Bissoy.com
Doctors Medicines MCQs Q&A

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:

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: Correct Answer 1 and 2

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?
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?
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:
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.
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:
"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:
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?
Propositions are:
1. Set-off and counter-claim arises out of the same transaction.
2. Set-off should not be barred on the date of the suit while counter-claim should not be barred on the date of filing of written statement.
3. Claim for set-off cannot exceed plaintiff's claim, whereas counter-claim can exceed the plaintiff's claim.
In respect of the aforesaid which is correct:
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:
Mark the incorrect proposition:
1. Set-off is a statutory defence to a plaintiff's action, whereas a counterclaim is a cross-action.
2. Set-off and counter-claim arises out of the same transaction.
3. Set-off should not be barred on the date of the suit while counter-claim should not be barred on the date of filing of written statement.
4. Claim for set-off cannot exceed plaintiff's claim, whereas counterclaim can exceed the plaintiffs claim.
5. Both set-off and counter-claim cannot exceed the pecuniary jurisdiction of the court.