Doli incapax' in criminal law describes the liability of-

The principle of doli incapax under Indian Penal Code, 1860 is an exception to criminal liability in which one of the following sections?

A

Section 81

B

Section 82

C

Section 84

D

Section 87

Propositions as regards the liability of the surety under the surety bond are:
1. The liability of the surety is mutually exclusive of the liability of the accused under his personal bond.
2. The liability of the surety is contingent on the liability of the accused under his personal bond the liability of the surety.
3. is limited to the amount of the surety bond.
Now which of the following is correct

A

1 and 3 are correct

B

1 and 2 are correct

C

2 and 3 are correct

D

1, 2 and 3 all are correct

Which one of the following is presumed under law to be 'doli incapax' to commit a crime?

A

A child of under 7 years of age

B

A child of under 10 years of age

C

A child above 7 years and under 12 years of age

D

A child between 10 years and 14 years of age

A child who doesn't understand or distinguish between the right and the wrong is called as doli incapax. This is defined under which section of the Indian Penal Code 1860.

A

Section 86

B

Section 87

C

Section 84

D

Section 83

E

Section 82

B, a man of unsound mind, sets fire to a dwelling house on A's instigation. Here, B is exempted from criminal liability (Section 84, Indian Penal Code), but A is guilty of abetting mischief by fire with intent to destroy the house. The principle for this criminal liability may be explained by which one of the following explanations?

A

The abetment of an offence being an offence, the abetment of such an abetment is also an offence

B

The person who has been instigated to commit an offence may not be liable under criminal law for his act because of his being of unsound mind at the time of committing the offence but the abetment to commit mischief by fire being an offence, abetment of such offence incurs liability

C

To constitute offence of abetment it is not necessary that the act abetted should be committed

D

It is not necessary to the commission of the offence by conspiracy that the abettor should work in concert with the person who commits it

Which of the following statement/statements is/are incorrect?
1. Criminal liability is best explained by the maxim "actus non-facit reum, nisi mens sit rea"
2. For criminal liability, the 'actus' should be 'reus'
3. The word 'actus reus' only includes act but not omission
4. The actus reus of omission is well illustrated in R. v. Horsey

A

Only 3 is incorrect

B

1, 2 and 3 are incorrect

C

Only 3 and 4 are incorrect

D

1, 2, 3 and 4 all are incorrect

Given below are two statements, one labelled as Assertion (A) and the other labelled as Reason (R). Read the statements and choose the correct answer:
Assertion (A): Austinian theory of law does not properly explain constitutional law, customary law and judicial precedents.
Reason (R): Constitutional law, customary law and judicial precedents do not share the same pedigree as statutory law.

A

Both A and R are true and R is the correct explanation of A

B

Both A and R are true, but R is not the correct explanation of A

C

A is true, but R is false

D

A is true, but R is true

Which of the following statements are correct in relation to criminal conspiracy?
1. When two or more persons agree to do an unlawful act by an unlawful means then they will be guilty of criminal conspiracy
2. Several persons agreed to commit an "offence" but nothing was done in pursuance of the agreement
3. When two or more persons agree to do a lawful act in lawful manner by lawful means but an overt act is done by one them
4. Criminal conspiracy to commit and offence punishable with fine alone will not entail any liability
Select the correct answer:

A

1, 3 and 4

B

2, 3 and 4

C

1, 2 and 4

D

1, 2 and 3

When the liability of a person who is one of the parties to the suit depends upon the liability of a stranger to the suit, then an admission by the stranger in respect of his liability shall be an admission on the part of that person who is a party to the suit. It has been so provided

A

Under section 21 of Evidence Act

B

Under section 20 of Evidence Act

C

Under section 19 of Evidence Act

D

Under section 17 of Evidence Act

The joint liability in respect of joint tort-feasors arises in which one of the following circumstances?
1. Agency, when one person employs another to do an act which turns out to be a tort.
2. Vicarious liability, i.e., the liability arising from relations.
3. Joint action - where two or more persons combine together to commit an act which amounts to a tort.
Select the correct answer using the given below:

A

1 and 2

B

2 and 3

C

1, 2 and 3

D

1 and 3

Doli incapax' in criminal law describes the liability of-

Related Questions