A Lent His Laptop to B. When in Possession of the Laptop, B Inserted a Pen Drive into the Laptop. - Legal Reasoning

Advertisements
Advertisements
MCQ

Principle: Whoever with the intent to cause, or knowing that he is likely to cause wrongful loss or damage to the public or to any person, causes the destruction of property, or any such change in any property or in the situation thereof as destroys or diminishes its value or utility, of affects it injuriously, commits mischief.

A lent his laptop to B. When in possession of the laptop, B inserted a pen drive into the laptop. When he did a virus scan, he realised that the pen drive was infected. Since he urgently required a file that was on the laptop, he nevertheless opened the files on the pen drive, in the process infecting the laptop.

Options

  • A has committed mischief because he has affected the laptop injuriously

  • A has not committed mischief because he did not intend to do so.

  • A has not committed mischief because the laptop continued working

  • A has not committed mischief because the laptop was in his possession

Advertisements

Solution

A has committed mischief because he has affected the laptop injuriously

Explanation:

A possessed the knowledge that his action is likely to cause destruction of the property and therefore he is guilty of mischief. So "A has committed mischief because he has affected the laptop injuriously" is a perfect choice. 

Concept: Indian Penal Code (Entrance Exams)
  Is there an error in this question or solution?

RELATED QUESTIONS

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 focuses on the mistake of the Home Ministry which issued the RFP?

Which of the following is an assumption on which the Sex offender registries are predicated?


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?


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. 


Mark the best option:
Capital offences result in


A puts his hand in pocket B for stealing money but the pocket was empty. A is guilty of –


Making preparation to commit dacoity is punishable in the Indian Penal Code 1860 under –


For abduction abducted person should be –


Indian penal code enacted in


Mark the best option:
Principles:

  1. The Indian Parliament can make laws for the whole of India or for any specific part of India. A law made by the Parliament which is in force is not invalid merely because it is valid beyond the territory of India.
  2. The Indian Penal Code is applicable on criminal acts of Indian citizens done in any territory within or beyond India.
  3. Any criminal offence committed by a non-citizen outside the territory of India is also triable in India if the offender is found in India.

Facts: Rajesh married Anjali in India in the year 2008 in a valid Hindu marriage ceremony and later registered his marriage in the Court as well. The following year Rajesh made frequent trips to Abu Dhabi in relation to his business and finally settled down there in January 2010 while Anjali continued to reside with her in-laws in Jaipur. Rajesh subsequently entered into a marriage with Nadira in 2011. Anjali brought about criminal proceedings against Rajesh in India for bigamy.

Anjali can bring about criminal proceedings against Rajesh in India because:


Punishment of offences committed within India every person shall be liable to punishment under this Code and not otherwise for every act or omission defined in __ sec of IPC


Illegal signifies


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


In 2017, the Special Leave Petition for re-investigation in the Mahatma Gandhi murder case was filed by ___________.


X, a shopkeeper, leaves a sealed 5 kilogram bag of a branded wheat flour at the door of Y with a note you will like this quality wheat flour and pay Rupees 100 for this bag' without being asked to do so. Y on coming back collects the bag from his door, opens the seal of the bag, and uses a quarter of kilograms for making chapattis (unleavened bread). But next day returns the bag. Is he bound to pay for the bag? He is


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.


Answer the question which follows form the application of the under mentioned legal principle.

Principle: False imprisonment is a total restraint of the liberty of a person, for however short a time, without lawful excuse.

A was suspected of having committed the murder of B. C, a policeman who was investigating into B's murder saw A in a market. He went up to him, caught hold of his hand and prevented him from going anywhere.


Principle: Whoever intentionally puts any person in fear of any injury to that person, or to any other, and thereby dishonestly induces that person so put in fear to deliver to any person any property, commits extortion. 
A entered B's house, caught hold of B, S daughter C and threatened to stab her if A did not give him ₹10,000 immediately. B did so. A is prosecuted for extortion.


The question contains some basic principles and fact situations in which these basic principles have to be applied. You have to select the best option.

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 offense.

Facts: Mr. Mangeskar owns a Yamaha motorcycle which has very good pick up and speed. He is studying in the IV semester of Mechanical Engineering degree course. One day it was getting late for college as he woke up late in the morning. He got ready and was rushing to 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.


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?


Principle: Contributory negligence in an accident is a defense to a charge in criminal law.

Facts: X, the deceased was negligently crossing the busy road at Cannaught Place in Delhi while Y's car hit him resulting in the death of X. What is the liability of Y?


Share
Notifications



      Forgot password?
Use app×