Legal Bites brings to you IPC Mains Questions Series. The questions enlisted here are arranged section-wise and will aid the students preparing for Judiciary, APO or University Exams. Detailed solutions have been provided for the questions to answer all your queries. The list of questions curated by Legal Bites will help candidates identify the important and frequently asked questions and give them good practice for their aptitude and knowledge.
IPC Mains Questions Series: Part – I of X contains solved questions from Introduction to Chapter III i.e. till section 75.
We know answer writing is a continuous exercise that is an inalienable part of the preparation process for any Examination. A well-written answer not only reflects the knowledge of an aspirant but also his/her ability to tailor the content in a manner suited to meet the expectations of the question.
Rigorous preparation for this exam is mandatory in order to crack it. In the last few months prior to the exams, it is sufficient for candidates to simply keep practising these questions in order to gain mastery over the subjects studied. Not only the candidate’s confidence level but also their scores will show good improvement upon following it.
IPC Mains Solved Questions Series | Part – I of X
What is meant by Mens Rea? Explain the dictum “Actus Non-Facit Reum Nisi Mens Sit Rea”. How for a motive necessary for determining a crime? Is there any exception to the dictum of Mens Rea? Illustrate your answer. [U.P.C.J. 1982, 2000, 2012, 2016, HR.J.S. 1996, UPHJS 1988, 1996, 2016. MPHJS 2014]
“It is not enough to label the statute as one dealing with a grave social evil and from that to infer that strict liability was intended. It is pertinent also to inquire whether putting the defendant under strict liability will assist in the enforcement of regulations ….under this is so, there is no find in penalising…and it cannot be inferred that the legislature imposed strict liability merely to find a luckless victim.” In the light of his statement, elucidate the doctrine of strict liability under Criminal Law. [HR.J.S. 2015]
- Whether the provisions of Indian Penal Code are applicable to Extra-territorial offences, if so, under what circumstances? [UP.H.J.S. 2016] Or Can an offence committed outside India, be tried in India under Indian criminal law (I.P.C. & Cr.P.C.)? Explain in the light of case laws. [HR.J.S. 2011] Or What is the jurisdiction of the courts in India to try an Indian citizen for an offence committed beyond India or a foreigner in respect of an offence committed within Indian Territory?
- A, an Indian citizen, commits a murder in Uganda. Can he be tried and convicted of murder in any place where he is found in India? Or
- A, an Indian citizen, commits adultery in England which is not an offence in that Country: Can he be prosecuted in India? [UPHJS 2016]
- Counterfeit [R.J.S. 2015, 1980, 1996, MPCJ 1996]
- Valuable Security
- Act and omission
- Illegal. [Raj j 1980, UPCJ 1982]
- Wrongful gain & wrongful loss. [PCJ 1996, Raj J 1980 CGJ 2004, UPCJ 1986]
- Dishonestly. [MPCJ, 1996, RJS, 1980, 1996, MPCJ 1996, Raj J 1980]
Explain the law relating to constructive liability. Distinguish between the words ‘common intention’ and ‘common object’ as they are used under Sec. 34 and Sec. 149 IPC. [U.P.C.J. 1983, 1988, 1992, 1999, UPHJS, 1988, 2007, R.J.S. 1971, UK J 2002]
What do you understand by the phrase ‘an act done in furtherance of Common intention’? What are the essentials of S. 34 I.P.C.? Which lays down “Joint responsibility” in doing a criminal act. Write the difference between common intention and similar intention. [UPCJ 1983, 1986, 2012.]
A commits the offence of theft in the house of B. Can A be convicted under Section 380, I.P.C. read with Section 34, I.P.C.? Give reasons and also refer to the case law, if any, on the point. [UPHJS 1984, UPCJ 2006]
A and B commit the murder of C but there was no prearranged plan between them in this regard. Can A and B be convicted for the murder of C under Sections 302/34, I.P.C.? Give reasons and mention case law, if any, on the point.
P, Q and R had a common intention to rob S. While P and Q entered into the house of S and beat and robbed him, R stood outside to warn P and Q of any danger. On being prosecuted along with P and Q, R pleaded that neither did he commit the robbery nor cause injuries to S and hence was not guilty of any offence. Decide. UPCJ, 1983
A, B, C and D jointly plan to beat up X. While X is being assaulted, his daughter intervenes who is molested by D. While retreating from X’s house, B picks up a watch. For what offence A, B, C and D are liable? Bihar A.P.P. (A.P.O.) Exam, 1981
There is a pre-arranged plan between A and B to beat C. During the beating, A tells B to murder C. Consequently B murders C. Is A guilty of murdering C? Give reasons and also refer to case law, if any, on the point.
Six persons are charged under Section 302/149, I.P.C. Three of them are acquitted by the trial court. The remaining three are convicted under Section 302/34, I.P.C. and given life imprisonment. Discuss the validity of this conviction. Bihar A.P.P. (A.P.O.) Exam, 1985
In furtherance of the common intention A, B and C attacked D with Lathis. They gave various lathi blows on the person of D. During such attack C gave last blow on the head of D which proved to be a fatal blow. Consequently, D died. A, B and C were prosecuted for the murder of D under Section 302 read with Section 34, I.P.C.
During the trial, A and B took the defence that they are not guilty of murder but only for causing hurt to D, as they did not give the fatal blow and only C is liable for the murder of 0, who gave the fatal blow to D. Is the defence of A and B acceptable? Give reasons in support of your answer and also refer to the case law, if any, on the point.
Suddenly a fight began between A, B (accused persons) and C (informant). In such sudden fight, A caused simple hurt to C whereas B caused grievous hurt to C. Will A and B both be guilty of causing grievous hurt to C in view of the provision made in Section 34, LP.C.? Give reasons and also refer to case law, if any, on the point. B successively and independently wound C with murderous intent. C dies from the loss of blood caused by both the wounds together. But the fact remained that C would not have died from either wound alone. Discuss the criminal liability of A and B. [UPCJ, 1992, 1997]
A and B successively and independently wound C with murderous intent. C dies from the loss of blood caused by both the wounds together. But the fact remained that C would not have died from either wound alone. Discuss the criminal liability of A and B. [UPCJ, 1992, 1997]