Bissoy.com
Doctors Medicines MCQs Q&A

Related Questions

Given below are two statements, one labeled as Assertion (A) and the other as Reason (R). Read the statements and choose the correct answer:
Assertion (A): Nothing is an offence which is done by a person who, at the time of doing it, by reason of unsoundness of mind is incapable of knowing the exact nature of the act.
Reason (R): Mistake of fact is a good defence and mistake of law is no defence.
Read Assertion (A) and Reason (R) and give the correct answer:
Assertion (A): Nothing is an offence which is done by a person who, at the time of doing it, by reason of unsoundness of mind, is incapable of knowing the exact nature of the act.
Reason (R): Mistake of fact is a good defence and mistake of law is no defence.
Assertion (A): Nothing is an offence which is done by a person who at the time of doing it by reason of unsoundness of mind, is incapable of knowing the nature of the act.
Reason (R): Mistake of fact is a good defence and Mistake of Law is no defence.
Principle: Nothing is an offence if done by a person who, at the time of doing it, by reason of unsoundness of mind is incapable of knowing the nature of the act or what he is doing is wrong or contrary to law.
Factual Situation: A, an author of macabre stories, was undergoing treatment for somnambulism. One night, he was given a high dose of sedative as he had become violent. There was a 'Do not disturb' board out side his room. Early morning, while A was still asleep, a nurse went to his room to check his condition. She started to note his pulse and thereafter to measure his BP. While she was fixing the equipment to measure the BP, A saw the nurse, but in a delirium he thought the nurse to be a vampire going to drink his blood. Suddenly in order to exorcise the ghost, A grabbed the BP apparatus and hit the 'ghost' on the head several times. The nurse collapsed and died subsequently.
"Expression unsoundness of mind has not been defined in Indian Penal Code and has mainly been treated as a equivalent to insanity. An accused who seek exoneration from liability of any act under Section 84 of Indian Penal Code is to prove legal insanity and not medical insanity." It was held by the Supreme Court in following case:
The accused at the time of committing the act because of unsoundness of mind is incapable of knowing
1. The nature of the act
2. That the act is wrong or contrary of law
3. That the act is unethical and wrong
4. That the act is morally wrong but not contrary to law
To claim the benefit of Section 84 of Indian Penal Code which of the above needs to be proved?
Give the correct answer:
To invoke the defence of insanity, which of the following must be clearly proved at the time of committing the act?
1. The accused was labouring under defect of reason
2. From disease of the mind
3. Does not know the nature and quality of the act he was doing
4. If he did know, he did not know what he was doing was wrong
A Magistrate shall inquire into the unsoundness of mind of the person against whom the inquiry is being held when the Magistrate has reason to believe that such person is of unsound mind and consequently incapable:
PRINCIPLES: 1. Nothing is an offence which is done in the exercise of the right of private defense.
2. When an act, which would otherwise be a certain offence, is not that offence, by reason of the youth, the want of maturity of understanding, the unsoundness of mind or the intoxication of that person or by reason of misconception on the part of that person, every person has the same right of private defense against that act, which he would have if that act were an offence.
3. Everyone has the right to defend their life and property against criminal harm provided it is not possible to approach public authorities and more harm than that is necessary has not been caused to avert the danger.
4. If in the exercise of right of private defense against an assault which reasonably causes the apprehension of death, the defender be so situated that he cannot effectually exercise that right without risk of harm to an innocent person, his right of private defense extends to the running of that risk.
5. The right of private defense continues as long as apprehension of danger continues.
FACT: A enters by night a house which he is legally entitled to enter. Z, in good faith, taking A for a housebreaker, attacks A.
Nothing is an offence which is done by a person who at the time of doing it is by reason of intoxication of, incapable of knowing the nature of the act or that he is doing what is wrong, or contrary to the law, provided the intoxication was: