B. B’s right of private defence of property in case of apprehension of theft did not extend to the causing of death but any harm other than death. Therefore, B is not entitled to claim successfully the right of private defence but at the same time he would be entitled to avail the exception (2) to section 300 and would only be liable for committing culpable domicile.

C. Under section 104 of the Penal Code B could cause any harm other than death in defence of his property. Since B has caused death, he would be liable for murder.

D. Since A entered B’s house at dead of night with a view to commit theft, B was entitled to claim the benefit of section 103 of the Penal Code and will not be liable for murder.

✅ The correct answer is option B.