Legal Aptitude - Criminal Law
Exam Duration: 45 Mins Total Questions : 30
Legal Principle: Theft occurs when a person dishonestly takes any movable property out of the possession of any person without that person's consent.
Factual Situation: Keshav finds Manu's cattle roaming an the streets and takes them home to prevent them from being run over by vehicles. Manu does not find his cattle and makes a complaint to the police reporting them to be missing.
- (a)
Keshav is guilty of theft as he did not inform Manu as to the whereabouts of his cattle
- (b)
Keshav is not guilty of theft since the cattle were not in Manu's possession
- (c)
Keshav is not guilty of theft since cattle are not property
- (d)
Keshav is not guilty of theft as there was no dishonest intention on his part
Legal Principle: Nothing is an offence which is done in the exercise of right of private defence. This right also extends to lawfully causing the death of the assailant, if the offence which occasions the exercise of the right of private defence, be
(i) an assault which reasonably causes the apprehension of death or grievous hurt (very serious hurt).
(ii) an assault which causes reasonable apprehension of rape.
(iii) an assault which causes reasonable apprehension of kidnapping.
This right is available for protecting one's own body, as well as the body of any other, provided the assault is not self-invited. Decide whether the right of private defence is available in the following situation:
Factual Situation: A was holding the birthday party of his daughter. Some of his friends decided to present her with a car. To create an element of surprise, they decided to kidnap her for a few minutes while the party was in full swing and then get her back in the new car. They put the plan into action. While they were kidnapping, A got very alarmed and asked the guards to open fire. The guards killed all the five friends. A is
- (a)
not protected
- (b)
protected because he did not kill, the guards did
- (c)
not protected because Ns own body was not involved
- (d)
protected because to any ordinary person there would have appeared a reasonable apprehension of kidnapping
Principle: Whoever enters into or upon the property in the possession of another with the intent to commit an offence or to intimidate, insult or annoy any person in possession of such property or having lawfully entered into or upon such property, unlawfully remains there with an intent to intimidate, insult or annoy any such person, or with the intent to commit an offence commits criminal trespass.
Factual Situation: A went to Delhi Law College to participate in a competition. After participating in the competition, A hid inside the campus so that he could steal a few books from the library.
- (a)
A has committed theft
- (b)
A has committed criminal trespass
- (c)
A has not committed criminal trespass, because he entered with permission
- (d)
A has not committed any offence
Principle: Theft is robbery if in order to committing of the theft, or in committing the theft, or in carrying away or attempting to carry away property obtained by theft, the offender, for that end, voluntarily causes or attempts to cause to any person death or hurt or fear of instant death or instant hurt.
Factual Situation: A entered B's house and was taking away her wallet and leaving the house, when he encountered B. He dropped the wallet, but shot her while escaping.
- (a)
A has committed robbery
- (b)
A has committed theft, but not robbery
- (c)
A has neither committed theft, nor robbery
- (d)
A has committed both theft and robbery
The general law of crime in India is contained in
- (a)
The Indian Penal Code, 1860
- (b)
The Indian Penal Code, 1861
- (c)
Law of Crime, 1947
- (d)
Law of Crime, 1950
'A' sings obscene songs near the gate of a women college. What offence has he committed?
- (a)
Assault
- (b)
Outraging the modesty of a woman
- (c)
Criminal intimidation
- (d)
Obscenity
Legal Principle: Wilful rash driving is an offence.
Factual Situation: 'A' was driving his car after consuming liquor. The police booked him for wilful negligent driving. Whether the act of the police is lawful?
- (a)
No, because 'A' was not driving rashly and wilfully, but he was driving in drunkness
- (b)
No, because this is not a negligent act
- (c)
Yes, because A was driving rashly
- (d)
Yes, because the police has power to arrest while driving rashly
Legal Principle: Whoever, intending to take dishonestly any movable property out of the possession of any person without that person's consent, moves that property in, is said to commit theft. Whoever commits
theft shall be punished with imprisonment which may extend to three years or with fine or with both
Factual Situation: Raju sees a cell phone belonging to Ram lying on the table in Ram's house. Raju hides the cell phone in Ram's house in such a place where Ram could not find it ever, due to the fear of immediate search and detection. Raju did this with the intention of taking away the cell phone from the hidden place when Ram forgets about and then sell it away.
Question: Is Raju guilty of theft?
