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.
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.
APPEARS IN
RELATED QUESTIONS
Principle: Use of criminal force intentionally knowing that it would cause or is likely to cause injury or annoyance to the person against whom force is used, is an offense.
Facts: X, a renowned social worker who had launched a movement for the liberation of women, pull up a Muslim women‘s veil in public in good faith without her consent causing annoyance to her.
Mark the best option:
Facts: A fabric trader wanted to travel to Ludhiana to meet his distributors and show them the new stock of fabric. He hired a taxi and drove from Chandigarh to Ludhiana with samples of the new fabric. The trader stopped at a restaurant to grab some lunch. He asked the taxi driver to eat something as well and told him that he would return in ½ hour. The taxi driver took advantage of this opportunity and acting in collusion with some petty thieves, facilitated the stealing of some of the fabric samples by the latter. It was only on the next day that the fabric trader realized that some of his samples were missing. He suspected the taxi driver of carrying out this theft. Eventually, he sued the taxi company for the value of the stolen goods. Decide the case.
Principle: A master is vicariously liable for the wrongful acts of his servant in the course of his employment and which fall within the scope of employment of the servant.
Legal Principle: It is an offense to obstruct a public servant in the due discharge of his duty. The right of private defense is available to protect one’s person and property.
Fact Situation: Sidhu comes to the rescue of his uncle who is sought to be taken into a car by some men. In the process, he causes injury to some of them. Later, it turns out that the men were police persons in plain clothes trying to enforce a warrant against his uncle.
Which of the following statements is the most appropriate in relation to the legal principle stated above?
The law relating to prisoners of war has been codified by
Which one of the following interests are not protected by the law of tort?
Which of the following is not a defense to trespass to the person?
According to SEBI norms, a person found guilty of indulging in unfair trade practices shall be liable to a penalty of
- Rs. 25 crore
- Three times the amount of profits made out of such practices, .....
The correct answer is :
Principle: A master shall be responsible for the wrongful acts of his servants in the course of his employment.
Facts: The Syndicate Bank was running a small savings scheme under which its authorized agents would go round and collect small savings from several people on daily basis. These agents would get commission, on the deposits so collected. Ananth was one such agent, collecting deposits from factory workers engaged on daily wages. Though he regularly carried on his business for sometime, slowly he started appropriating deposits for his personal use and one day he just disappeared. One Fatima, who had been handing over her savings to him found that nearly for a month before his disappearance, he was not depositing her savings at all. The Bank, when approached, took the stand that Ananth was not its regular and paid employee and therefore, it was not responsible for his misconduct. She files a suit against the Bank
Principle: A citizen is expected to take reasonable duty of care while driving on the road and not to cause injuries to any person.
Facts: X, the owner of a car, asked his friend Y to drive the car to his office. As the car was near his (X' s) office, it hit a pedestrian P on account of Y' s negligent driving and injured him seriously. P sued X for damages.
Which one of the following is correct?
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: In a suit for malicious prosecution, the plaintiff must prove the following essentials:
1. That he was prosecuted by the defendant.
2. That the proceeding complained was terminated in favour of the present plaintiff.
3. That the prosecution was instituted against him without any just or reasonable cause.
4. That the prosecution was instituted with a malicious intention, that is, not with the mere intention of getting the law into effect, but with an intention, which was wrongful in fact.
5. That he suffered damage to his reputation or to the safety of person, or to the security of his property.
Factual situation: A recovered a large sum of money from Railway Co. for personal injuries. Subsequently, Railway Co. came to know that injuries were not real and were created by doctor B. Railway Co, prosecuted B for playing fraud on the company, but B was acquitted. B sued Railway Co. for malicious prosecution. In the light of these facts which of the following statements is true? DECISION:
