A. A is entitled to get benefit under Sec. 76 and 79 both.
B. A is entitled to get benefit under Sec. 76.
C. A is entitled to get benefit under Sec. 79.
D. A is not entitled to get any benefit.
✅ The correct answer is option C.
Indian Penal Code (IPC 1860) MCQs
A is at work with hatch, the head flies off and killed a person
A. Act of A is an offence and not executable.
B. A is guilty of not taking proper caution and care.
C. Act of A is an offence and executable.
D. None of the above.
✅ The correct answer is option B.
According to Sec. 79 — “Nothing an offence which is done by any person who is justified by law and who by reason of mistake of fact in good faith believes himself to be :
A. Bound by law in doing it.
B. Justified by law in doing it.
C. Right in doing it.
D. None of the above.
✅ The correct answer is option B.
Nothing is an offence which is done without any criminal intention and knowledge in the doing of :
A. Lawful act in a lawful manner by lawful means.
B. Lawful act in a lawful manner by lawful means and with proper care and caution.
C. Any act in a lawful manner by lawful means.
D. Unlawful act in a lawful manner by lawful means.
✅ The correct answer is option D.
Nothing is an offence which is done by :
A. Misfortunate
B. Accident
C. Both (a) and (b)
D. None of the above
✅ The correct answer is option C.
When the act in itself is wrongful the defence of mistake of fact cannot be availed. It was held in an English case
A. R Vs. Prince.
B. R Vs. Tolson.
C. Baily case.
D. None of the above.
✅ The correct answer is option A.
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.
Give correct response. A, in a great fire, pulls down B’s house in order to prevent the conflagration from spreading. He does this without the intention, in good faith, to saving human life or property. In this case :
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.
✅ The correct answer is option D.
Give the correct response
A. In England a child under 14 cannot be convicted of rape.
B. In India a child of 12 years can be convicted of rape.
C. Both (a) and (b).
D. None of the above.
✅ The correct answer is option C.
Give correct response. A, the accused was beating B with his fists, when the latter’s wife with a baby on her shoulder interfered. A hit the woman but the blow struck the child on his head resulting in death. Held :
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.
✅ The correct answer is option D.