- (a)
No
- (b)
No, because he merely played a prank with the friend
- (c)
Yes, because Raju did not inform Ram about the place where he had hidden the cell phone
- (d)
Yes, because Raju intended to take the imovable property from Ram's possession and with this intention he moved the property
The gist of the offence of criminal conspiracy is
- (a)
agreement is necessary between two or more persons to do or cause to be done an illegal act
- (b)
a legal act by illegal means followed by an overt act to be done or cause to be done according to an agreement
- (c)
both (a) and (b)
- (d)
none of the above
Principle: Conspiracy is a combination E, M, Y between two or more persons formed for the purpose of doing either an unlawful act or a lawful act by unlawful means.
Facts: X and Y conspire to poison Z. X in pursuance of the conspiracy procures the poison and delivers it to Y in order that he may administer it to Z. Y in pursuance of the conspiracy administers the poison in the presence of X and thereby causes death. What offence, if any has been committed by X and Y, respectively?
- (a)
Y has committed the offence of murder and X was an a bettor
- (b)
Both X and Y have committed the offence of criminal conspiracy
- (c)
X has committed the offence of murder and Y was an abettor
- (d)
Both X and Y have committed the offence of murder
Principle:The law permits citizens to use force only for protection when necessary against imminent attack.
Facts:P with the intention of committing theft entered the house of Q. Q, on seeing him entering, struck him with a lathi and P fell down unconscious. Thereafter, Q gave him another blow of lathi on his head which caused his death. On being prosecuted for murder, Q took the plea of private defense. Which of the following argument is valid?
- (a)
Since Q was acting in the exercise of right of private defense of his property, he had taken a valid defence
- (b)
Although in the defence of one's property one cannot cause death of an intruder, Q herein
- (c)
Q has used excessive force as once P fell unconscious; there was no need for the second blow. Hence, Q's plea of right of private defence will not succeed
- (d)
If P committed house-breaking in the night Q has a right to cause death in defense of his property, and thus Q's plea should prevail
Principle: Whoever does any act so rashly or negligently as to endanger human life or the personal safety of others is said to have committed an offence.
Facts: Mr Mangeskar owns a Yamaha motorcycle which has very good pick up and speed. He is studying in the IV semester of a mechanical engineering degree course. One day he was getting late for the college as he woke up late in the morning. He got ready and was rushing to the college so that he would not miss the class. He was riding the motor cycle at a speed of 140 km per hour in Bangalore city which was crowded. He was very good in riding the motorcycle. People who were using the road got annoyed/scared with the way Mr Mangeskar was riding the motorcycle.
- (a)
Mr Mangeskar has committed an act of rash and negligent driving
- (b)
Mr Mangeskar is very good in driving, so there is no need for others to be panicky about his driving
- (c)
Mr Mangeskar is very studious student and he does not want to miss any class in the college
- (d)
None of the above
Principle: Every person has a right of self-defence, if his life is under imminent threat.
Facts: Mr Prashanth threatens Mr Krishna that he will kill Mr Krishna. After saying so, Mr Prashanth goes to his house saying that he would get his axe.
- (a)
Mr Krishna will have to run away
- (b)
Mr Krishna will have to go to the police station and file a complaint
- (c)
Mr Krishna cannot exercise the right of self-defence
- (d)
None of the above
Principle: Ignorance of law is no excuse.
Factual Situation: A fails to file his income tax returns for 10 years. The income tax department issues to him notice to show cause why proceedings should not be initiated against him for the recovery of the income tax due from him with interest and penalty.
- (a)
He may take the plea that his advocate had advised him not to file the return as his income was not taxable
- (b)
He may request the department to waive the interest and penalty
- (c)
A must pay the tax due as ignorance of law cannot be a ground of defence
- (d)
None of the above
Legal Principle:
A. Whoever intending to take any movable property out of the possession of any person without that person's consent , moves that property out of his or her possession, is said to commit theft.
B. A person who, without lawful excuse, damages any property belonging to another intending to damage any such property shall be guilty of causing criminal damage.
