General Exceptions MCQ Quiz - Objective Question with Answer for General Exceptions - Download Free PDF

The correct answer is Both “A” and “B” are excused from liability.

Key Points

• “A” under unsoundness of mind
  • Section 84 IPC: A person of unsound mind is not criminally responsible if:
  • “He was incapable of knowing the nature of the act, or that he was doing what was either wrong or contrary to law.”
  • So, “A” is not liable for the attempt to murder because of the defence of insanity.
• “B” causes grievous hurt while defending himself
  • Section 97 IPC: Gives every person the right of private defence of body.
  • Section 100 IPC: Right of private defence extends to causing death or grievous hurt, if there is a reasonable apprehension of death or grievous hurt from the attacker — even if the attacker is of unsound mind.
• Section 98 IPC:
  • The right of private defence exists even against a person of unsound mind if such person’s act causes a reasonable apprehension of danger.
• So, “B” has a valid right of private defence even though “A” was of unsound mind.
• B is not criminally liable if the force used was proportionate to the threat perceived.

Additional Information

• “A” is liable for attempt to murder and “B” is liable for causing hurt Wrong — “A” is of unsound mind (not liable), “B” acted in defence (may not be liable).
• “A” commits no offence and “B” is liable for grievous hurt Partially correct — but “B” is protected by Sections 97/98/100 IPC, so not liable.
• “B” commits no offence and “A” is liable for attempt to murder Incorrect — “A” is not liable due to unsound mind.

The correct answer is Causing miscarriage

Key Points

• The right of private defence is defined under Sections 96 to 106 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860, and Section 100 specifically lists the situations where causing death in private defence is justified.
• Section 100 IPC – Right of private defence extending to causing death is allowed in the following offences:
  • Assault causing apprehension of death
  • Assault causing apprehension of grievous hurt
  • Assault with intent to commit rape 
  • Assault with intent to gratify unnatural lust
  • Assault with intent to kidnap or abduct 
  • Assault with intent to wrongfully confine a person
• So, Rape, Kidnapping, and Gratifying unnatural lust are all included in the list where the right of private defence may extend to causing death.
•  Causing miscarriage is not included in Section 100 IPC.
  • It is an offence under Section 312 IPC, but it does not, by itself, justify causing death in private defence.
  • Hence, death cannot be caused in defence against a person merely committing miscarriage.

Additional Information

• Option 1. Rape – Incorrect: Death can be caused in private defence to prevent rape.
• Option 2. Kidnapping – Incorrect: Causing death is allowed if the kidnapping poses grave danger.
• Option 3. Gratifying unnatural lust – Incorrect: Covered under Section 100 IPC.

The correct answer is With inherent risk of causing harm

Key Points

• Under the Indian Penal Code, Section 81 deals with the defense of necessity:
  • "Nothing is an offence merely by reason of its being done with the knowledge that it is likely to cause harm, if it is done without criminal intent and to prevent other harm."
• However, necessity cannot be claimed as a defence when:
  • The act involves an inherent and unacceptable level of risk.
  • The act causes disproportionate harm relative to the harm avoided.
  • The harm caused is not reasonable or justifiable.
• So, if the act carries an inherent risk of serious harm, it goes beyond what necessity allows, and the defense fails.

Additional Information

• With good faith – Incorrect; good faith is often a requirement for the necessity defense.
• Without criminal intent – Incorrect; absence of criminal intent is a key element of this defence.
• For avoiding other greater harm – Incorrect; this is the central justification for claiming necessity.

The correct answer is Ignorance of law is no excuse

Key Points

• Meaning of the Maxim:
  • Ignorantia juris non excusat is a Latin phrase meaning "ignorance of the law excuses no one."
• Legal Principle:
  • Everyone is presumed to know the law of the land.
  • Not knowing the law cannot be used as a defense to avoid legal responsibility or liability.
• Purpose:
  • To ensure that people cannot escape liability by simply claiming they did not know the law.
  • Maintains order and predictability in the legal system.
• Application:
  • Applies in both civil and criminal law.
  • Courts will not accept ignorance of law as a valid excuse for breaking the law.
• Distinction with Ignorance of Fact:
  • Ignorance of fact may sometimes be accepted as a defense in certain cases.
  • Ignorance of law, however, is never an excuse.

