Advertisement Remove all ads

Assertion (A) X, Because of Unsound State of Mind and Not Knowing the Nature of the Act, Attacks Y, Who in Self-defense and in Order to Ward off the Attack Hits Him Thereby Injuring Him .Y Has Not - Legal Reasoning


Assertion (A) X, because of unsound state of mind and not knowing the nature of the act, attacks Y, who in self-defense and in order to ward off the attack hits him thereby injuring him .Y has not committed an offence.

Reason (R) Y had a right of private defense against X under the Indian Penal Code.


  • Both (A) and (R) are individually true and (R) is the correct explanation of (A)

  • Both (A) and (R) are individually true, but (R) is not the correct explanation of (A)

  • (A) is true, but (R) is false

  • (A) is false, but (R) is true

Advertisement Remove all ads


Both (A) and (R) are individually true and (R) is the correct explanation of (A)


According to the section 98 of the Indian penal code when an act, which would otherwise be a certain offence, is not that offence, by reason of the youth,  the want of maturity of understanding, the unsoundness of mind or the intoxication of the person doing that act, or by reason of any misconception on the part of that person, every person has the same right of private defence against that act which he would have if the act were that offence. This problem is based on illustration (a) of sec.98 of IPC. The right of private defence does not depend upon the actual criminality of the aggressor but on the wrongful character of the act attempted.

Concept: Criminal Law
  Is there an error in this question or solution?
Advertisement Remove all ads
Advertisement Remove all ads

View all notifications

      Forgot password?
View in app×