C. Damage means any impairment of the value of a property.
Factual Situation: Veena, an old lady of 78 years, used to live with her grand-daughter Indira. Veena was ill and bed-ridden for several months. In those months, she could not tolerate any noise and it became quite difficult to clean her room. After she died, Indira hired a cleaner, Lucky, to clean the room and throwaway any rubbish that may be there. There was a pile of old newspapers which Veena had stacked in a corner of her room. Lucky asked Indira if he should clear away the pile of old newspapers, to which she said yes. Lucky took the pile to a municipality rubbish dump. While Lucky was sorting and throwing away the newspapers, he was very surprised to find a beautiful painting in between two sheets of paper. He thought that Indira probably would not want this old painting back, especially because it was torn in several places and the colour was fading. He took the painting home, mounted it on a wooden frame and hung it on the wall of his bedroom. Unknown to him, the painting was an old masterpiece, and worth Rs.20,000. Before mounting the painting, Lucky pasted it on a plain sheet of paper so that it does not tear any more. By doing so, he made its professional restoration very difficult and thereby reduced its value by half. Lucky's neighbour Kamala discovered that the painting belonged to Indira. With the motive of returning the painting to Indira, Kamala climbed through an open window into Lucky's room when he was away one afternoon and removed the painting from his house.
Which of the following propositions could be inferred from the facts and the rules specified?
- (a)
Kamala is guilty of criminal damage as the person she took the painting from (Lucky) was not its lawful owner
- (b)
Kamala is guilty of criminal damage as she took the painting without Lucky's consent
- (c)
Kamala is not guilty of criminal damage as the painting has not been completely destroyed
- (d)
None of the above
Legal Principle:
A. Whoever intending to take any movable property out of the possession of any person without that person's consent , moves that property out of his or her possession, is said to commit theft.
B. A person who, without lawful excuse, damages any property belonging to another intending to damage any such property shall be guilty of causing criminal damage.
C. Damage means any impairment of the value of a property.
Factual Situation: Veena, an old lady of 78 years, used to live with her grand-daughter Indira. Veena was ill and bed-ridden for several months. In those months , she could not tolerate any noise and it became quite difficult to clean her room. After she died, Indira hired a cleaner, Lucky, to clean the room and throwaway any rubbish that may be there. There was a pile of old newspapers which Veena had stacked in a corner of her room. Lucky asked Indira if he should clear away the pile of old newspapers, to which she said yes. Lucky took the pile to a municipality rubbish dump. While Lucky was sorting and throwing away the newspapers, he was very surprised to find a beautiful painting in between two sheets of paper. He thought that Indira probably would not want this old painting back, especially because it was torn in several places and the colour was fading. He took the painting home, mounted it on a wooden frame and hung it on the wall of his bedroom. Unknown to him, the painting was an old masterpiece, and worth Rs.20,000. Before mounting the painting, Lucky pasted it on a plain sheet of paper so that it does not tear any more. By doing so, he made its professional restoration very difficult and thereby reduced its value by half. Lucky's neighbour Kamala discovered that the painting belonged to Indira. With the motive of returning the painting to Indira, Kamala climbed through an open window into Lucky's room when he was away one afternoon and removed the painting from his house.
If Lucky had discovered the painting before leaving
Indira's house rather than at the rubbish dump, would he have been guilty of theft in this case?
- (a)
Yes, he would be guilty of theft of the newspapers and the paintings
- (b)
No, he would not be guilty of theft
- (c)
Yes, he would be guilty of theft of the painting
- (d)
None of the above
Legal Principle:
A. Whoever intending to take any movable property out of the possession of any person without that person's consent , moves that property out of his or her possession, is said to commit theft.
B. A person who, without lawful excuse, damages any property belonging to another intending to damage any such property shall be guilty of causing criminal damage.
C. Damage means any impairment of the value of a property.
Factual Situation: Veena, an old lady of 78 years, used to live with her grand-daughter Indira. Veena was ill and bed-ridden for several months. In those months , she could not tolerate any noise and it became quite difficult to clean her room. After she died, Indira hired a cleaner, Lucky, to clean the room and throwaway any rubbish that may be there. There was a pile of old newspapers which Veena had stacked in a corner of her room. Lucky asked Indira if he should clear away the pile of old newspapers, to which she said yes. Lucky took the pile to a municipality rubbish dump. While Lucky was sorting and throwing away the newspapers, he was very surprised to find a beautiful painting in between two sheets of paper. He thought that Indira probably would not want this old painting back, especially because it was torn in several places and the colour was fading. He took the painting home, mounted it on a wooden frame and hung it on the wall of his bedroom. Unknown to him, the painting was an old masterpiece, and worth Rs.20,000. Before mounting the painting, Lucky pasted it on a plain sheet of paper so that it does not tear any more. By doing so, he made its professional restoration very difficult and thereby reduced its value by half. Lucky's neighbour Kamala discovered that the painting belonged to Indira. With the motive of returning the painting to Indira, Kamala climbed through an open window into Lucky's room when he was away one afternoon and removed the painting from his house.
