Advertisements
Advertisements
प्रश्न
Principle: Killing is not murder if the offender, whilst deprived of the power of selfcontrol by intense and sudden provocation, causes the death of the person who gave the provocation.
Facts: 'A', a man found his girlfriend sleeping, in her own bedroom, with another man named 'B'. 'A' did not do anything but went to his home, picked a gun and cartridges, returned to the girl friend's bedroom with a loaded gun but found the place empty. After fifteen days he saw his girlfriend dining in a restaurant. Without waiting for even a second, 'A' fired five bullets at his girlfriend who died on the spot.
पर्याय
'A' could have killed both 'B' and his girlfriend.
'A' did not kill his girlfriend under intense and sudden provocation.
'A' could have killed 'B' instead of his girl friend.
'A' killed his girlfriend under intense and sudden provocation.
Advertisements
उत्तर
'A' did not kill his girlfriend under intense and sudden provocation.
Explanation:
According to section 300 IPC defines murder except hereinafter excepted, culpable homicide is murder, if the act by which the death is caused is done with the intention of causing death.
The reasonable conclusion is drawn in the present problem that A did not kill his girlfriend under the intense and sudden provocation. There was clear intention to kill her, waiting for a sufficient time of 15 days without waiting second, he shot her down. Hence there is no question even after sudden and grave provocation.
APPEARS IN
संबंधित प्रश्न
Principle: An employer is liable for an injury caused by an employee in the course of employment.
Facts: 'A‘ and 'B‘ were working in a factory as unskilled laborers. A was carrying a basket of stones on his head. B was sitting on the ground. When A crossed B, all of a sudden a stone fell down from the basket and hit B on his head. B died instantaneously.
The principle is to be applied to the given facts and to choose the most appropriate option:
Principle: When a person falsifies something with the intent to deceive another person or entity is forgery and is a criminal act. Changing or adding the signature on a document, deleting it, using or possessing false writing is also considered forgery. In the case of writing to fall under the definition, the material included must have been fabricated or altered significantly in order to represent something it is actually not.
Facts: John was a publisher of ancient books and papers. In one of his books on the World Wars, he gave photograph of some letters written by famous historic personalities. A researcher in history noted that in the pictures of some of the letters printed in the book, John had added some words or sentences in his own handwriting to give completeness to the sentences, so that the readers will get a clear picture of the writer’s intention. The researcher challenges the originality of those pictures and claims that the book containing the forged letters should be banned. Examine the validity of the researcher’s demand.
Development of the law of tort has taken through:
Mark the best option:
Principle: When the plaintiff by reason of his own conduct contributes to the damage caused by the wrongful conduct of the defendant, he is considered to be guilty of contributory negligence.
Facts: A had to buy groceries from the shop across the road from his house. As A had to leave for a meeting he was in a hurry. He tried to cross the road, all of a sudden, without looking and was hit by B's car. Is A guilty of contributory negligence?
What is the essential difference that makes the crime of assault differ from the tort of assault?
Which of the following is not an objective of the law of tort?
In Torts, the remedy is
Given below is a statement of legal principle followed by a factual situation. Apply the principle to the facts given below and select the most appropriate answer.
Legal Principles:
1. Negligence is the omission to do something which a reasonable man, guided upon those considerations which ordinarily regulate the conduct of human affairs, would do or doing something which a prudent or reasonable man would not do
2. Defendant’s duty of care depends of the reasonable foreseeability of injury which may be caused to the plaintiff on breach of duty.
Factual situation: The defendants employees of the Municipal Corporation opened a manhole in the street and in the evening left the manhole open an covered it by a canvass shelter, unattended and surrounded by warning lamps. The plaintiff, an eight years old boy, took one of the lamps into the shelter and was playing with it there when he stumbled over it and fell into the manhole. A violent explosion followed and the plaintiff suffered burn injuries. The defendants are DECISION:
Given below is a statement of legal principle followed by a factual situation. Apply the principle to the facts given below and select the most appropriate answer.
Legal Principles:
Defamation means publication of a false and derogatory statement about another person without lawful justification.
Factual situation: A writes a defamatory letter to B containing defamatory remarks in reference of B in Urdu language. A is aware that B does not know Urdu. B goes C who knows Urdu and the letter is read over by C to him. B sues A for defamation. DECISION:
Given below is a statement of legal principle followed by a factual situation. Apply the principle to the facts given below and select the most appropriate answer.
Principle: Negligence is a breach of duty or a failure of one party to exercise the standard of care required by law, resulting in damage to the party to whom the duty was owed. A plaintiff can take civil action against the respondent if the respondent's negligence causes the plaintiff injury or loss of property.
Facts: 'D' went to a cafe and ordered and paid for a tin/can of soft drink. The tin was opaque and therefore, the contents could not be seen from outside. She ('D') consumed some of the contents and then lifted the tin to pour the remainder of the content into a tumbler. The remains of a snail in the decomposed state dropped out of the tin into the tumbler. 'D' later complained of stomach pain and her doctor diagnosed her as having gastroenteritis and being in a state of severe shock. She used the manufacturer of the drink for negligence. Applying the afore-stated principle, which of the following derivations is correct as regards the liability of the manufacturer in the given situation?
