Legal Reasoning

[Topic: Indian Penal Code] – LA-O3

Test Legal Reasoning

Test Code LA-03
Topic Indian Penal Code
No. of Questions 25
Maximum Marks 25
Competitive score 20 and above
Time allowed 15 minutes
Answers are provided in this file for self-evaluation.

1. Principles
A. No act is an offence when performed to exercise the right of private defence.
B. There is no right of private defence against an act which does not reasonably cause
the apprehension of death or grievous hurt.
C. In no case does the right of private defence , extend to the inflicting of more harm
than is necessary for the purpose of defence.
D. An accident, is a valid defence to any complaint of having inflicted injury on a person.

Facts: B is constantly threatened by the bullies in his street that they will take him aside,
and beat him up. By way of precaution, he keeps a small pocket knife with him. One
evening B is taken aside by two bullies and one of them begins to attack B. B kicks one of
them, owing to which he faints, and then he slashes the hand of another person, and runs
away. The other person suffered from sickle cell anaemia, owing to which the blood clot
never closed and he bled to death. Is B liable for murder?

a. B has inflicted way more force than required- he will be liable for murder.
b. B should have kicked both people, and run away- he should be held liable for murder.
c. There was no guarantee that the two people would have hurt him, B should have tried
talking to them calmly.
d. The person who had sickle cell anaemia died by accident. B should not be held liable
for murder, he was acting within the scope of private defence.

1
SRIRAM LAW ACADEMY, India’s Premier Institute for Law Entrance Exam Training.
Visit us at www.sriramlawacademy.com for all updates and notifications.
 Legal Reasoning
[Topic: Indian Penal Code] – LA-O3

2. Principles
A. When two or more persons agree to do an act an illegal act, it amounts to Conspiracy.
B. When two or more persons agree to do a legal act in an illegal manner, it amounts to
Conspiracy.
C. Commercial Sale of more than 25 bottles of liquor requires a liquor licence.

Facts: Jinxy and her partner, Blimp have been working on their new business venture to set
up a Karaoke Bar. They have obtained all the necessary licenses for broadcasting the music
and so on. On the eve of their party, their friend Subhosh calls them to tell them that their
new opening will be a failure if there is no liquor at the joint. Jinxy was initially against liquor
being served in the Karaoke bar because she is an ardent supporter of the Alcoholics
Anonymous. Blimp however, reminds her that they have invested too much in the Karaoke
Bar to have a flop on the opening night. Subhosh tells them not to worry, and that he will
bring in the liquor in two consignments without procuring the licence.

Are the ingredients of Conspiracy satisfied?

a. No. Subhosh is a single person, drinking is not an illegal act, and bringing liquor in two
consignments will circumvent the need for the liquor licence.
b. Yes. Drinking is an illegal act, and Jinxy and Blimp have colluded to drug their customers
on the first opening night.
c. No. Even though bringing liquor in two consignments will not circumvent the need for
the liquor licence, Subosh alone will not constitute the requisite number of offenders to
result in the offence of Conspiracy.
d. Yes. Blimp and Subhosh constitute the two required people to constitute the offence.

3. Principle: Whoever intentionally uses force to any person, without that person’s consent,
in order to the committing of any offence, or intending by the use of such force to cause,
or knowing it to be likely that by the use of such force he will cause injury, fear or
annoyance to the person to whom the force is used, is said to use criminal force to that
other.

2
SRIRAM LAW ACADEMY, India’s Premier Institute for Law Entrance Exam Training.
Visit us at www.sriramlawacademy.com for all updates and notifications.
 Legal Reasoning
[Topic: Indian Penal Code] – LA-O3

Factual Situation: A incites a dog to spring upon B intending to cause injury and fear to B. B
was severely injured and by receiving shock, suffered from high fever. B lodged complaint
with the police. A takes defence plea that the dog is a stray dog and he is not the owner of
the dog and hence is not liable to be punished. Decide.

a. A is not liable because he himself has not done any injury etc. to B.

b. A is not liable because dog is a stray dog and for the act of stray dog he is not
responsible.

c. A is responsible because he intended to cause injury to B by using the force through the
dog at his instruction.

d. A is responsible because he was present at the time of dog attacked to B.

