Bissoy.com
Doctors Medicines MCQs Q&A

Related Questions

Consider the following statements:
1. Section 34 of Indian Penal Code requires two persons whereas Section 149 of Indian Penal Code require five persons.
2. Section 34 of Indian Penal Code requires common intention, whereas Section 149 of Indian Penal Code requires common object
3. Section 34 of Indian Penal Code and Section 149 of Indian Penal Code both require presence of a prior consent
4. Section 34 of Indian Penal Code and section 149 of Indian Penal Code. Both create specific offence
Which of the above statements are correct?
The offence of word, gesture or act intended to insult the modesty of a woman under Section 509 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 is
Carefully read following statements:
1. According to Section 34 of Indian Penal Code, requirement is of two persons, whereas under Section 149 of Indian Penal Code, requirement is of five persons.
2. According to Section 34 of Indian Penal Code, common intention is required whereas under Section 149 Indian Penal Code, common object is required
3. Previous consent is required under Section 34 & 149 of Indian Penal Code
4. Section 34 of Indian Penal Code and Section 149 of Indian Penal Code constitutes a specific offence
Which of the above statements is true:
Word, gesture or act intended to insult the modesty of a woman under Section 509 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 is punishable with
Which of the following combinations are correctly matched?
1. Harbour ⇔ Section 51A, Indian Penal Code
2. Wrongful Loss ⇔ Section 23, Indian Penal Code
3. Gang rape on woman under twelve years of age ⇔ Section 376DB, Indian Penal Code
4. Gang rape ⇔ Section 376D, Indian Penal Code
Select the correct answer:
Which of the following distinguishes section 34 of Indian Penal Code from section 149, Indian Penal Code?
1. Section 149 creates a substantive offence whereas section 34 does not create an offence.
2. Section 149 requires common object whereas section 34 requires common intention.
3. Section 149 requires five or more persons whereas section 34 requires two or more persons.
Select the correct answer:
Consider the following statements:
1. In the case of Mithu v. State of Punjab, the constitutional validity of Section 303 of the Indian Penal Code was examined by the Supreme Court of India and held that this Section violates Article 14 and Article 21 of the Constitution,
2. Counsel for appellants/petitioners in the above case contended that Section 303 of the Indian Penal Code is arbitrary, because it authorizes deprivation of life by an unjust and unfair procedure.
3. Section 303 of the Indian Penal Code provides punishment for culpable homicide by causing death of person other that the person whose death was intended.
Which of the statements given above is/are correct?
Assault or criminal force to woman with intent to outrage her modesty under Section 354 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 is which kind of offence?
1. A Judicial Magistrate First Class can authorize the detention in custody, of a person accused of an offence triable by Special Court established under The Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985, for a period not exceeding fifteen years.
2. The Special Court established under The Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985, cannot exercise the power to authorize the detention of accused in custody, as enunciated under Section 167 of Code of Criminal Procedure.
3. The definition of 'use' under Section 2(xxviii-a) of The Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985, excludes personal consumption of narcotic drugs and psychotropic substances.
4. The High Court, by special order, may constitute as many Special Courts under The Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985, as necessary.
Which of the above statements are correct?
Which of the following is an essential ingredient of an offence under Section 129, Indian Penal Code? Which of the following is an essential ingredien t of an offence under Section 129, Indian Penal Code?
1. The accused is a public servant (or was a public servant at the time of commission of the offence)
2. He was having custody of a prisoner of state or custody of a war prisoner
3. Such a prisoner was rescued or escaped
4. Such an escape or rescue was due to the negligence of the accused