Is Lucky guilty of criminal damage?
- (a)
No, Lucky is not guilty of criminal damage as he did not intentionally impair the value of the painting
- (b)
Yes, Lucky is guilty of criminal damage as he intentionally stuck the paper on to the painting
- (c)
No, Lucky is not guilty of criminal damage as he does not have the painting in his possession anymore
- (d)
No, Lucky is not guilty of the criminal damage as he has not destroyed the painting
Legal Principle:
Whoever finds an unattended object can keep it unless the true owner claims that object. This does not affect the property owner's right to the ownership of the property on which the object is found. The right to ownership of a property does not include the right to ownership of unattended objects on that property.
Factual Situation: Elizabeth is the CEO of a global management services company in Chennai and is on her way to Ranchi to deliver the convocation address at India's leading business school on the outskirts of Ranchi. Flying business class on Dolphin Airlines, she is entitled to use the lounge owned by the airline in Chennai airport while waiting for her flight. She finds a diamond earring on the floor of the lounge and gives it to the staff of Dolphin Airlines expressly stating that in the event of nobody claiming the earring within six months, she would claim it back. The airline sells the earring after eight months and Elizabeth files a case to recover the value of the earring from the airline when she is informed about its sale.
To the original fact scenario, the following fact is added: In the lounge there are numerous signboards which proclaim 'Any unattended item will be confiscated by Dolphin Airlines'. In this case, you would
- (a)
Order the airline to pay compensation to Elizabeth because the board in the lounge cannot grant property rights over unattended objects to the airline
- (b)
Deny Elizabeth compensation because the signboard makes it evident that the airline, as owner of the lounge, is exercising all rights over all unattended items in the lounge and the earring is one such item
- (c)
Deny Elizabeth compensation because she knew any unattended item belonged to the airline
- (d)
Order the airline to pay compensation to Elizabeth because the property rights of the airline are relevant only if the item is unattended. The moment Elizabeth found the earring, it belonged to her
Principle: A pact, other than a pact to commit suicide, to suffer any harm is not an offence, provided the age of the person who has given his consent to suffer harm is above eighteen years.
Factual Situation: A enters into a pact with B, a boy of less than 18 years of age, to fence with each other for amusement. They agreed to suffer any harm which, in the course of such fencing, may be caused without foul play.
- (a)
A, while playing fairly hurts, B, A commits no offence
- (b)
A, while playing only unfairly, hurts B, A commits an offence
- (c)
A, while playing fairly, hurts B, A commits an offence
- (d)
A, while playing unfairly, hurts B, A commits no offence
Principle: Anticipatory bail could be granted to any person who apprehends arrest for a non-bailable offence.
Facts: Z publishes a defamatory statement against a state minister in a local daily. Police registers a case of defamation, a bailable offence against Z. He files an application in the Supreme Court seeking an anticipatory bail
- (a)
His application shall be rejected by the Supreme Court for want of jurisdiction
- (b)
His application shall be rejected due to limited circulation of the newspaper
- (c)
His application shall be entertained by the court as it involves denial of personal liberty of Z
- (d)
His application shall be returned as not maintainable
Principle: Confession made in the court should be free and voluntary.
Facts: Sumeet wanted to give an expensive gift to his girlfriend on her birthday. But he did not have enough money. So he snatched a gold chain from an old lady. Police arrested Sumeet on suspicion and in the lock-up, the investigating officer told him that if he would admit his guilt he shall be set free. Sumeet confesses his guilt in the court.
- (a)
Sumeet shall be released as he admitted his guilt
- (b)
The court will set him free because of his truthfulness
- (c)
Sumeet shall not be punished as the police officer has promised him release
- (d)
Sumeet shall not be punished merely on the basis of this suggested confession
Principle: Attempt is not an offence until it is an attempt to commit an offence punishable with imprisonment.
