Bissoy.com
Doctors Medicines MCQs Q&A

A instigates B, a person of unsound mind, to set fire to a dwelling house. B, incapable of knowing the nature of the act that he is doing what is wrong or contrary to law sets fire to the house in consequence of A's instigation.
Which one of the following statements legally correct?

A instigates B, a person of unsound mind, to set fire to a dwelling house. B, incapable of knowing the nature of the act that he is doing what is wrong or contrary to law sets fire to the house in consequence of A's instigation.
Which one of the following statements legally correct? Correct Answer B has committed no offence but A is guilty of abetting the offence

Related Questions

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:
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.
Consider the following statements:
The accused at the of committing the act because of intoxication, which was administered to him without his knowledge or against his will, is incapable of knowing
1. The nature of the act
2. That the act is wrong or contrary to law
3. That the act is immoral or wrong
4. That the act is of the nature which may be ignored
To claim the benefit of Section 85 of Indian Penal Code, which of the above need to be proved?
Principle: Nothing is an offence which is done by a person who, at the time of doing it, is, by reason of intoxication, incapable of knowing the nature of the act, or that he is doing what is either wrong, or contrary to law, provided that the thing which intoxicated him was administered to him without his knowledge or against his will.
Factual Situation: Ram, Shyam and Vipin were friends. Vipin was in love with Anita and wanted to marry her. One day she told him that her marriage was fixed with a rich NRI and that he should not disturb her again in future. Vipin, who became depressed, told this to his friends. Ram suggested that they should go to a nearby bar and drink some Beer so that Vipin could relax. As Vipin was not habituated to drinks, initially he declined but later at the bar Ram told Vipin to take a little Whisky, which he did hesitatingly, After a while Vipin became totally intoxicated and started to say that Anita ditched him. Shyam, who was also drunk then said. " If you are so worried, go and kill her". A little while later all three friends parted company. Vipin went straight to Anita's hostel, called her out and shot her.
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:
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?
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.
In the two set given below, Set I mentions some of the evolutes of Prakarti white Set II indicates their nature and function in term of Sankhya philosophy. Match the two sets List I (Evolution of Prakiti) List II (Nature and function) 1. Mahat, the great (i) Are neither the qualities nor the differentia of gross elements nor the function. 2. Ego (Ahankar) (ii) It is cosmic in nature and functions as a psychological aspect of knowing. 3. Mind (Manas) (iii) It is the principle of individuation and its function is to generate self-sense. 4. Subtle essences (Tanmtras) (iv) It is the subtle and central sense organ which synthesizes sense data into determinate perception.   Select correct answer from the following options.