Indian Penal Code - Study Mode
[#436] Principle: Whoever causes death by doing an act with the intention of causing death, commits the offence of culpable homicide. However, a person is guilty of culpable homicide amounting to murder if the act by which the death is caused is done with the intention of causing death. Factual Situation: Saurab, had a serious argument with his wife. The woman uttered some filthy words at Saurab, which further irritated him. He moved towards the woman with a wooden piece to beat her. Suddenly, their daughter who was sleeping in the room woke up and ran towards her mother. Saurab's blow fell on the child's head and she fell down unconscious. The couple believed that their daughter died due to the blow. Saurab immediately took out a rope and hung her by the neck on to the ceiling fan to give the impression that the girl committed suicide as she failed in the Class X examination. When the rope got tightened the child cried, but died immediately due to asphyxiation.
Correct Answer
(C) Saurab is guilty of culpable homicide as he thought that his daughter had already died and he believed that he was only hanging a dead body
Explanation
Solution: Definition of Culpable Homicide and Murder: Culpable homicide is the causing of death by an act with the intention of causing death or with the knowledge that the act is likely to cause death. Murder is a type of culpable homicide where the act causing death is done with the intention of causing death. Analysis of the Factual Situation: Saurab initially hit his daughter with a wooden piece, causing her serious injury. He then, believing she was already dead, hanged her. The initial act, even if unintentional in terms of killing the daughter, caused grievous hurt. The second act, hanging the child, was done with the intention of making it look like a suicide. Even if he believed the child was already dead, this belief was mistaken. Why Option A is Correct: Saurab is guilty of murder. The principle clearly states that intention to cause death is necessary for murder. While the initial blow might not have had the intention to kill, the act of hanging the daughter, regardless of his belief that she was already dead, demonstrates his intention to cause her death (by staging a suicide to cover up the initial assault). The subsequent death due to asphyxiation directly resulted from this intentional act. Why other options are incorrect: Option B: While the wife may be an accomplice in covering up the crime (by potentially helping to stage the suicide), she did not directly cause the death. The primary responsibility for the murder lies with Saurab. Option C: This is incorrect because Saurab's belief that his daughter was already dead is irrelevant. His act of hanging her, regardless of his mistaken belief, was done with the intention of causing death (or at least causing the appearance of death which eventually led to death). The act itself, in the end, resulted in death through asphyxiation. Option D: While the initial blow caused grievous hurt, this alone does not encompass the entire crime. The hanging of the daughter, an act with the intention of causing death (even if misconstrued), constitutes murder. The initial injury was a contributing factor but does not supersede the clear intention demonstrated in the second act. The death is directly attributable to the act of hanging, which was done with intent.
[#437] The 'doctrine of joint liability' as envisaged by Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 is based on the decision of the following-
Correct Answer
(D) Reg. v. Cruise
Explanation
Solution: Definition of Doctrine of Joint Liability: The **doctrine of joint liability** is established under **Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC), 1860**. It states that **when a criminal act is committed by several persons in furtherance of a common intention, each of them is equally liable as if the entire act were done by him alone**. This doctrine ensures that all individuals involved in a preplanned crime are held accountable, even if only one person physically executed the act. Correct Answer: The correct answer is **Option A: Barendra Kumar Ghosh v. Emperor**. Explanation: The landmark case **Barendra Kumar Ghosh v. Emperor (1925)** laid down the principles of **joint liability** under **Section 34 IPC**. In this case, **Barendra Kumar Ghosh and his accomplices attempted a robbery at a post office, during which the postmaster was shot dead**. Although Barendra did not fire the fatal shot, the court held that he was equally guilty because the act was committed **in furtherance of their common intention**. The Privy Council upheld this ruling, reinforcing the concept that **participation in a common plan makes all participants equally liable**. Other Options: Option B: Mulcahy v. R. – This case relates to **conspiracy law** under English jurisprudence, not **joint liability under Section 34 IPC**. Option C: Pandurang v. State of Hyderabad – This case clarified that **mere presence at the crime scene does not amount to joint liability unless a common intention is proven**. Option D: Reg. v. Cruise – This is an English case that is **not directly related to the doctrine of joint liability under IPC**. Thus, the **Barendra Kumar Ghosh case** serves as the **foundation for interpreting Section 34 IPC** and establishes that **all individuals sharing a common intention to commit a crime are equally responsible**.
[#438] To prove both the parts of the offence contemplated in Section 116 of the Indian Penal Code, which of the following must be proved by the prosecution? 1. To prove the first part, the accused did abet the offence either by instigation or by conspiracy or by intentional aiding or by illegal omission. 2. To prove the first part, the offence was such which is punishable with imprisonment. 3. To prove the second part, the person abetted was a public servant during the period he was abetted. 4. To prove the second part, it was the duty of such public servant to prevent the commission of such an offence.
Correct Answer
(D) 1, 2, 3, 4
Explanation
Solution: Definition of Section 116 of the Indian Penal Code: Section 116 of the IPC deals with the abetment of an offence if it is not committed . It states that if a person abets an offence that is punishable with imprisonment, but the offence is not committed due to any reason, the abettor shall be punished with half the punishment prescribed for the offence. Additionally, the second part of Section 116 applies to situations where a public servant , who has a duty to prevent an offence, is abetted to commit that offence. If the public servant does not commit the offence, the abettor will still be liable. Explanation of the Correct Answer: The correct answer is Option D: 1, 2, 3, 4 . To prove both parts of the offence under Section 116 IPC, the prosecution must establish the following: First Part: The accused must have abetted the offence by instigation, conspiracy, intentional aiding, or illegal omission . The offence abetted must be punishable with imprisonment . Second Part: 3. The person abetted must have been a public servant at the time of abetment . 4. It must have been the duty of the public servant to prevent the commission of the offence . Since all four conditions are necessary to establish the complete offence under Section 116 IPC, Option D is the correct choice. Explanation of Other Options: Option A (1 and 3): This option is incorrect because it does not include the requirement that the offence must be punishable with imprisonment (condition 2) and that the public servant had a duty to prevent the offence (condition 4). Option B (1 and 4): This option is incorrect because it does not consider the requirement that the offence must be punishable with imprisonment (condition 2) and that the abetted person must be a public servant (condition 3). Option C (2 and 4): This option is incorrect because it does not include the crucial requirement of proving abetment by the accused (condition 1) and the fact that the abetted person must be a public servant (condition 3). Thus, Option D (1, 2, 3, 4) is the correct answer .
[#439] Voyeurism has been criminalized in India by virtue of which amendment to Indian Penal Code?
Correct Answer
(D) 2013
Explanation
Solution: The correct answer is Option D: 2013 First, let's define Voyeurism : Voyeurism is the practice of obtaining sexual gratification by observing others who are naked or engaging in sexual activity, without their knowledge or consent. Voyeurism was not a specific offense under the original Indian Penal Code (IPC) of 1860. It was criminalized in India through the Criminal Law (Amendment) Act, 2013 . This amendment introduced Section 354C into the IPC, which specifically addresses voyeurism. Options A, B, and C are incorrect because they do not reflect the year the amendment criminalizing voyeurism was passed. The 2013 amendment was a significant step in strengthening laws against sexual offenses in India.
[#440] If the prosecution case relates to committing personation which of the following is required by the prosecution to lead evidence to prove? 1. Applying for a voting paper (ballot paper) for giving vote in the name of a person other than the applicant accused 2. Such other person may be dead or alive 3. Applying for voting or vote in the name of a fictitious person 4. Who having voted applies for casting his vote again in the same election
Correct Answer
(D) 1, 2, 3, 4