Facts: Z makes an attempt to steal some jewels by breaking open a box, and finds after so opening the box, that there is no jewel in it
- (a)
Z has done an act towards the commission of theft and therefore is guilty
- (b)
In the absence of the definition of offence in the stated principle it cannot be said that Z is guilty
- (c)
The stated principle neither defines the offence nor specifies that the said offence is punishable with imprisonment. So the position is unclear
- (d)
Police should arrest Z and produce him before the magistrate as only the court has the authority to decide his guilt or innocence
Legal Principle: Nothing is an offence which is done by a person who, at the time of doing it by reason of unsound state of mind, is incapable of knowing the nature of the act or something that he is doing is either wrong or contrary to law.
Fact: X takes his son Y who is three years old, for bathing to the well. He throws his son inside the well so that the son can have a good bath. After 10 minutes, he also jumps into the well to take bath and get his son out of the well. Both were rescued by the villagers but his son was found dead.
- (a)
X has committed culpable homicide amounting to murder
- (b)
X has committed murder
- (c)
X has done no offence as he can plead the defense of unsound state of mind
- (d)
X's family should be held responsible for allowing him to take the child to the well
Legal Principle: Whoever, intending to take dishonestly any movable property out of the possession of any person without that person's consent, moves that property with an intention to take it, is said to commit theft.
Facts: Y cuts down a tree on Z's ground, with the intention of dishonestly taking it out of Z's possession without Z's consent. Y could not take away the tree.
- (a)
Y can be prosecuted for theft
- (b)
Y cannot be prosecuted for theft
- (c)
Y can be prosecuted for attempt to theft
- (d)
Y has neither committed theft nor attempted to commit theft
Legal Principle: Wilful rash driving is an offense
Facts: Mr Tiwari was driving his car after drinking alcohol. Police books him for willful negligent driving Is the act of the police lawful?
- (a)
No, because Mr Tiwari was not driving rashly;he was drunk while driving
- (b)
No, this is not a negligent act
- (c)
Yes, because Mr Tiwari was driving rashly
- (d)
Yes, because the police has the power to arrest a person driving rashly
Legal Principle: Nothing is an offence merely by reason of its being done with the knowledge that it is likely to cause harm, if it be done without any criminal intention to cause harm, and in good faith for the purpose of preventing or avoiding other harm to a person or property.
Facts: Mr Sharman, the captain of a steam vessel suddenly and without any fault or negligence on his part, finds himself in such a position that, before he can stop his vessel, he must inevitably run down a boat B, with 20 to 30 passengers on board, unless he changes the course of his vessel, and that, by changing his course, he must incur the risk of running down a boat C with only two passengers on board and which See he may possibly clear
- (a)
Sharman has committed no offence because this was done out of necessity
- (b)
Sharman can be held responsible for the act of criminal negligence
- (c)
Sharman can be held responsible for culpable homicide
- (d)
This is a clear case of accident so Sharman cannot be held responsible
Principle: Wherever the causing of a certain effect, or an attempt to cause that effect, by an act or by an omission, is an offence, it is to be understood that the causing of that effect partly by an act and partly by an mission is the same offence
Factual Situation: A intentionally omitted to give food to his father. He also used to beat his father. Consequently Ns father died
- (a)
A did not commit any offence
- (b)
A committed only the offence of omitting to give food to his father
- (c)
A committed only the offence of beating of his father
- (d)
A committed the offence of killing of his father
Principle: Nothing is an offence which is done by a child under seven years of age
Factual Situation: A, a child born on January 1,2005 killed another child 'B' on December 30, 2011.
- (a)
A has committed no offence
- (b)
A has committed the offence as it is heinous crime
- (c)
Killing of one child by another child is not an offence
- (d)
A has not committed the offence for on the date of killing of B, A was a minor
Z is carried off by a tiger. X fires at the tiger, knowing that the shot might kill Z, but with no intention to kill Z, and in good faith trying to save Z. X's shot, however, gives Z a mortal wound. Choose the correct option
- (a)
X has committed an offence of a grievous nature
- (b)
X has no moral duty to save Z, therefore, he can be held liable
- (c)
X has not committed any offence, as the act was in good faith and for the benefit of Z
- (d)
None of the above
Assertion (A): X and Y independently entertained the idea to kill Z. Accordingly, each of them separately inflicted wounds on Z who died as a consequence. X and Yare liable for murder under Section 341 IPC.
Reason (R): When a criminal act is done by several persons in furtherance of common intention of all each of such persons is liable as if the whole act was done by him alone.
- (a)
Both A and R are individually true, and R is the correct explanation of A
- (b)
Both A and R are individually true, but R is not the correct explanation of A
- (c)
A is true but R is false
- (d)
A is false but R is true