Advertisements
Advertisements
Question
Principle: Nothing is an offence which is done by a child under twelve years of age, who has not attained sufficient maturity of understanding to judge the nature and consequences of his conduct on that occasion.
Facts: Himesh, 11 years old boy, picks up a gold ring worth Rs 5000/- lying on a table in his friend's house and immediately sells it for Rs 2000/, and misappropriates the money.
Options
Himesh would be protected under the principle stated above be cause he is below 12 years of age.
Himesh would not be protected under the principle stated above because his acts show that he was sufficiently mature to understand the nature and consequences of his conduct.
Himesh would be protected under the principle stated above because his acts show that he was not sufficiently mature to understand the nature and consequences of his conduct.
Himesh would not be protected under the principle stated above because, irrespective of the age, stealing is an offence.
Advertisements
Solution
Himesh would be protected under the principle stated above because his acts show that he was not sufficiently mature to understand the nature and consequences of his conduct.
Explanation:
Under Section 83 of Indian Penal code defines nothing is an offence which is done by a child above seven years of age and under twelve, who has not attained sufficient maturity of understanding to judge of the nature and consequences of his conduct on that occasion.
The reasonable conclusion is drawn Himesh would be protected under the principle stated above because his acts show that he was not sufficiently mature to understand the nature and consequences of his conduct.
APPEARS IN
RELATED QUESTIONS
Principle: The sale of liquor is illegal. All agreements relating to prohibited items do not exist in the eyes of law.
Facts: 'A‘ entered into an agreement with 'B‘ for the sale of liquor. 'A‘ failed to supply the agreed quantity of liquor to B.
Principle: False imprisonment is a tort (wrong) which means the total restraint of a person's liberty without lawful justification.
Facts: A part of a public road had been closed for spectators of a boat race. 'P' wanted to enter but he was prevented by 'D' and other policemen because he had not paid the admission fee. 'P' was able to enter the enclosure by other means but was unable to go where he wanted to go. The policemen refused access to where he wanted to go but allowed him to remain where he was or to go back. 'P' remained within the enclosure and refused to leave. Subsequently, 'P' sued 'D' for false imprisonment.
Mark the best option:
Facts: Babu, the driver of the bus, parked the bus at the karamangala bus station and went to the nearby bakery shop for some cutlets and samosas. Ranjit, the cleaner of the bus, on his own initiative took charge of the bus and drove it through the neighboring by-lanes. While reversing the bus he ran over a man who was trying to cross the road. The man was seriously injured and had to be hospitalized. The man sued the bus company for damages. Decide
Principle: A master is vicariously liable for the negligent acts of his servant acting in the course of his employment.
Legal Principle: Parents are not liable for wrongs committed by their children unless they provide the opportunity for such wrongful acts to be committed by their children.
Fact Situation: Sunil, a minor, takes the keys to his father’s car from the tabletop where his father keeps it, drives the car on the public road and hits a pedestrian who gets injured.
Which of the following statements is the most appropriate in relation to the legal principle stated above?
Which of the following is not a defense to trespass to the person?
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
1. A careless person becomes liable for his negligence when he owed a duty of care to others.
2. Valenti's non-fit injury is a defence to negligence.
Factual Situation
K was a friend of L and was teaching her to drive. Prior to such an arrangement, K had sought assurances from L that appropriate Insurance had been purchased in the event of an accident. On the third day, L was executing a simple manoeuvre at slow speed when she panicked which resulted in the car crashing into a lamp-post injuring K. L was subsequently convicted of driving without due care and attention. L denied liability to pay compensation to K on the ground of volenti non-fit injuria and also that she was just learning to drive and was not in complete control of the vehicle. Decide.
Principle: A person is liable for all the injurious consequences of his careless act.
Facts: Ram, a snake charmer, was exhibiting his talents to a group of people. One of the snakes escaped and bit a child who had to be hospitalized for two days for treatment.
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.
Principle: Nuisance is an unlawful interference with a person's use or enjoyment of land or some right over or in connection with it. If the interference is 'direct', the wrong is trespass; whereas, if the interference is 'consequential', it amounts to a nuisance.
Facts: 'A' plants a tree on his land. However, he allows of its branches to project over the land of 'B'. Which of the following derivations is correct?
Mr. Samay was severely hurt while working in his factory and fell unconscious. He was rushed to a hospital by his fellow workers. In the hospital (at the emergency/casualty ward), the doctor opined that he should be operated immediately. While conducting preliminary examinations, he was found to be HIV positive. The doctors are in a dilemma regarding what should they do first.
Apply the legal principles to the facts given below and select the most appropriate answer:
Legal Principles:
1. The Tort of Negligence is a legal wrong that is suffered by someone at the hands of another who fails to take proper care to avoid what a reasonable person would regard as a foreseeable risk.
2. The test of liability requires that the harm must be a reasonably foreseeable result of the defendant’s conduct, a relationship of proximity must exist and it must be fair, just and reasonable to impose liability.
3. Volenti non-fit injuria is defence to action in negligence.
Facts:
In a sad incident, 95 fans of a Football club died in a stampede in the Nehru Stadium. The court has decided that the accident was caused due to the negligence of the Police in permitting too many supporters to crowd in one part of the stadium. Now, a suit is filed by Harman and several other people against the Commissioner of State Police. Harman and the other claimants had relatives who were caught up in the Nehru Stadium disaster. The disaster was broadcast on live television, where several claimants alleged, they had witnessed friends and relatives die. Others were present in the stadium or had heard about the events in other ways. All claimed damages for the psychiatric harm they suffered as a result. Determine whether, for the purposes of establishing liability in negligence, those who suffer purely psychiatric harm from witnessing an event at which they are not physically present are sufficiently proximate for a duty to be owed, and thus can be said to be reasonably within the contemplation of the tortfeasor?
