Legal Bites brings to you IPC Mains Questions Series Part VII. 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- VII of X contains solved questions from Chapter XVI Section 319 to 374.
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 VII of X
A beats B in such a manner that he permanently loses the sight of his left eye but it does not affect his right eye. Is A guilty of the offence of voluntarily causing hurt’ punishable under Section 323 or ‘voluntarily causing grievous hurt’ punishable under Section 325, I.P.C.
A and B are joint owners of a car. ‘A’ without informing ‘B’ takes the car out of ‘B’s possession and sold that for a consideration of Rs. 5 lac. ‘A’ utilized this money for renovating his house. What offence ‘A’ has committed? [UP H.J.S., 2018 Part-I]
‘R’ a girl, refused to marry her boyfriend ‘S’, resulting into his depression. ‘N’, a friend of ‘S’, suggested him to take revenge with an intention that `S’ will come out of shock, ‘N’ provided ‘S’ a bottle of liquid believing it as acid. `S’ mistook `P’ to be ‘R’ in darkness and threw the liquid on ‘P’, causing rashes on her face, which later resulted into serious injuries. The investigation revealed that it was not acid but was a concentrate of fungicide. Decide the Criminal liability of ‘S’ and `N’ in this case. [UP H.J.S., 2018 Part-I]
A, a police officer, tortures B to induce him to point out where certain stolen property is deposited. Subsequently A was prosecuted under Section 330, I.P.C. A takes the defence during trial that he cannot be convicted under Section 330, as his torture was not for extorting confession and Section 330, I.P.C. can be invoked only in case of extorting confession and not in case of extorting ‘admission’ or ‘information’ which does not amount to confession. Would A succeed in his defence? Give reasons. [WBCJ. 1997]
A gave severe beating to B who fell down and became unconscious. Thinking that B had died ‘A’ took away B and placed him on railway line so that B’s body be crushed under the train. This was done by A in order to give it a colour of suicide and conceal his involvement. The train came and B was crushed. The Post-Mortem Report revealed that B died of injuries caused by train. What offence or offences if any have been committed? [D.J.S. 1990]
The accused A demanded some money from the deceased B which the latter owed him. The deceased promised to pay later on and the accused A thereupon kicked him twice on the abdomen and the deceased collapsed. Has A committed the offence of either ‘murder’ or ‘culpable homicide’? If not, then what offence, if any, has been committed by A? Give reasons and also refer to the ‘authority (case law)’, if any, on the point.
A motor truck was being driven by ‘A’ who had no licence for driving. ‘B’ who was the driver of the truck was sitting by the side of ‘A’. The truck, while being thus driven, struck a telegraph pole and hit a passer-by, whose one leg got crushed and had to be amputated to save his life. What offence if any has been committed by ‘A’ and 13′? [D.J.S. 1990]
A was going in a way by driving his car, in which he had a right to go. Some workers of a political party restrained A from proceeding in that way by car as the political party has declared a ‘bandh’ in the town. However, A was allowed to go on foot by workers of concerned political party. Are the workers of political party guilty of wrongful restraint? Give reasons and also refer to the case law, if any, on the point.
A, a landlord, after repeatedly demanding and not getting the rent of his house from B, the tenant, one day locked the house in order not to allow B to enter it, till he pays-off the rent to A. Explain the offence, if any, committed by A in this case. [Bihar A.P.P. (A.P.O.) 1997]
A voluntarily goes to attend the marriage of his friend B on the invitation of B. During the marriage, before dinner, A requested to family members of B to give permission to return back to his home. The family members of B insisted that he return after dinner. A again expressed his desire to depart for home. The family members of B told him that he would be beaten by them if he goes without having dinner on the eve of the marriage of his closest friend, but took no action in this respect. A stayed there till dinner and left for home at midnight after having dinner. The family members of B did nothing to prevent A except expressing their desire by words and there were sufficient occasions for A to leave the place before dinner. Have the family members of B committed the offence of wrongful confinement? Give reasons and also refer to case law. if any, on the point.
M had caused injuries to the vagina of a seven and a half months old child by fingering. He was charged under Sections 323 and 354 of IPC. Is M guilty under Section 323 of IPC” Does a female child of seven and a half months possess womanly modesty? S.3-6? [Punjab Civil Services (Judicial) Exam, 2006]
A, an adult male, a college student knows that a girl B who lives in his neighbourhood and is below 16 years of age but her real age is not known to A. She meets him one day and asks him to take her in a taxi for sightseeing in and around the city. They go ultimately by train to Bombay. What offence, if any, has A committed? [U.P.H.J.S. 1995]
P lures Q, a boy of 17 years, to Delhi without consent of Q’s father. Has P committed the offence of ‘kidnapping from lawful guardianship’? Give reasons and also refer to the relevant provision in this regard.
A, a Hindu husband and wife B are living separately as a result of a decree of judicial separation granted by a Family Court. The custody of minor legitimate daughter of A and B (aged 4 years) has also been given to B (the wife of A and mother of minor legitimate daughter) by the Family Court. One day A takes away his minor daughter while B is not present there. B prosecutes A for the kidnapping of her daughter from lawful guardianship. The arguments advanced on behalf of A is that under Hindu law, father is the guardian of his legitimate child, so he is not liable for the kidnapping of his daughter. Is A guilty of kidnapping his own daughter? Give reasons and also refer to the case law, if any, on the point. [Bihar A.P.P. (A.P.O.) 1989]
A, a Hindu woman takes away her minor legitimate daughter B without the consent of her husband C (the father of B) for the purpose of marrying B. A is prosecuted for ‘kidnapping’ her minor daughter B. During trial, A takes the defence that she is also the guardian of B, so the question of ‘kidnapping from lawful guardianship’ does not arise. Decide, and also refer to the relevant case law, if any, on the point.
A, a Hindu minor girl goes to Mumbai from Chennai with her mother B to appear at a certain examination. C, the husband of B (Father of A) had also consented for the same. In Mumbai, X lures the minor girl and removes her from the custody of B. X is prosecuted by B for kidnapping the minor girl. X takes the defence that C, the father of the minor girl, is the real (natural) guardian of the girl under Hindu Law and not the mother and he did not remove the girl from the guardianship of father but from mother. Thus, he has not committed the offence of ‘kidnapping’ defined under Section 361. Is the defence of X sustainable at law? Give reasons.
A, having lost his own child developed great affection for B, a child (aged 4 years) of a neighbour. Out of his attachment and love for the child, A sneaked into the neighbour’s house and took away the child intending to have his company and then return him safely to his house. The parent of the child lodged report about the child’s disappearance and A was thereafter caught, while returning to the neighbour’s house to restore the child. What offence, if any, has been committed by him? [UPHJS, 1980, 1995]
A is charged with habitually buying a slave. Prosecution proves the case against A beyond all reasonable doubts. The trial court passes an order convicting the accused A for ‘life imprisonment’. Can the trial court punish the accused with imprisonment for life? Give reasons and also mention relevant provision under I.P.C., if any?