English

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.

Advertisements
Advertisements

Question

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.

Options

  • '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.

MCQ
Advertisements

Solution

'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.

shaalaa.com
Law of Torts (Entrance Exams)
  Is there an error in this question or solution?
2015-2016 (May) Set 1

RELATED QUESTIONS

Principle: Acceptance of the proposal must be the exact mirror image of the proposal.

Facts: 'A‘ made a proposal to 'B‘ to sell a chair for Rs. 500. 'B‘ is desirous of buying the said chair for Rs. 400.  


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.


Legal Principle: One of the principles of ‘Natural Justice’ states that, “No person shall be a judge in his own cause”.

Facts: A, a driver of B, a Branch Manager of ABC Bank was caught, suspecting theft, in the bank premises. The Bank management instituted an enquiry and made B the enquiry officer.

Which of the following statements is correct?


___ is NOT a Central Government tax.


Mark the best option:
Principles:

  1. Whoever threatens another with any injury to his person, reputation or property, or to the person or reputation of anyone in whom that person is interested, with intent to cause alarm to that person, or to cause that person to do any act which he is not legally bound to do, or to omit to do any act which that person is legally entitled to do, as the means of avoiding the execution of such threats, commits criminal intimidation.
  2. A threat to injure the reputation of any deceased person in whom the person threatened is interesting, is covered within the above provision.

Facts: Monty is a tenant in the Sharmas' house, living on the top floor while the Sharmas occupy the ground floor. However, he is always irregular in paying the rent. The Sharmas' are tired of asking him to pay on time and his manners have deteriorated over time. What started as mere excuses snowballed into name-calling, until one day, Monty threatened to come with his friends and vandalize the Sharmas' house, if they complained or took action against him.
Will Monty be guilty of criminal intimidation?


Apply the legal principles to the facts given below and select the most appropriate answer.
Legal Principle: Vicarious liability is when employers are held liable for the torts committed by their employees during the course of employment.

Factual Situation: New Vision School opened a boarding house (Shivaji House) for boys in the year 2000 for the students having behavioral and emotional difficulties. The claimants in the instant case had resided there between 2000 to 2003, being aged 12 to 15 during that time, under the care of a warden, who was in charge of maintaining discipline and the running of the house. The warden lived in the House, with his disabled wife, and together they were the only two members of staff in the House. His duties were ensuring order, in making sure the children went to bed, went to school, engaged in evening activities, and supervising other staff. It had been alleged by some of the boys that the warden had sexually abused them, including inappropriate advances and taking trips alone with them. A criminal investigation took place some ten years later, resulting in the warden being sentenced to seven years imprisonment. Following this, the victims brought an action for personal injury against ~he employers, alleging that they were vicariously liable. Whether the employers of the warden may be held vicariously liable for their employee's intentional sexual abuse of school boys placed under his care?


PRINCIPLE An unlawful action is sufficient to establish an actionable claim under the law of torts and the court need not go into the motivations behind such unlawful action.

FACTS Z, a reporter, had approached A, a famous politician, several times for an interview. Z knew that A was having an affair with his secretary. Frustrated and vengeful, z ran a cover story about the affair disclosing all the information and evidence of the affair. A in tum sued Z for defamation, stating the action was based on vendetta and malice on account of his refusal to give Z an interview. The suit against Z shall


Suit and nuisance are


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 Principle: Master/Principal is vicariously liable for the tort committed by a servant/agent, in the performance of his duties as a servant/agent.

Factual situation: A gave some cash and cheques to his friend B, who was an employee of the State Bank of India, to deposit the same in that Bank in the account of A. B misappropriated the amount. If A sues the Bank for damages, then the Bank is DECISION:


Apply the legal principles to the facts given below and select the most appropriate answer:

Legal Principles:
1. Vicarious liability is when employers are held liable for the torts of their employees that are committed during the course of employment.
2. A servant is a person subject to the command of his master as to the manner in which he shall do his work. The question of whether a person is an employee depends upon the degree of control which the ‘employer’ exercises over the worker.

Facts: 
Raja is a travel agent and possessed certain houses, which had an internal communication throughout, and which were used for the purposes of his business. Ramesh looked after the houses and lived in them for this purpose, but he was also a clerk in the Raja’s pay at a set annual salary. He lived in the houses with his wife, a child, and a servant. The case concerned the payment of inhabited house duty. There was a statutory exemption for premises which were occupied by a "servant”or person occupying the premises “for the protection thereof. Raja was claiming the exemption from tax liability by claiming that Ramesh was the servant. Decide whether Ramesh was a servant or an independent contractor?


Share
Notifications

Englishहिंदीमराठी


      Forgot password?
Use app×