Top 1000+ Solved Indian Penal Code (IPC 1860) MCQ Questions Answer
Q. Give correct response. A married girl, Sudha aged about 10 years slept in the night with her mother-in-law. Her husband Vinay aged about 19 years slept with his brother in another hut but in the same homestead. In the early hours of the fateful day the mother-in-law woke Sudha and told her to go about her household duties. Shortly after this Sudha was seen running out of the house and her husband was found mortally wounded on the neck by her. She was hiding herself in a field and could be found only in the afternoon.
a. Sudha was doli capax as it could be inferred from the case, therefore, she was liable unless proved to be doli incapax.
b. Sudha was doli incapax being below 12 years and was not liable.
c. The circumstances in which murder was committed and the conduct of Sudha were not so as to lead to an inference beyond reasonable doubt that she was guilty.
d. Sudha was not liable because a child below 12 years of age is absolutely immune from liability because of her immature age.
Q. A person cuts of the head of sleeping person because it would be great fun to see himlooking for it when he woke up. He is :
a. Entitled to get benefit of see. 84.
b. Not entitled to get such benefit.
c. Guilty of causing death.
d. None of the above.
Q. An accused on being commanded in his dream by some one to kill his wife as being adenial, into the head of his wife. He is :
a. Entitled to the benefit of Sec. 84 IPC.
b. Not entitled as he knew the nature of act.
c. Not entitled to the benefit of Se 94 IPC.
d. None of the above.
Q. 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.
Q. A man suddenly murdered his wife and sister in law and he made no attempt to run away.This case :
a. Falls within Sec. 84.
b. Does fall within Sec. 84 because of absence of motive.
c. Does not fall within Se 84 because of presence of motive behind the act.
d. Does not fall within Sec. 84 because absence of motive does not imply unsoundness of min
Q. Give the correct response:
a. Medical insanity and legal insanity under Sec. 84 are different.
b. Medical, insanity and legal insanity under Sec. 84 are same thing.
c. Legal insanity under Se. 84 meant the person’s consciousness of the bearing of his acts on those affected by it.
d. Both (b) and (c).
Q. A person suffering from fever killed his children as being annoyed at their crying. He :
a. Is entitled as he was annoyed.
b. Is entitled as he was suffering from decease.
c. Is not entitled to the benefit of Se 84 because he knows the nature of act.
d. Is entitled as he did not know the nature of act.
Q. Give the correct response :An intoxicated person is exonerated from liability of his acts provided
a. That the thing which intoxicated him was administered to him without his knowledge or against his will.
b. That at the time of doing it he was in such state of intoxication that he was unable to know the nature of his acts.
c. Both (a) and (b).
d. None of the above.
Q. 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.
Q. The accused ravished a girl of 13 years in furtherance of the act of rape placed his handupon 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 Se 85.
d. Cannot say.
Q. 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.
Q. A drunken person killed his uncle. It was established that he was in such a state ofintoxication, incapable of forming specific intent to kill. He is:
a. Guilty of Culpable homicide not amounting to murder.
b. Guilty of murder.
c. Entitled to the benefit of Se 85.
d. Not of these.
Q. In the above stated question the person is guilty of culpable homicide not amounting tomurder because in this case
a. 86 protect to assume specific intent.
b. Sec. 86 does not say any thing to assume knowledge on the part of accused.
c. Both (a) and (b).
d. None of the above.
Q. An accused committed murder without any motive under the epileptic fit . He :
a. Is guilty of murder.
b. Is entitled to get benefit under Sec. 84.
c. Is not entitled to get such benefit.
d. None of the above.
Q. Point out incorrect response.The following are the ingredients of the defence of unsoundness of mind under section 84 I.P.C. :
a. Act must be done by a person of unsound mind.
b. Such person must be incapable of knowing : (i) the nature of the act, or (ii) that the act was contrary to law, or (iii) that the act was wrong.
c. A person must be suffering from some defect of reason whether it is because of some disease of mind or otherwise at the time of commission of the crime.
d. Incapacity must be by reason of unsoundness of mind of the offender and incapacity must exist at the time of doing of the act constituting the offence.