MCQ Set-1

  

MCQ Questions

1. Section 84 of IPC provides for

(a) medical insanity

(b) legal insanity

(c) moral insanity

(d) unsoundness of mind of any kind.

Answers 1: Section 84 of IPC provides for (d) unsoundness of mind of any kind.

Section 84 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) deals with the defence of unsoundness of mind, which applies when a person commits an act while being of unsound mind. This section provides that a person who commits an offence while being of unsound mind is not criminally liable for that act.

2. Irresistible impulse is a defence

(a) in India

(b) in England

(c) in India and England both

(d) neither in India nor in England.

Answers 2: Irresistible impulse is a defence (c) in India and England both.

Irresistible impulse is a defence in both India and England. This defence refers to the inability of a person to control their actions, even though they knew that their actions were wrong. This defence can be used in cases where a person was suffering from a mental illness at the time of the offence.

3. A hangman who hangs the prisoners pursuant to the order of the court is exempt from criminal liability by virtue of

(a) section 77 of IPC

(b) section 78 of IPC

(c) section 79 of IPC

(d) section 76 of IPC.

Answers 3: A hangman who hangs the prisoners pursuant to the order of the court is exempt from criminal liability by virtue of (b) section 78 of IPC.

Section 78 of the IPC provides protection to persons who commit acts in good faith pursuant to the orders of a court. A hangman who executes the order of the court to hang a prisoner is protected under this section, and therefore, is exempt from criminal liability.

4. Insanity as a defence means that a person at the time of doing an act, by reason of unsoundness of mind is incapable of knowing

(a) the nature of the act

(b) that what he is doing is wrong

(c) that what he is doing is contrary to law

(d) either (a) or (b) or (c).

Answers 4: Insanity as a defence means that a person at the time of doing an act, by reason of unsoundness of mind is incapable of knowing (d) either (a) or (b) or (c).

Insanity as a defence means that a person, at the time of committing the act, was suffering from unsoundness of mind and, as a result, was incapable of knowing either the nature of the act, or that what they were doing was wrong, or that what they were doing was contrary to law. The defence of insanity applies only if the person was incapable of knowing any of these three things.

5. Which of the following is correct

(a) the burden of proof that the accused was not insane at the time of commission of offence is on the prosecution

(b) the burden of proving that the accused was insane at the time of commission of offence is on the accused

(c) there is a rebuttable presumption of fact that accused was insane at the time of commission of the offence

(d) it is a matter of inference to be drawn by the court on the facts proved by the prosecution.

Answers 5: Which of the following is correct (b) the burden of proving that the accused was insane at the time of commission of the offence is on the accused.

The burden of proving that the accused was insane at the time of committing the offence is on the accused. However, once the accused raises the defence of insanity, the burden of proving that the accused was sane at the time of committing the offence lies on the prosecution.

6. For unsoundness of mind, the impairment of the cognitive faculty of mind to escape criminal liability

(a) must be total

(b) must be partial

(c) both (a) & (b)

(d) none of the above.

Answers 6: For unsoundness of mind, the impairment of the cognitive faculty of mind to escape criminal liability (b) must be partial.

The defence of unsoundness of mind applies if the cognitive faculty of the mind of the accused is partially impaired. The impairment does not have to be total, and the accused may be held criminally liable if their impairment is not significant enough to affect their cognitive abilities.

7. Intoxication as defence is contained in

(a) section 85 of IPC

(b) section 86 of IPC

(c) section 87 of IPC

(d) both (a) & (b).

Answers 7: Intoxication as a defence is contained in (d) both (a) & (b).

Intoxication as a defence is contained in both section 85 and section 86 of the IPC. Section 85 provides that voluntary intoxication is not a defence to a criminal charge. However, section 86 provides that if a person was so intoxicated at the time of committing the offence that they were incapable of knowing the nature of the act or that what they were doing was wrong, they may be able to raise the defence of intoxication.

8. For a defence of intoxication, to escape criminal liability, the degeneration of mental faculties

a) must be total

(b) must be partial

(c) both (a) & (b)

(d) only (b) above is correct & (a) is incorrect.

Answers 8: For a defence of intoxication, to escape criminal liability, the degeneration of mental faculties (b) must be partial.

For the defence of intoxication to be successful, the degeneration of the mental faculties of the accused must be partial. If the impairment of the mental faculties is total, then the defence of intoxication will not be available.

9. For a defence of intoxication, to escape criminal liability, the intoxication

(a) can be self administered

(b) administered against his will or knowledge

(c) should not be self administered

(d) all the above.

Answers 9: For a defence of intoxication, to escape criminal liability, the intoxication (d) all the above.

Explanation: To escape criminal liability on the ground of intoxication, the intoxication can be self-administered or administered against the accused's will or knowledge. Thus, option (d) is the correct answer.

10. In cases where the act involves a specific mens rea, in cases of intoxication under section 86 of IPC

(a) the existence of mens rea is presumed

(b) the specific mens rea is not presumed

(c) the specific mens rea depends upon the attending circumstances & the degree of intoxication

(d) none of the above.

Answers 10: In cases where the act involves a specific mens rea, in cases of intoxication under section 86 of IPC (c) the specific mens rea depends upon the attending circumstances & the degree of intoxication.

Explanation: Under section 86 of IPC, when the act involves a specific mens rea, the specific mens rea depends upon the attending circumstances and the degree of intoxication. Hence, option (c) is the correct answer.

11. The doctrine ‘volenti non fit injuria’ is contained in

(a) section 87 of IPC

(b) section 88 of IPC

(c) section 89 of IPC

(d) all the above.

Answers 11: The doctrine ‘volenti non fit injuria’ is contained in (b) section 88 of IPC.

Explanation: The doctrine 'volenti non fit injuria' means that a person who has voluntarily exposed himself to a known danger cannot sue for any harm resulting from that exposure. This doctrine is contained in section 88 of the IPC. Thus, option (b) is the correct answer.

12. The defence of ‘consent’ applies to

(a) private wrongs

(b) public wrongs

(c) both (a) & (b)

(d) neither (a) nor (b).

Answers 12: The defence of ‘consent’ applies to (c) both (a) & (b).

Explanation: The defence of consent applies to both private wrongs and public wrongs. Thus, option (c) is the correct answer.

13. The defence of ‘consent’ is restrictive in its applicability in cases involving

(a) alienable rights

(b) inalienable rights

(c) both (a) &(b)

(d) neither (a) nor (b).

Answers 13: The defence of ‘consent’ is restrictive in its applicability in cases involving (b) inalienable rights.

Explanation: The defence of consent is restrictive in its applicability in cases involving inalienable rights. Thus, option (b) is the correct answer.

14. The defence of ‘consent’ is not available in cases of

(a) consent to cause death

(b) consent to cause grievous hurt

(c) both (a) & (b)

(d) either (a) or (b).

Answers 14: The defence of ‘consent’ is not available in cases of (c) both (a) & (b).

Explanation: The defence of consent is not available in cases of consent to cause death or grievous hurt. Thus, option (c) is the correct answer.

15. Operation of consent to all offences, short of causing death intentionally, has been extended under

(a) section 88 of IPC

(b) section 90 of IPC

(c) section 91 of IPC

(d) section 87 of IPC.

Answers 15: Operation of consent to all offences, short of causing death intentionally, has been extended under (b) section 90 of IPC.

Explanation: Section 90 of the IPC extends the operation of consent to all offences, short of causing death intentionally. Thus, option (b) is the correct answer.