Additional Information

• Option 2. Ignorance of fact is no excuse: Sometimes ignorance of fact can be an excuse (e.g., mistake of fact).
• Option 3. Ignorance of law is an excuse: This is false; ignorance of law is never an excuse.
• Option 4. Ignorance of fact is an excuse:  It depends on the context; not always an excuse.

The correct answer is 'All the above.'

Key Points

• Right of Private Defence:
  • The Right of Private Defence is a legal provision under Indian law that allows individuals to protect themselves and their property from harm when immediate state protection is unavailable.
  • It is codified under Sections 96 to 106 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC), 1860, and provides guidelines for the extent to which self-defence can be exercised.
• Causing Death in Private Defence:
  • The right to cause death in private defence is restricted to situations where the danger is severe and imminent.
  • Under Section 100 of the IPC, causing death is justified when there is:
    • Apprehension of death: If the attacker poses an immediate threat to the defender’s life.
    • Apprehension of grievous hurt: If the assailant is likely to cause severe injuries that can endanger life or health.
    • Intention of committing rape: If the attacker intends to commit the crime of rape, which is a grave violation of personal safety and dignity.
• Legal Safeguards:
  • The right of private defence is not absolute and must be exercised in proportion to the threat faced.
  • The defender must prove that the harm caused to the attacker was necessary and not excessive in the given circumstances.

Additional Information

• Apprehension of Death:
  • This is the most critical ground for exercising the right to cause death in private defence. If an individual reasonably fears that their life is in immediate danger, they are legally allowed to take extreme measures to protect themselves.
  • Other options, such as apprehension of grievous hurt or intention of committing rape, are also valid, but they align with the severity of the threat posed.
• Apprehension of Grievous Hurt:
  • While grievous hurt is a valid reason to exercise the right of private defence, it is significant only when the threat is imminent and severe enough to justify causing death.
  • If the harm is minor or not life-threatening, causing death would exceed the boundaries of private defence and may result in legal consequences.
• Intention of Committing Rape:
  • The law recognizes the grave nature of rape and allows individuals to act in private defence to prevent such an atrocity.
  • However, the defender must demonstrate that the assailant’s intention was unmistakable and the threat was immediate.
• Proportionality Principle:
  • The use of force in private defence must be proportionate to the threat faced. Excessive or unwarranted force may not be protected under the law.
  • Courts carefully evaluate the circumstances of each case to determine whether the defender acted within legal boundaries.

The correct option is 82.

Key Points

• In the Indian Penal Code (IPC), certain provisions take into account the age of the offender, especially in the context of children.
• According to the IPC, nothing is an offence when it is done by a child below the age of seven years. This means that children below the age of seven are considered incapable of committing offences under the IPC.
• Criteria for distinguishing liability of a child in India:
  • There are certain general exclusions under Chapter 4 of the Indian Penal Code covered by Sections 76 to 106.
  • Infancy is one of the general exceptions covered by Section 82 and Section 83 of the Indian Penal Code.
  • Section 82:
    • It grants absolute immunity to children under the age of seven.
  • Section 83:
    • Act of a child above seven and under twelve of immature understanding-
      • "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".
• Children aged seven to twelve have qualified immunity under Section 83 of the IPC with the mental ability of the child being the determining factor.
• The Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act of 2015 governs children aged twelve to eighteen.
• The rationale behind this provision is based on the presumption that children below the age of seven lack the understanding and maturity to form criminal intent.
• As a result, they are not held criminally liable for their actions.
• The phrase "Actus Reus Non-facit Reum Nisi Mens Sit Rea" is a standard legal test which refers in general, to someone who behaved without mental culpability is not criminally responsible.
• It is important to note that this provision is specific to children below the age of seven and the legal treatment of juvenile offenders may vary for those above this age but below the age of 18.

