Bissoy.com
Doctors Medicines MCQs Q&A

"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:

"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: Correct Answer Surendra Misra v. State of Jharkhand

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?
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:
Which of the following statements are correct? Answer by using the code given below:
1. Persons in Govt/Judicial service need not resign to participate in District judge selection process held in "Vijay Kumar Misra and another v. High Court of Judicature at Patna" by the Supreme Court of India
2. The Supreme Court of India held in S. Kazi v. Muslim Education Society that " All Tribunals are not necessary parties to the proceedings where legality of its orders challenged"
3. The Supreme Court of India observed in Cardanumom Marketing Corporation and others v. State of Kerala and others that Social Security to the legal profession becomes an essential part of legal system
4. The Supreme Court of India held in 'Union of India v. Rajasthan High Court and others that High Court judges are exempted from Airport frisking.
Propositions as regards the liability of the surety under the surety bond are:
1. The liability of the surety is mutually exclusive of the liability of the accused under his personal bond.
2. The liability of the surety is contingent on the liability of the accused under his personal bond the liability of the surety.
3. is limited to the amount of the surety bond.
Now which of the following is correct
To prove both the parts of the offence contemplated in Section 116 of the Indian Penal Code, which of the following must be proved by the prosecution?
1. To prove the first part, the accused did abet the offence either by instigation or by conspiracy or by intentional aiding or by illegal omission.
2. To prove the first part, the offence was such which is punishable with imprisonment.
3. To prove the second part, the person abetted was a public servant during the period he was abetted.
4. To prove the second part, it was the duty of such public servant to prevent the commission of such an offence.
A five-judge bench of the Supreme Court passes judgment in a matter. In a later case before a high court, a party presents the Supreme Court judgment as a binding authority. The opposing party claims that the high court is not bound by the Supreme Court's judgment because relevant provisions of law were not brought to the notice of the Supreme Court in that case. Which of the following is most correct in this case?
Principle: Article 141 of the Constitution provides that the law declared by the Supreme Court is binding on all courts within the territory of India.
The constitution of India has made which of the following provisions to safeguard and ensure the independence and impartial functioning of the Supreme court? 1. The salaries, allowances, privileges, leave and pension of the judges of the Supreme Court cannot be changed to their disadvantage after their appointment even during a financial emergency. 2. The retired judges of the Supreme Court are prohibited from pleading or acting in any Court or before any authority within the territory of India. 3. The Parliament is not authorised to curtail the jurisdiction and powers of the Supreme Court. 4. The judges of the Supreme Court are provided with the Security of Tenure. Select the correct answer using the correct code given below:
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?
Consider the following statements:
1. The Supreme Court has original jurisdiction in any dispute between the Government of India and one or more States.
2. The Supreme Court has original jurisdiction in any dispute between the Government of India and any State or States on one side and one or more other State on the other.
3. The Supreme Court has original jurisdiction in any dispute between the Government of India and any corporation of Individual one side and one or more States on the other.
4. The Supreme Court has original jurisdiction in any dispute between two or more States.
Which of these statements are correct?
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?