Top 1000+ Solved Indian Penal Code (IPC 1860) MCQ Questions Answer
Q. Give incorrect response. The defence of necessity will be available in the following cases :
a. Browning was charged with reckless driving. He pleaded that he was trying to escape serious injury and illegal arrest by police officers who wished to ambush him.
b. A placed poison in his toddy pots knowing that if taken by a human being it would cause injury, but with the intention of thereby detecting an unknown thief who was in the habit of stealing the toddy from his pots. The toddy was drunk by soldier who purchased it from an unknown vendor.
c. A, a bargeman threw the goods of the plaintiff out of a barge in order to lighten it in a storm and for the safety of the passengers. It was found that the bargeman had overloaded the barge.
d. A sees a tiger attacking B and he feels sure that the tiger will be on him within a minute. A shoots the tiger fully knowing that B and the tiger are so close that he might kill B and not the tiger. A thus kills B.
Q. Give best response. A voted before he has attained the age of majority prescribed for exercising the right of franchise, believing that he was of age. Here:
a. A has violated the election law and cannot plead mistake in his defence.
b. A has committed no offence, he can plead mistake of fact in his defence as he believed in good faith to be of age.
c. Ignorance of law is no excuse; ignorance of fact only is an excuse. A is liable because he has committed mistake of law.
d. Since A was a minor not having attained the age of majority he can plead the defence under section 83 of the Penal Code.
Q. 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.
Q. 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.
Q. 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.
Q. Give correct response.Section 83 of the Indian Penal Code deals with the defence of infancy. It provides that :
a. A child who is above 7 but below 12 years of age is deemed to be doli capax and he would not
b. A child who is above 7 but below 12 years of age is deemed to be doli incapax, therefore, he would be liable if it be proved that he was doli capax.
c. Section 83 is based on the principle of presumption of innocence of the accused unless the prosecution proves otherwise.
d. In order to avail the defence under section 83 it must be shown that the child was above 7 but below 12 years of age and if that much is proved the burden shall then lie upon the prosecution to prove that he was capable of knowing the nature and quality of his act.
Q. Point out incorrect response. The M’ Neghten Rules relating to the defence of insanity provide :
a. If the accused was conscious that the act was one which he ought not too do and five that act was at the same time contrary to the law of the land, he is punishable.
b. That every man is presumed to be same and to possess a sufficient degree of reason to be responsible for his crimes until the contrary be proved to the satisfaction of the jury or the Court.
c. It must be shown that at the time of committing the act, the accused was laboring under such a defect of reason from desease of mind as not to know the nature and quality of the act he was doing, or if he did not know it that he did not know that what he was doing was wrong.
d. Where the criminal act is done under insane delusion as to the surrounding facts which conceal from him the true nature of the act he is doing he would not be under the same degree of responsibility as he would have been on the facts as he imagined them to be.
Q. Nothing is an offence which is done by a child under S.82
a. 14 years of age.
b. 18 years of age.
c. 7 years of age.
d. 10 years of age.
Q. 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.
Q. A child of 11 year stolen a neckless worth Rs. 1000 and sold it in Rs. 5/-
a. He cannot be held guilty as he did not attained sufficient maturity.
b. He is guilty of committing theft.
c. A child below 12 years of age cannot be held guilty of any offence.
d. None of the above.
Q. Nothing is an offence which is done by a child, who has not attained sufficient maturity ofunderstanding to judge of the nature of his conduct and consequence. This provision applies to children of age group of :
a. Below 7 years.
b. 7-12 years.
c. Below twelve years.
d. 7-14 years.
Q. Under Sec. 84 a person is exonerated from liability for doing an act on the ground ofunsoundness of mind :
a. Before the time of doing.
b. After the time of doing.
c. At the time of doing.
d. None of the above.
Q. A person is exonerated from liability for doing an act on the ground of unsoundness of mindif he is either incapable of knowing:
a. That he is doing what is either wrong or contrary to law.
b. The nature of the act.
c. Both (a) and (b).
d. None of the above.
Q. Nothing is an offence which is done by a child above the age of seven years and below the12 years and who :
a. Is handicapped.
b. Is an orphan.
c. Has not attained sufficient maturity of understanding the nature and consequence of his conduct.
d. None of the above.
Q. Point out incorrect response.The following are the ingredients of section 83 I.P. Code.
a. An act done by a child above 7 years but under 12 years of age.
b. A child of above 7 but below 12 years is in India presumed to be doli incapax, therefore, the prosecution has to establish that he was doli capax.
c. The child must not have attained sufficient maturity of understanding to judge of the nature and consequences of his conduct.
d. Incapacity must exist at the time of commission of the act.