The correct option is 40.

Key Points

• Definition of Offence:-
  • Section 40 of the IPC defines an “offence”.
  • The term “offence” is a legal term that refers to an act or omission that is punishable by law.
  • In simpler terms, an offence is any act or omission that is considered unlawful and if proven, may lead to punishment.
• Section 40 Indian Penal Code 1860 (IPC):-
  • "[Except in the 2[Chapters] and sections mentioned in clauses 2 and 3 of this section, the word “offence” denotes a thing made punishable by this Code.
  • In Chapter IV, 3[Chapter VA] and in the following sections, namely, sections 4[64, 65, 66, 5[67], 71], 109, 110, 112, 114, 115, 116, 117,6[118, 119 and 120] 187, 194, 195, 203, 211, 213, 214, 221, 222, 223, 224, 225, 327, 328, 329, 330, 331, 347, 348, 388, 389 and 445, the word “offence” denotes a thing punishable under this Code, or under any special or local law as hereinafter defined.
  • In sections 141, 176, 177, 201, 202, 212, 216 and 441, the word “offence” has the same meaning when the thing punishable under the special or local law is punishable under such law with imprisonment for a term of six months or upwards, whether with or without fine.]"
• Principle of Legality:-
  • Section 40 of the IPC lays down the principle of legality.
  • It states that an act can only be considered an offence if it has been expressly defined as such by the law.
  • In other words, a person cannot be punished for an act that is not prohibited by law.
  • This principle is essential in protecting the citizen's fundamental rights and ensuring that the State does not have arbitrary powers to punish individuals.
  • The principle of legality is a vital component of criminal law in our country, as it ensures that individuals are not punished for actions that are not explicitly prohibited by law.
  • This principle also ensures that the State cannot impose penalties that are not defined by law thus protecting the citizens’ rights and limiting the government’s powers.
• Act or Omission:-
  • Section 40 of the IPC also mentions that an offence can be committed by a person either by doing an act or by omitting to do an act that they were bound to do.
  • This means that a person can be held liable for not doing something that they were legally obligated to do such as failing to report a crime or not fulfilling a contractual obligation.
  • The principle of omission is essential in ensuring that individuals do not escape liability for their inaction, which may cause harm to others. It also highlights the importance of legal duties and obligations and the consequences of failing to fulfil them.
  • Thus, Section 40 of the IPC provides a comprehensive definition of “offence” that covers both acts and omissions that are punishable by law, ensuring that criminal behaviour is adequately identified and punished.

Additional Information

• Section 41: Special law
• Section 42: Local law
• Section 43: Illegal (Legally bound to do).

The correct option is All of the above.

Key Points

• R v. Arnold (1724):-
  • The first case dealt with the law of insanity, in which Edward Arnold attempted to kill and even wound Lord Onslow and was tried for the same.
  • The evidence clearly showed that the accused was suffering from a mental disorder.
  • Tracy, J. observed:
    • “If he was under the visitation of God and could not distinguish between good and evil, and did not know what he did, though he committed the greatest offence, yet he could not be guilty of any offence against any law whatsoever.”
    • A person can demand immunity if, due to his unsoundness of mind, he is incapable of distinguishing between good and evil and does not know the nature of the act committed by him.
    • This test is known as the “Wild Beast Test.”
• Hadfield’s case (1800):-
  • The second test evolved in Hadfield’s case (1800).
  • Hadfield was discharged from the army on the grounds of insanity and was tried for high treason in attempting to assassinate King George III.
  • The counsel of the accused, Lord Thomas Erskine, defended him and proved in front of the judge that Hadfield only pretended to kill the King and was not guilty, on the ground of insane delusion from which the accused was suffering.
  • Erskine stated:
    • Insanity was to be determined by the fact of fixed insane delusion and that such delusion under which the defendant acted was the main reason for his crime.
    • This test was known as the “Insane Delusion Test.”
• Bowler’s case (1812):
  • The third test was formulated in Bowler’s case.
  • In this case, Le Blanc, J. stated:
  • The jury has to decide when the accused committed the offence, whether he was capable of distinguishing right from wrong or under the control of an illusion.
  • After the Bowlers case, the courts placed more emphasis on the capacity of the accused to distinguish right from wrong, though the test was not that clear.

