Top 1000+ Solved Indian Penal Code (IPC 1860) MCQ Questions Answer
Q. An idol of Lord Krishna is a temple is:
a. A natural person
b. A legal person
c. Not a person in the eye of law because only the priest of the temple will be a person
d. Not a person because no personality can be conferred on Go
Q. Which one of the following is not a “public servant”?
a. Liquidator
b. A civil Judge
c. Member of a panchayat assisting a Court of justice
d. Secretary of a Co-operative society.
Q. An Indian citizen commits any offence out of India, he:
a. Cannot be prosecuted in India, as the act was not committed in India
b. Can be prosecuted in the country where the offence was committed
c. Can be prosecuted in India in any place in which he may be found
d. None of the above.
Q. Under which of the following situations would Indian courts have jurisdiction? 1. Crime committed by an Indian in a foreign country 2. Crime committed by a foreign in India 3. Crime committed by a person on an Indian ship. Select the correct answer using the codes given below: Codes:
a. 1 and 2
b. 1 and 3
c. 2 alone
d. 1, 2 and 3.
Q. Give correct response. A an Indian citizen commits murder in America and makes good his escape to India.
a. A can be prosecuted in India in any place where he is found because by virtue of Section 4 of I.P.C. the code has extra territorial application in case of offences committed by Indian citizen.
b. A cannot be prosecuted in India because the act was not committed in this country.
c. A can neither be prosecuted in America nor in India.
d. A can only be prosecuted in America where the offence has been committe
Q. Give correct response. A, a Korean national commits murder of B, an English lady on an Indian Air Lines plane while on a journey from India to Japan.
a. A can be tried either in Korea or in England because the murderer was a Korean and the victim was a national of England.
b. A can be prosecuted in India in any place where he is found because Section 4 of the I.P.C. provides this the provisions of the code apply to any offence committed by any person on any ship or aircraft registered in India.
c. A cannot be prosecuted in India because the offence has not been committed against an Indian citizen.
d. A can only be prosecuted in Korea because only that country of which an offender is a national has jurisdiction to prosecute.
Q. Point out incorrect response.The following persons are exempted from the jurisdiction of criminal courts in India.
a. Alien enemies committing acts of war.
b. Foreign Sovereigns.
c. Foreign army on Indian soil present with the consent of Government of India.
d. Alien enemy committing a crime unconnected with war e.g., theft.
Q. Point out incorrect response.The following persons are exempted from the jurisdiction of criminal courts in India.
a. The Governors of States in Indi
b. The President of India.
c. Foreign Ambassadors.
d. The Prime Minister of India.
Q. Which one of the following brings out the distinction between Section 34 and 149 of the IPC?
a. Section 34 creates a specific offence whereas Section 149 does not
b. Section 34 as well as Section 149 creates specific offences.
c. Section 149 creates a specific offence whereas Section 34 does not.
d. Section 34 as well as Section 149 do not create specific offences.
Q. Assertion (A): X and Y had independently entertained the idea to kill Z. Accordingly each of them separately inflicted wounds on Z, who dies in consequence. X and Y are liable for murder with the aid of Section 34 IPC. Reason (R): When a criminal act is done by several persons in furtherance of common intention of all, each of such persons is liable as if the whole act is done by him alone. Of the above statements.
a. Both A and R are true and R is the correct explanation of A
b. Both A and R are true and R is NOT a correct explanation of A
c. A is true but R is false
d. A is false but R is true.
Q. 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.
Q. 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.
Q. 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.
Q. 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.
Q. 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.