A. Guilty of Culpable homicide not amounting to murder.
B. Guilty of murder.
C. Entitled to the benefit of Sec. 85.
D. Not of these.
✅ The correct answer is option A.
Indian Penal Code (IPC 1860) MCQs
In the above stated case the accused
A. Is guilty of rape and murder unless it is established that at the time doing he was so drunk that he
B. Is guilty of murder only.
C. Is guilty of rape only.
D. Is not guilty of rape any offence.
✅ The correct answer is option A.
Give the correct response.
A. Mere absence of motive of crime cannot in the absence of legal insanity bring the case within Sec. 84.
B. A person is exonerated from liability for his acts on the ground of unsoundness of mind.
C. Both (a) and (b).
D. None of the above.
✅ The correct answer is option C.
The accused ravished a girl of 13 years in furtherance of the act of rape placed his hand upon her mouth thereby causing death by suffocation. The sole defence was a plea of drunkenness.
A. Accused is entitled to the benefit of Sec. 85 because drunkenness is excuse in every case.
B. Accused is entitled to the benefit of Sec. 85.
C. Accused is not entitled to the benefit of Sec. 85.
D. Cannot say.
✅ The correct answer is option C.
Voluntary drunkenness is an excuse in case :
A. Delirium Tremens.
B. Where a specific intent is an essential element of an offence.
C. Both (a) and (b).
D. None of the above.
✅ The correct answer is option C.
Give correct response. A, the accused who professed to be a snake-charmer, persuaded D, the deceased to be bitten by a poisonous snake, by inducing him to believe that he has power to protect him from harm :
A. A was liable because he obtained D’s consent deceptively and fraudulently knowing if fully well that he would not be able to cure the deceased.
B. A was not liable because death was caused by snake biting with the consent of D, the deceased.
C. A was not liable because he did not induce D to give his consent, A only represented that he would be able to cure and D volunteered to be bitten by snake on his own.
D. A was liable because the consent was not a valid one as it was given under a misconception of fact i.e., in the belief that accused had power by charms to cure snake bites and the accused knew that the consent was given inconsequence of such misconception.
✅ The correct answer is option D.
Give correct response. A, a surgeon knowing that a particular operation is likely to cause the death of Z, who suffers under the painful complaint but not intending to cause Z’s death and intending in good faith Z’s benefit performs that operation on Z with Z’s Consent :
A. A would not be liable because Z consented to the performing of the operation and Z must be presumed to be aware with the evil consequences of it.
B. A would be liable because he knew that the operation was dangerous and was likely to cause death.
C. A would not be liable for any offence because the death was caused while performing an operation which act was done with the consent of Z, in good faith, for his benefit and without any intention to cause death.
D. A would be liable because operation though claimed to be performed in good faith and with Z’s consent was performed by obtaining Z’s consent unlawfully. Z’s consent was not a free consent.
✅ The correct answer is option C.
Give correct response. A girl of 13 years while going to the market passed through the gate of a mill where B was the only watchman on duty. B in a bid to commit rape caught the girl. She struggled but the accused shut her mouth and pressed the thumb of the other hand on her throat to prevent her from screaming. The girl died. The accused was tried for murder. B pleaded intoxication in his defence. It was held that :
A. B was not liable for murder because he never intended to commit murder but intended only to commit rape.
B. B was not liable because he was so deeply drunk that he was unable to know that what he was doing was either wrong or contrary to law.
C. B was liable for murder because the capacity of the mind of the accused to form the criminal intent which murder involves was to be explored in relation to the ravishment and not in relation to the violent acts which gave effect to the ravishment.
D. B was liable for murder because he was voluntarily drunk and voluntary drunkenness is no defence to a charge of murder.
✅ The correct answer is option C.
Give correct response. A was charged with the murder of a boy aged 15 or 16 years who had accompanied him to a wedding party. A was drunk at the time he fired the fatal shot, when he asked the boy to step aside to enable him to occupy a convenient seat but the boy did not move. In this case it was held that :
A. A would be liable because he was voluntarily drunk and voluntary drunkenness is never a defence.
B. A would not be liable and would be entitled to the defence of intoxication.
C. A would be liable because the rule is that we must attribute to the intoxicated person the same knowledge as if he was quite sober, but so far as the intent is concerned we must gather it from the attending circumstances of the case with due regard to the degree of the intoxication.
D. A would not be liable because his mental faculties were so much affected by intoxicating drink that he was unable to know the nature of the act.
✅ The correct answer is option C.
Give incorrect response. Section 90 I.P.C. lays down that in following cases consent shall not be a valid consent :
A. Consent given by a person under fear of injury or under a misconception of fact, provided the person doing the act knows or has reason to believe that the consent was given in consequence of such fear or misconception.
B. the consent is given by a person who from unsoundness of mind, or intoxication, is unable to understand the nature and consequence of that to which he gives his consent.
C. If the consent is given by a person who is under 18 years of age.
D. If the consent is given by a person who is under 12 years of age.
✅ The correct answer is option C.