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 Solved 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 – III of X
Discuss the right of private defence of a person. When does it extend to the causing of death? When does it cease to exist? [M.P.C.J. 2006, 2011, U.P.C.J. 1984, 1987, 1991, 1997, 2003, Jharkhand J 2001]
A, a passer-by, sees B beating his wife mercilessly. A gives a blow to B who dies immediately at the spot. What offence, if any, has ‘A’ committed? Give reasons for your answer. [Bihar Civil Services Exam, 1982]
A, a child below 7 years of age attacks B by a sword. Before A could cause death or grievous hurt to B, B opened fire by a gun on the child A (below 7 years of age), A is killed. B is prosecuted under Section 302 I.P.C for murder of A. B takes the defence that he killed the child in exercise of ‘right of private defence’ whereas the arguments of prosecution was that B had no ‘right of private defence’ because A was under 7 years of age and his act was not an offence and the right of private defence is exercised only against an act which is an offence and not against such an act which do not constitute an offence. Decide, who will succeed, whether prosecution or defence. Give reasons and also refer to the relevant provision on the point.
A had an intention to commit rape of a woman namely W. For this purpose, he makes an assault on W. But before he could even touch the body of W, she draws out a pistol from her purse and shoots A. Consequently, A dies. W is prosecuted for the ‘murder’ of A. W takes the defence of `right of private defence’ whereas prosecution argues that A had merely `intention’ to commit rape and he did not even touch the body of W (did not make an attempt to commit rape), so he was in preparation stage, and mere intention to rape or preparation for rape is not punishable (as offence). Thus, W had no ‘right of private defence’, hence she is guilty of ‘murder’ of A. Has W right of private defence to the extent of causing death of A? Give reasons and also refer to the relevant provision and case law, if any, on the point. [Bihar CJ, 2002]
B aimed his revolver at A. In order to save himself A gave a ‘pharsi’ blow on the hand of B with a result that the revolver fell down on the ground. Thereafter, A gave another ‘pharsi’ blow on the head of B causing the instantaneous death of B. Can A justifiably claim the right of private defence in causing death of B? [RJS 1974]
A beats his neighbour B and by such beating, he voluntarily causes hurt to B. When beating of B by A was over and A was leaving the place, B picks a heavy stone and throws upon A. The stone hits A’s head which causes hurt to him. A prosecutes B for ‘voluntarily causing hurt’ punishable under Section 323, I.P.C. On behalf of B, it was argued in his defence that he is not guilty of ‘Voluntarily causing hurt’ and he did so in the exercise of his ‘right of private defence’, as A had also voluntarily caused hurt to him. Is B liable to be acquitted on the ground of argument advanced on his behalf? Give reasons and also mention the relevant provision, if any, under I.P.C.
A, an enemy of B, pointed a toy (false) pistol looking like real one, at B to scare him. B treating the pistol as real one finds his life in danger and draws out a loaded pistol from his pocket and fires at A. Consequently A dies on the spot. B is prosecuted for the murder of A. B takes the defence that he killed Ain exercise of ‘right of private defence’ as he did not know that the pistol of A was not real one but a toy. Will B succeed in his defence? Give reasons.
‘A’ puts his hand in the pocket of ‘B’ in order to commit theft. ‘B’ resists ‘A’ for not doing so. During such resistance hurt was likely to be caused to ‘A’. In defending himself from such hurt, ‘A’ caused hurt to ‘B’. Subsequently, ‘A’ was prosecuted by ‘B’ for attempt to theft (Sections 379/511, I.P.C.) and for voluntarily causing hurt to ‘B’ (Section 323, I.P.C.). During trial, it was argued on behalf of ‘A’ that though he is guilty of attempt to commit theft, yet he is not guilty of voluntarily causing hurt to ‘B’ because he caused hurt to ‘B’ only when ‘B’ was causing hurt to him. Can ‘A’ be convicted for voluntarily causing hurt to ‘B’ and for any other offence alongwith the offence of causing hurt. Give reasons and also refer to case law, if any, on the point.
‘M’, a male of 25 years of age performs sexual intercourse with ‘W’, an unmarried woman of 20 years of age with her consent. While they were in compromising position, the father of ‘W’ sees them. Out of anger, ‘F’ started beating both of them namely, ‘M’ and his daughter ‘W’. By such beating ‘F’ voluntarily caused grievous hurt to ‘M’ and ‘W’. ‘F’ was prosecuted by ‘M’. On such prosecution, ‘F’ takes the plea that he is not guilty of any offence as he beat ‘M’, who was committing an offence, in the exercise of his right of private defence. Is the plea of ‘F’ sustainable at law? Give reasons and also refer to judicial precedent, if any, on the point. [WBJS 1975]
‘A’, a thief was seen with half of his body and head through the wall of a house occupied by woman (the accused) and her young idiot son. The accused suddenly caught up a sort of pole-axe and with it struck the thief five times on his neck and nearly cut off his head. (52) Ultimately ‘A’ (thief) died. The accused is prosecuted for murder punishable under Section 302, I.P.C. The accused took the defence that she has not committed any offence, as she killed the thief ‘A’ in exercise of her right of private defence. What is your view? Give reasons and also refer to the case law, if any, on the point. [WBJS, 1973]
‘A’, on being awakened in the middle of the night, found ‘B’ in his courtyard. ‘B’ had entered into the courtyard of house by scaling that wall which surrounded the concerned house on all sides. The gate of the courtyard of house was locked. There was a room attached with such courtyard. When ‘B’ reached in room attached with courtyard, then ‘A’ struck three times on the head of ‘B’ with a club. Consequently ‘B’ died. Has ‘A’ committed any offence? Give reasons and also refer to relevant provision and case law, if any, on the point. [RJS. Exam, 1984]
‘A’ find that ‘B’, a feeble old woman, was stealing his crops. ‘A’ beat her so violently that she died on the spot. ‘A’ was prosecuted under Section 302, I.P.0 for murder of ‘B’. ‘A’ took the defence that he killed ‘B’ in exercise of ‘right of private defence’. Is the defence of ‘A’ sustainable at law? Give reasons and also refer the relevant provision and case law, if any, on the point.
‘A’ is attacked by a mob which attempts to kill him. ‘A’ in exercise of his right of private defence fires at the mob killing one of the several children mingled with the mob. What offence, if any, is committed by ‘A’? [HR.J.S. 1995 (II) R.J.S. 1986, WBCJ, 1995, MPCJ. PT. 1986]
- A, with a guilty intention, abets a child or a lunatic to commit an act which would be an offence, if committed by a person capable by law of committing an offence, and having the same intention as A. The act is not committed.
- A knows Z, to be behind a bush. B does not know it. A intending to cause or knowing it to be likely to cause Z’s death induces B to fire at the bush. B fires and kills Z.
- A instigates B to set fire to a dwelling house. B, in consequence of the unsoundness of his mind, being incapable of knowing the nature of the act, or that he is doing what is wrong, or contrary to law, sets fire to the house in consequence of A’s instigation.
- A, intending to cause a theft to be committed, instigates B to take property belonging to Z out of Z’s possession. A induces B to believe that the property belongs to A. B takes the property out of Z’s possession in good faith, believing it to be A’s property.
- A offers a bribe to B, public servant, as a reward for showing A some favour in the exercise of B’s official functions. B accepts the bribe.
- A instigates B to give false evidence. B, in consequence of the instigation, commits that offence.
- A in order to avoid pecuniary injury or personal molestation offers a bribe to a public servant. [H.R.J.S. 2010]
A with the intention of murdering Z, persuades B, a child of 6 years to put poison in the food of Z. B does so, which results in Z’s death. What offence, if any, has been committed in the case? [Bihar APO 1985 W.B.J.S. 1997]
A abets B to abet C to commit the murder of D. B accordingly abets C to commit the murder of D. Have A and B both committed the offence of ‘abetment’? Give reasons and also mention the relevant provision. [UPCJ 1988]
A abets B to rob C, B attempts to rob C, C resists B from doing so. During such an attempt of robbery, B has to fire at C in order to complete the offence of robbery. As a result of such firing from a gun, C is seriously injured and admitted to hospital. After two days C dies in hospital due to injury sustained from gunshot. A is prosecuted for abetment for robbery and also for abetment for murdering C. During trial, it was argued by the lawyer of A in his defence that A is not guilty of ‘abetment for murder’ of C, as he neither abetted B to murder C nor he had such intention. Presuming yourself to be a Judge, decide, whether the argument of A is acceptable?
A, who is an Indian citizen residing in Delhi, abets B a foreigner who resides in London through telephone to commit the murder of C in London. Is A guilty for the `abetment for murder’ of C? Give reasons and also mention relevant provision, if any, under I.P.C.
A and B exchange secret letters as to how best they can kidnap a minor girl and later give up the idea as impossible. Have they committed an offence? If either of them wrote a note to the girl persuading her to meet them at a specified place, what offences, if any, will both or either of them have committed? [HRJS, 2003]
Distinguish criminal conspiracy from a criminal act done by several persons in furtherance of the common intention of all. What punishment is provided for criminal conspiracy by the Indian Penal Code? [UPCJ. 2018]