The correct answer is 'self-preservation'

Key Points

• The concept of the right to private defence:
  • The right to private defence is a legal provision that allows individuals to protect themselves or others from harm in situations where immediate protection is necessary.
  • It is rooted in the natural instinct of self-preservation, which is the fundamental human drive to protect one’s life, body, and property from harm.
  • This right is not unlimited; it must be exercised within the boundaries of the law and cannot be used as a pretext for excessive or unnecessary violence.
• Legal foundations:
  • In the legal framework, the right to private defence is recognized to ensure individuals can act swiftly to protect themselves when law enforcement authorities are not immediately available.
  • It applies to both the protection of oneself and others, and even extends to the protection of property under certain conditions.
  • This right is subject to restrictions, such as proportionality (the force used must be reasonable and not excessive) and immediacy (the threat must be imminent).

Additional Information

• Explanation of incorrect options:
  • Self-Control: While self-control is an important trait in managing one’s emotions and reactions, it does not form the basis of the right to private defence. In fact, private defence often requires immediate action rather than restraint.
  • Self-Movement: This term does not relate to the concept of private defence. Self-movement refers more to the ability to physically move or act, which is not the foundation for the legal right of private defence.
  • Self-Respect: Though self-respect is a significant aspect of personal dignity, it does not directly pertain to the right to private defence, which is primarily concerned with physical safety and survival.
• Importance of self-preservation:
  • Self-preservation is the most basic human instinct and is universally recognized as a justification for defensive actions.
  • The right to private defence allows individuals to act in accordance with this instinct when faced with immediate harm, ensuring their safety and security.

The correct answer is option 4.Key Points

• The right to private defense is a legal concept that allows individuals to protect themselves, their property, or others from imminent harm or threat. It's recognized in many legal systems around the world, including common law jurisdictions.
• Section 100 of Indian Penal Code 1860 deals with when the right of private defence of the body extends to causing death.
• The right of private defence of the body extends, under the restrictions mentioned in the last preceding section, to the voluntary causing of death or of any other harm to the assailant, if the offence which occasions the exercise of the right be of any of the descriptions hereinafter enumerated, namely:—
  • First.—Such an assault as may reasonably cause the apprehension that death will otherwise be the consequence of such assault;
  • Secondly.—Such an assault as may reasonably cause the apprehension that grievous hurt will otherwise be the consequence of such assault;
  • Thirdly.—An assault with the intention of committing rape;
  • Fourthly.—An assault with the intention of gratifying unnatural lust;
  • Fifthly.—An assault with the intention of kidnapping or abducting;
  • Sixthly.—An assault with the intention of wrongfully confining a person, under circumstances which may reasonably cause him to apprehend that he will be unable to have recourse to the public authorities for his release.
  • Seventhly.—An act of throwing or administering acid or an attempt to throw or administer acid which may reasonably cause the apprehension that grievous hurt will otherwise be the consequence of such act.

