हिंदी

Principle: a Spouse is Not Permitted to Put in Evidence in Any Court, Any Communication During the Marriage Between the Spouses Without the Consent of the Person Who Made

Advertisements
Advertisements

प्रश्न

Principle: A spouse is not permitted to put in evidence in any court, any communication during the marriage between the spouses without the consent of the person who made the communication.

Facts: X who is the wife of Y saw her husband (Y) coming out of the neighbour‘s house at 6.00 am in the morning. Y told his wife X that he has murdered the neighbour and handed over the jewellery of that neighbour to his wife. 

विकल्प

  • X is allowed to appear as a witness in court to depose that her husband has told her that he committed a murder 

  • X is not allowed to appear as a witness at all in any court 

  • X is not allowed to appear as a witness to depose what was told by the husband to her, however, she can depose what she saw 

  • X is an independent woman and she can do whatever she wants 

MCQ
Advertisements

उत्तर

X is not allowed to appear as a witness to depose what was told by the husband to her, however, she can depose what she saw 

Explanation:

According to the principle, a  spouse is prevented from stating the communication between her and her husband without his consent.  However, she is not prevented from stating what she saw.

shaalaa.com
Indian Penal Code (Entrance Exams)
  क्या इस प्रश्न या उत्तर में कोई त्रुटि है?
2018-2019 (May) Set 1

संबंधित प्रश्न

In this Question problem consists of a set of rules and facts. Apply the specified rules to the set of facts and answer the question. In answering the following question, you should not rely on any rule(s) except the rule(s) that are supplied for problem. Further, you should not assume any fact other than 'those stated in the problem. The aim is to test your ability to properly apply a rule to a given set of facts, even when the result is absurd or unacceptable for any other reason. It is not the aim to test any knowledge of law you may already possess.

Rules 
A. A person is an employee of another if the mode and the manner in which he or she carries out his work is subject to control and supervision of the latter.
B. An employer is required to provide compensation to his or her employees for any injury caused by an accident arising in the course of employment. The words 'in the course of the employment' means in the course of the work which the employee is contracted to do and which is incidental to it. 

Facts Messrs. ZafarAbidi and Co. (Company) manufactures bidis with the help of persons known as `pattadars'. The pattadars are supplied tobacco and leaves by the Company and are required to roll them into bidis and bring the bidis back to the Company. The pattadars are free to roll the bidis either in the factory or anywhere else they prefer. They are not bound to attend the factory for any fixed hours of work or for any fixed number of days. Neither are they required to roll up any fixed number of bidis. The Company verifies whether the bidis adhere to the specified instructions or not and pays the pattadars on the basis of the number of bidis that are found to be of right quality. Aashish Mathew is one of the pattadars of the Company. He was hit by a car just outside the precinct of the factory while he was heading to have lunch in a nearby foodstall. Aashish Mathew has applied for compensation from the Company. According to the facts and the rules specified, which of the following propositions is correct?


Direction: The passage given below is followed by a set of question. Choose the most appropriate answer to each question.

On May 14, the Ministry of Home Affairs issued a Request for Proposal (RFP) to select a private agency for creating a National Database of Sexual Offenders for India. The said RFP states that the purpose of establishing the database of sex offenders is to help in the early detection and prevention of crime against women, arrests of persons accused of criminal offences and to keep a watch on habitual offenders. Media reports suggest that the public will have access to the details regarding convicted sex offenders and law enforcement officials will have access to data about persons on trial for sexual offences. This registry seems to be one more knee-jerk and populist reaction to the problem of sexual violence against women and children in India.

The ministry seems to have launched this initiative without analysing the evidence on the limited efficacy of such registries in other jurisdictions in reducing rates of repeat offending and without examining its appropriateness in the Indian context. Various states in the US have had such publicly accessible registries for around 28 years and multiple studies have shown that they have limited public safety benefits and significant social costs. Sex offender registries are predicated on the assumption that convicted sex offenders have a high likelihood of committing offences after serving their sentences. This assumption is not borne out by data. In India, the percentage of recidivism among arrested persons according to data collected by the National Crime Records Bureau (NCRB) for 2016 is only 6.4%.

The registry is being proposed in response to widely-reported horrific incidents of rape. The logic seems to be that if the police have a list of offenders living in the area, investigation becomes simpler and people, especially parents, can be more vigilant if they are aware of offenders living around them. However in India, as per the NCRB data for 2016, in 94.6% of reported cases of rape against women and children, the perpetrator is known to the victim. Such a registry offers little protection from such offenders. In fact, the fear of the offender being included in the registry may exacerbate the problem of underreporting by making people apprehensive about reporting sexual violence involving family members and acquaintances.

Once the general public has unfettered access to data about sex offenders online, it can open a Pandora's Box. The fears of offenders being ostracised and vilified become very real. Among a host of foreseeable problems, they will find it particularly tough to find employment or housing. India has already witnessed cases of lynchings of people suspected to be child kidnappers. It is not paranoid to expect the public reaction to convicted offenders to be much worse. Once offenders are pushed into the margins, their access to treatment, supervision and support systems becomes diminished, which may be quite counterproductive. If the state imposes restrictions on where such offenders can live, the housing crisis they will face will be exacerbated. They may become homeless or be compelled to live in areas far from home where they may face less scrutiny. The stigma and ostracisation that such offenders will face will invariably extend to their families. Studies in the US have shown that a combination of social ostracisation, lack of psychiatric support and the inability to find a job or housing, can even increase chances of recidivism; thus, defeating the very purpose of the registry. In such circumstances, registration in such a database can turn into a 'scarlet letter' like badge of shame that can punish offenders much beyond their sentences and make their rehabilitation and reintegration into society next to impossible.

As per the National Family Health Survey (NFHS) data from 2015-2016, we know that 85% of cases of sexual violence against women, which excludes cases of marital rape and assault, go unreported. Such a registry does not begin to address this problem.

Before implementing this registry, the Ministry of Home Affairs must create a research base on recidivism among sex offenders and the risk factors and hold a much broader public debate on the need for the registry. This is not to say that sexual offences are not an urgent problem. In the Indian context, the focus needs to be shifted to tackling barriers to reporting, training law enforcement officials and providing support to survivors rather than this ill-conceived registry.

The author gives which of the following suggestions to the concerned ministry?


Mark the best option:
Principle:

  1. If one threatens another to commit any act forbidden by the Indian Penal Code likely to harm anyone thereby causing him(one who is thus threatened) to enter into an agreement with anyone; the agreement thus entered into is void.
  2. An attempt to commit suicide is an act forbidden by the Indian Penal Code.

Facts: Gopaldas who is very fond of his nephew Jitendra, a bright law graduate; promises to gift him a plot of land if the latter joined his friend Atmaram’s law firm as an associate. Jitendra joins Atmaram’s firm but before Gopaldas could proceed, his elder son Akash who was in need of money threatened to commit suicide if Gopaldas did not sell the plot of land. Gopaldas entered into an agreement to sell the plot of land and gave the money he received as advance; to Akash.


Indian penal code 1860 was drafted by


The following persons are not judge


Dishonestly' has been defined as doing anything with the intention to cause wrongful gain to one person & wrongful loss to another, under


The punishments to which offenders are liable under the provisions of this code are


Answer the question which follows from the application of the undermentioned legal principle:

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 situations.

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 surprises, 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


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.

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.


The question consists of two statements, one labelled as PRINCIPLE and other as FACT. You are to examine the principle and apply it to the given facts carefully and select the best option.

Principle: Willful rash driving is an offense.

Facts: Mr. Tiwari was driving his car after drinking alcohol. Police booked him for willful negligent driving. Is the act of the police lawful?


Share
Notifications

Englishहिंदीमराठी


      Forgot password?
Use app×