Related Questions

Following condition/s can result in polycythaemia
Features of polycythaemia rubra vera
Polycythaemia occurs in
The lockjaw is a pathological condition of
Which of the following among item A and item B are correct?
The right of private defence extends, subject to Section 99, to the causing of death of the assailant or aggressor in the following circumstances:
Item A: For defence of body:
1. Against an act which reasonably causes the apprehension of an assault to outrage the modesty
2. Against an act which reasonably causes the apprehension that the assailant will kill his children living in another city
3. Against an act which reasonably causes the apprehension that grievous hurt would otherwise be the consequence
Item B: For defence of property:
1. While the trespasser is engaged in house breaking during day time.
2. Against a thief who reasonably causes the defender to believe that he would lose his property
3. Against a person who commits mischief under such circumstances as may reasonably cause apprehension that grievous Hurt would be a consequence
Select the correct answer:
A' instigates 'B' to cause grievous hurt to 'X'. In consequence of the instigation 'B' causes grievous hurt to 'X' 'X' dies in consequence. 'A' is guilty of abetment of:
A' instigates 'B' to cause grievous hurt to 'Z'. 'B', in consequence of the instigation, causes grievous hurt to 'Z'. 'Z' dies in consequence. 'A' knew that the grievous hurt abetted was likely to cause death of 'Z'. 'A' has committed:
Under Section 27 of the Evidence Act, in respect of confessional evidence
1. So much of the information as it relates distinctly to the fact discovered in consequence of information received from the person accused may be proved against him.
2. Person giving such information must be accused of an offence.
3. Accused need not be in the police custody.
4. Any statement of the accused confessing his guilt must be made in presence of a Magistrate, in all cases, whether anything is discovered or not in consequence of such statement, may be proved against him.
A, a ship-owner, contracts with B to convey him from Calcutta to Sydney in A's ship, sailing on the first of January, and B pays to A, by way deposit, one-half of his passage money. The ship does not sail on the first of January and B, after being, in consequence, detained in Calcutta for some time, and thereby put to some expense, proceeds to Sydney in another vessel, and, in consequence, arriving too late in Sydney, loses a sum of money.
In which case following rule was laid: "We think that the true of law is that the person who for his own purposes brings on his lands and keeps there anything likely to do mischief if it escapes, must keep it in at his peril, and if he does not do so, is prima facie answerable for all the damage which is the natural consequence of Its escape. He can excuse himself by showing that the escape was owing to the plaintiff's default; or perhaps that the escape was the consequence of vis major, or the act of God; but as nothing of this sort exists here, it is unnecessary to inquire what excuse would be sufficient".