The correct answer is option 4Key Points

•  The provision of Section 92 of the Indian Penal Code 1860 comes into play.
• According to this section, an act done in good faith for the benefit of a person without their consent is not considered an offence, provided certain conditions are met.
• A did not intend to cause the child's death, they acted to prevent harm by dropping the child from the burning house. Therefore, under Section 92, A's actions are not considered an offence, even if the child is killed by the fall.
• Section 92 of Indian Penal Code 1860 deals with Act done in good faith for benefit of a person without consent.
• Nothing is an offence by reason of any harm which it may cause to a person for whose benefit it is done in good faith, even without that person's consent, if the circumstances are such that it is impossible for that person to signify consent, or if that person is incapable of giving consent, and has no guardian or other person in lawful charge of him from whom it is possible to obtain consent in time for the thing to be done with benefit: Provided:
  • Provisos. First.—That this exception shall not extend to the intentional causing of death, or the attempting to cause death;
  • Secondly.—That this exception shall not extend to the doing of anything which the person doing it knows to be likely to cause death, for any purpose other than the preventing of death or grievous hurt, or the curing of any grievous disease or infirmity;
  • Thirdly.—That this exception shall not extend to the voluntary causing of hurt, or to the attempting to cause hurt, for any purpose other than the preventing of death or hurt;
  • Fourthly.—That this exception shall not extend to the abetment of any offence, to the committing of which offence it would not extend.

The correct answer is option 3Key Points

• A, who intentionally induced B to perform the act that led to Z's death, is culpable under Section 299 of the Indian Penal Code. A's actions meet the criteria outlined in the section, as A either intended to cause Z's death or knew that the act of inducing B to fire at the bush was likely to cause Z's death.
• Therefore, in this example, while B may escape culpability due to lack of intention or knowledge, A is deemed to have committed the offence of culpable homicide as per Section 299 of the Indian Penal Code 1860.
• Section 299 of Indian Penal code 1860 deals with Culpable homicide.
• Whoever causes death by doing an act with the intention of causing death, or with the intention of causing such bodily injury as is likely to cause death, or with the knowledge that he is likely by such act to cause death, commits the offence of culpable homicide. 

The correct option is all of the above.

Key Points

• Provocation should not be voluntarily provoked by the offender:
  • This is correct.
  • In the context of the exception of grave and sudden provocation, it generally refers to a situation where the offender is provoked by a serious and sudden act on the part of the victim.
  • If the provocation is voluntarily provoked by the offender, it may not qualify for this exception.
• Lawful exercise of the right of private defence does not give provocation:
  • This is correct.
  • The lawful exercise of the right of private defence is not considered provocation in the legal sense.
  • If someone is defending themselves within the limits prescribed by law, it does not amount to provocation.
• Lawful exercise of powers by a public servant in obedience to the law does not amount to provocation:
  • This is also correct.
  • If a public servant is carrying out their duties by the law, their actions do not typically constitute provocation.

The correct option is Option 1.

Key Points

• “Ignorantia Juris Non Excusat” means that ignorance of the law is no excuse.
• This principle places the responsibility on individuals to know and follow the law, regardless of whether they were aware of the law or not.
• A person cannot avoid liability by claiming that they did not know the law.
• Case: Mohammad Ali v. Sri Ram Swarup
  • The court held that mistake or ignorance of the law, even if in good faith, is not a valid defence.
    • It may still be considered as a mitigating factor in some cases.
    • The arrest of a person without a warrant is not justified even if the person was ignorant of the law.
• The Indian Penal Code of 1860 protects Sections 76 and 79 for individuals who make mistakes of fact in good faith.
• However, it does not extend this protection to mistakes of law.
• Example:- 
  • A person caught travelling on a train without a ticket cannot claim ignorance of the law as a defence and will be punished under Section 138 of The Indian Railways Act, 1989.

The correct option is Option 2

Key Points

Under Section 103 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC), 1860, the right to private defense of property extends to causing death only in certain serious offences. These include:

• Robbery
  • House-breaking by night
  • Mischief by fire or explosive substances committed on a building, tent, or vessel used for dwelling or as a place for property custody
• Theft, mischief, or house trespass that, under the circumstances, may cause a reasonable apprehension of death or grievous hurt
• Since "robbery per se" is specifically listed as a qualifying offence under Section 103 IPC, it is the correct answer. Mischief per se and theft per se do not always justify causing death unless they involve imminent danger of grievous hurt or death.