Principle: Whoever Enters into Or Upon Property in the Possession of Another with the Intent to Commit an Offense Or to Intimidate - Legal Reasoning

Advertisements
Advertisements
MCQ

Principle: Whoever enters into or upon property in the possession of another with the intent to commit an offense or to intimidate, insult or annoy any person in possession of such property or having lawfully entered into or upon such property, unlawfully remains there with an intent to intimidate, insult or annoy any such person, or with the intent to commit an offense commits criminal trespass. A went to Delhi Law College to participate in a competition. After participating in the competition, A hid inside the campus so that he could steal a few books from the library.

Options

  • A has committed theft

  • A has committed criminal trespass

  • A has not committed criminal trespass, because he entered with permission

  • A has not committed any offence

Advertisements

Solution

A has committed criminal trespass

Explanation:

A's intention to remain after the competition and to commit an offense of theft is unlawful. Therefore "A has committed criminal trespass" is correct.

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.

Which of the following is true as far as the limitations of this registry are concerned?


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?


Direction : The passage given below is followed by a set of questions. Choose the most appropriate answer to each question.

Juvenile delinquency is defined as "the habitual committing of criminal acts or offences by a young person, especially one below the age at which ordinary criminal prosecution is possible." These acts are committed mostly by teenagers, cumulative in today's civilization, which is a very concerning matter and cannot be snubbed. The more concerning matter is that generations of youth are believed to be the future of the world. Their behavior shows how tomorrow's future will be.

Juvenile delinquency has become a major problem, and only by addressing the basics can it be tackled. Attention towards co-curricular activities should be given to mold the child in the right and engaging way. The more he is forced to obey rules at school, diktats at home, mores of the society, the more he will escape to criminal acts in order to vent out his frustration. Forcing him will only make him hate it all. Hence, the approach should be to make exercises of discipline, etiquette, and moral sense interesting. This is where cocurricular activities come into play.

Juvenile offenders have the same set of constitutional guarantees as an adult, such as a fair trial. But very often, adult offenders are able to secure bail faster than a juvenile offender. Merely because the juvenile is not punished, it can in no way take away his/her constitutional guarantees of liberty. The only difference is that, unlike adult offenders, the state must protect, and ultimately rehabilitate, juvenile offenders. But protection cannot become custody. Also, the statute stresses on privacy as a right for the juvenile offender. But in the garb of privacy, there is very little effort for scrutiny and transparency in the process. The statute focuses on necessary infrastructure with significant involvement of informal systems, specifically the family, voluntary organizations, and the community, to provide a system separate from the criminal justice system. For this to become a reality, we must build effective linkages between districts and states, among various government agencies in association with child rights groups, along with effective legal services for the children and their families. Otherwise, juvenile justice will become a poor copy of the criminal justice system, only hardening the children caught in it.

Therefore, the Juvenile Justice law should address the issues relating to children alleged and found to be in conflict with law and children in need of care and protection by catering to their basic needs through proper care, protection, development, treatment, social re-integration, by adopting a child-friendly approach in the adjudication and disposal of matters in the best interest of children and for their rehabilitation through processes provided, and institutions and bodies established.

With reference to the above passage, which of the following will be effective in tackling the problems associated with juvenile delinquency?

1. Providing bails easily for the minor offender

2. Giving the minor offender a proper right to privacy

3. Providing services which are parallel to the criminal justice system

4. Making sure that the offender is not unnecessarily imprisoned.


Principle: Nothing is an offence if it is done in good faith for the purpose of preventing or avoiding greater harm or damage to person or property.

Facts: A jumps into a swimming pool to save a boy from drowning. While pulling the boy from water A was hit by C. A left the boy in the water and attacked C. The boy died in the water.   


Mark the best option:
Facts: Ram’s father and Rizvi were enemies. One day at the market Rizvi attacked Ram's father with a lathi. Ram’s father suffered a simple injury on his head. On seeing this Ram got hold of a gun and shot Rizvi in the head, in order to protect his father. The police arrested Ram and charged him with culpable homicide.
Principle:

  1. The law recognizes an individual’s right to defend himself and his family and his property against any unlawful acts.
  2. The person defending himself should not do more harm than is necessary, that is to say, that the force used to defend should be proportionate to the force used by the aggressor.

The principle is to be applied to the given facts and to choose the most appropriate option:

Principle: When a person falsifies something with the intent to deceive another person or entity is forgery and is a criminal act. Changing or adding the signature on a document, deleting it, using or possessing false writing is also considered forgery. In the case of writing/painting to fall under the definition, the material included must have been fabricated or altered significantly in order to represent something it is actually no.

Facts: David made a living travelling from city to city, selling paintings that he claimed were done by great artists. Since the artists’ signatures were in place, many people fell for them and purchased the paintings. One of these artists saw three of his alleged paintings in a City gallery containing his name. He knew these were not his works and he complained to the police. Police traced David and initiated legal proceedings. Is David guilty of any offence?


Mark the best option:
When a person is prosecuted for committing a criminal offense, the burden of proof is on __________?


Which of the following is the oldest law code in India?


A makes an attempt to pick the pocket of B by thrusting his hand into B’s pocket. A fails in attempt in consequence of B’s having nothing in his pocket. A is guilty of–(M.P.C.J.)


Minimum number of persons required to commit an affray is –


Any hurt is grievous if it causes the sufferer to be in severe bodily pain or unable to follow his ordinary pursuits during space of –


One of the remedies for false imprisonment is :


Indian penal code 1860 Consists


Court of justice defined in sec_____ IPC


Illegal signifies


An accused is entitled to statutory bail (default bail) if the police failed to file the charge-sheet ___________ within of his arrest for the offence punishable with 'imprisonment up to 10 years'.


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.


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.

The gist of the offence of criminal conspiracy is


The question consists of two statements, one labelled as PRINCIPLE and other as FACT. You are to examine the principle and apply it to the given facts carefully and select the best option.

Principle: Whoever, intending to take dishonestly any movable property out of the possession of any person without that person’s consent, moves that property with an intention to take it, is said to commit theft.

Facts: Y cuts down a tree on Z’s ground, with the intention of dishonestly taking it out of Z’s possession without Z’s consent. Y could not take away the tree.


Share
Notifications



      Forgot password?
Use app×