Advertisements
Advertisements
प्रश्न
Principle: Nothing is an offence if it is done in good faith for the purpose of preventing or avoiding greater harm or damage to person or property.
Facts: A jumps into a swimming pool to save a boy from drowning. While pulling the boy from water A was hit by C. A left the boy in the water and attacked C. The boy died in the water.
पर्याय
A has not committed the offence of killing the boy.
A has committed the offence of killing the boy.
The boy has committed the offence of suicide.
The boy has committed the offence of drowning.
Advertisements
उत्तर
A has not committed the offense of killing the boy.
Explanation:
A has not committed the offence of killing the boy. A was trying to save the boy from drowning. A was acting in good faith for the purpose of preventing or avoiding greater harm to the boy who was drowning and left him only for self - defence when hit by C.
APPEARS IN
संबंधित प्रश्न
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.
Which of the following is true as far as the limitations of this registry are concerned?
Principle: Everyone shall be permitted to take advantage of his own wrong.
Facts: A legatee was heavily drunk and driving his car at a speed of 100 Km/per hour in a crowded market. All of a sudden his testator came on the road. There were other people on the road at that time. The car driven by legatee hit the testator and four other persons. All five persons hit by the car died.
Principle: Killing is not murder if it is committed in a sudden fight without pre-meditation in a heat of passion upon a sudden quarrel.
Facts: X and Y were buying liquor from a liquor shop at 7 pm. Y abused X and there was the quarrel between them. X told Y that he will not spare him and Y shouted that his house is adjoining the shop only and if X had the guts, he can come anytime. X went back to his shop which was nearby, procured a knife and went to Y‘s residence at 9 pm and stabbed him to death.
Mark the best option:
Principle:
- Every person has a right to defend his own body, and the body of any other person, against any offence affecting the human body.
- The right of private defence in no case extends to inflicting more harm than necessary for the purpose of defence.
Facts: Rajendra, a police inspector; saw two men on motorbikes; one armed with a stick and the other armed with a scythechasing a boy and warned them to stop harassing the boy however they continued pursuing the boy. Rajendra who was carrying a loaded revolver (and nothing else) shot the man carrying a stick on head thereby killing him instantly and the other carrying a scythe on his legs causing him to fall down. Decide Rajendra's liability based on the facts mentioned above.
Decide Rajendra's liability based on the facts mentioned above.
Making preparation to commit dacoity is punishable in the Indian Penal Code 1860 under –
X, the servant of Y, takes a hundred rupee note fro Y's pocket and hides it under the carpet in the houses of Y, X tells Z another servant of Y, about the currency note and both, agree to share the money when the currency note is taken by X from the hiding place. Before X could recover the note, it was found by Y. Decide if an offence was committed and if so who committed the offence?
In a criminal case, an accused person, who is consideration of his non-prosecution offers to given evidence against other accused, is called
Answer the question which follows form the application of the under mentioned legal principle.
Principle: An assault is an attempt to do a corporeal hurt to another, coupled with an apparent present ability and intention to do that act. A battery is the intentional and direct application of any physical force to the person of another A was sitting on a chair reading a book. His friend. B decided to play a practical joke on him. Accordingly, he pulled the chair from under him, as a result of which A landed on the floor.
Principle: A person is liable for any damage which is the direct consequence of his/ her unlawful act, as long as the consequence could have been foreseen by a reasonable person. During a scuffle, A knocked B unconscious and then placed B at the foot of a hill at night, when the temperature was around one-degree centigrade. B suffered from hypothermia and had to be hospitalized for a week. B sues A.
Principle: Conspiracy is a combination 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 Z's death.
What offense, if any has been committed by X and Y, respectively?
