Top 1000+ Solved Indian Penal Code (IPC 1860) MCQ Questions Answer
Q. Point out incorrect response. Indian law relating to drunkenness as defence may be summed up in the following propositions :
a. Voluntary drunkenness is no excuse for a crime which requires the mere presence of “knowledge” as distinct from intention.
b. Voluntary drunkenness is an excuse only as regards “intention”.
c. Where actual knowledge exists it gives rise to an inference of presumed intention so as to make voluntary drunkenness an excuse.
d. Involuntary drunkenness is an excuse.
Q. In cases where an act is not an offence unless done with particular knowledge and intents a person who does the act in state of intoxication shall be liable to the be dealt as if he :
a. Had the same intent and knowledge as he would have had if he had not been intoxicated.
b. Had the same knowledge as he would have had if he had not been intoxicated.
c. Had the acknowledge and intent.
d. Had the knowledge.
Q. The above stated provision applies to the person who :
a. Has drunk himself highly intoxicated thing.
b. Is highly intoxicated.
c. Is intoxicated by someone without his knowledge and intent.
d. None of the above.
Q. Give incorrect response.In order to avail the defence under section 87 of the I.P.C. the following conditions must be fulfilled:
a. Person giving consent is above 18 years of age.
b. If the act is done neither with the intention of causing death nor with the knowledge that it is likely to cause death or grievous hurt.
c. Harm is caused to any person with his consent whether express or implied.
d. Section 87 does not fix any age of the person consenting but section 90 says that consent in order to be valid must be of a person who is above 12 years, therefore, under section 87 also person giving consent must be above 12 years and not 18 years.
Q. Give correct response. A was charged with the murder of his wife, takes the defence of insanity and in the alternative of being drunk at the time of commission of the crime and being thus incapable of forming the intentrequired in murder. It is also pleaded in defence that the accused was a psychopath. The evidence further discloses that the accused had indicated an intention to kill his wife before taking alcohol. Here :
a. A is liable for murder, because the rule is that if the accused had been too drunk to form an intention to kill or do grievous bodily harm, he would, nevertheless have been guilty of manslaughter, either because he intended to commit a battery upon his wife or else because he would have been guilty of gross negligence.
b. A is liable for murder because he had indicated his intention to kill his wife before taking alcohol.
c. Since a was so deeply intoxicated that he was incapable of forming the criminal intent required in murder, therefore, A was not liable.
d. A is not liable for murder because the rule is that when due to alcoholic excess actual insanity supervenes, although temporarily, at the time of commission of the act, the prisoner is not to be held guilty for the act.
Q. 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.
Q. 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.
Q. 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.
Q. 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.
Q. Give best response. Z is carried off by a tiger. A fires at the tiger knowing it to be likely that the shot may kill Z, but not intending to kill Z and in good faith intending Z’s benefit, A’s bullet gives Z a mortal wound:
a. A is not liable because he never intended to kill and o person can be held liable unless the act resulting in death was done with the intention of causing death.
b. A is not liable because he is entitled to the defence under section 92. In this case the act was done in good faith for the benefit of the child (i.e. to save him from being taken off by the tiger) the likelihood of the harm was known but was not intended.
c. A is liable for murder and is not entitled to the defence under section 92 that ‘an act done in good faith, for the benefit of a person without consent is not an offence’.
d. A is liable for murder because he knew that the shot may kill Z, in homicide intention to kill is not always necessary merely knowledge that the act is likely to cause death is sufficient.
Q. Give correct response. A is in a house which is on fire, with Z, a child. People below hold out a blanket, A drops the child from the house top, knowing it to be likely that the fall may kill the child, but not intending to kill the child, and intending in good faith the child’s benefit. The child is killed by fall, Held that :
a. A is liable because he knew or had reasons to believe that fall was very likely to result in the death of the child.
b. A is liable because A’s act cannot be said to have been done in good faith in as much as he kne that the boy was very likely to be killed by such fall, even then he did not take precautions to save him.
c. A has committed no offence, because A dropped the child to save him from being killed by fire, the act being done in good faith and intending child’s benefit without any intention to harm him.
d. A is not liable because he had no intention to kill and no person can be held liable for homicide in absence of such intention.
Q. Give the correct response.
a. Consent can justify intentional causing of death.
b. Sec. 88 allows any harm to be inflicted for his benefit in good faith by anyone with the consent of other.
c. Both (a) and (b).
d. None of the above.
Q. A person attacked by lion in a jungle asked his friends to fire. They fired and one bullet hitthat person.
a. They are guilty of causing death.
b. They are not entitled to get benefit of Sec. 88.
c. They are entitled to get benefit.
d. They are guilty of causing death.
Q. Under Section 88 the age of consenting party shall be :
a. At least 12 years.
b. At least 18 years.
c. At least 10 years.
d. At least 7 years.
Q. A VADHYA not qualified as medical practitioner perform a major operation with the consentof that person :
a. He is not entitled as such vadhya can hardly be said to act in good faith.
b. He is entitled to get benefit because he knows that it is likely to cause his death.
c. He is not entitled to the benefit because he knows that it is likely to cause his death.
d. None of the above.