Bissoy.com
Doctors Medicines MCQs Q&A

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?

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? Correct Answer 1 and 2

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:
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?
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 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.
Under Section 27 of the Evidence Act, in respect of confessional evidence
1. So much of the information as it relates distinctly to the fact discovered in consequence of information received from the person accused may be proved against him.
2. Person giving such information must be accused of an offence.
3. Accused need not be in the police custody.
4. Any statement of the accused confessing his guilt must be made in presence of a Magistrate, in all cases, whether anything is discovered or not in consequence of such statement, may be proved against him.
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:
Consider the following statement(s).
1. A defendant may set up, by way of a counter-claim against the claim of the plaintiff any right or claim in respect of the cause of action accruing to him.
2. The counter-claim may be submitted by the defendant even after he has delivered his defence.
3. The counter-claim shall not exceed the pecuniary jurisdiction of the court.
Which of the statements given above are correct?
In a world filled with uncertainty, he was glad to have many good friends. He had always assisted them in times of need and was confident that they would reciprocate. However, the events of the last week proved him wrong. Which of the following inference(s) is/are logically valid and can be inferred from the above passage? (i) His friends were always asking him to help them. (ii) He felt that when in need of help, his friends would let him down. (iii) He was sure that his friends would help him when in need. (iv) His friends did not help him last week.
In a world filled with uncertainty, he was glad to have many good friends. He had always assisted them in times of need and was confident that they would reciprocate. However, the events of the last week proved him wrong. Which of the following inference(s) is/are logically valid and can be inferred from the above passage? (i) His friends were always asking him to help them. (ii) He felt that when in need of help, his friends would let him down. (iii)He was sure that his friends would help him when in need. (iv) His friends did not help him last week.
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?