4. Principle: Nothing is an offence which is done by a person, who owing to intoxication is

incapable of knowing the nature of the act, or that what he is doing is wrong or contrary to
law provided that the thing which intoxicated him was administrated to him without his
knowledge or against his will.

Facts: ‘A’, a man who consumed too much liquor at his friends’ birthday party entered into
an altercation with X a cigarette vendor and took a knife out of his pocket and inured ‘X’. The
injury proved fatal. ‘A’, is charged for the offence of murder.

Can ‘A’ take the defence of intoxication?

a. No, because it was voluntarily

b. Yes, because is was involuntarily

c. depends on the full circumstances of the case

d. none of the above is correct.

3
SRIRAM LAW ACADEMY, India’s Premier Institute for Law Entrance Exam Training.
Visit us at www.sriramlawacademy.com for all updates and notifications.
 Legal Reasoning
[Topic: Indian Penal Code] – LA-O3

5. PRINCIPLE: Whoever, knowing or having reason to believe that any persons are about to
commit or have recently committed robbery or dacoity, harbours them or any of them,
with the intention of facilitating the commission of such robbery or dacoity or of screening
them or any of them from punishment, shall be punished with rigorous imprisonment for
a term which may extend to seven years, and shall also be liable to fine.

FACTS: Rionel Fernandez is a Spanish Citizen and a notorious dacoit. He had committed
several offences in various countries and came to India. While visiting the Goa Beach he fell
down and broke his leg when the Police chased him. He managed to escape and entered a
house that belonged to Gladson, who was a doctor in Goa. Rionel said that he was an athlete
and fell down while practising in the beach. Gladson treated him and permitted him to stay
in his house until he recovered. The Police came to Gladson’s house and enquired if he was
approached by any suspicious person. Gladson denied. But the Police later discovered that
Rionel was staying in his house. Is he liable?

a) No, he has only helped a person who was suffering.

b) No, he was unaware about Rionel’s background and harboured him.
c) Yes, he had lied to the Police and permitted Rionel to stay in his house.
d) Yes, he failed to enquire Rionel before treating him.

6. PRINCIPLE: Using as true a certificate known to be false shall be an offence punished as

giving false evidence.

FACTS: Nihal was a class twelve student and a law aspirant. He worked really hard at the
coaching and secured good marks in the Law entrance and a seat in one of prestigious
institutions in the State. However his 12th mark sheet was a dampener as he had failed to
secure a pass in Economics by 5 marks. So he agreed to his father’s suggestion of creating a
false certificate and got an almost authentic one from a person who running a false
certificate racket. Nihal however proved to be an excellent student and passed his first year
at the institution with flying colours. But during his second year the racket was busted and
the discrepancy in the certificate came to light. Decide if Nihal is liable.

a. Nihal is liable for giving false evidence.

4
SRIRAM LAW ACADEMY, India’s Premier Institute for Law Entrance Exam Training.
Visit us at www.sriramlawacademy.com for all updates and notifications.
 Legal Reasoning
[Topic: Indian Penal Code] – LA-O3

b. Nihal is not liable as he has been a good student and shown his mettle in the first year
at law school.

c. Nihal is not liable as his father was the one who had procured the wrong certificate.

d. Nihal is liable as he had failed in the exam.

7. PRINCIPLE:
1] Whoever intending to take dishonestly any moveable property out of the possession of
any person without that person’s consent, moves that property in order to such taking, is
said to commit theft.

2] Whoever, being in any manner entrusted with property, or with any dominion over
property, dishonestly misappropriates or converts to his own use that property, or
dishonestly uses or disposes of that property in violation of any direction of law
prescribing the mode in which such trust is to be discharged, or of any legal contract,
express or implied, which he has made touching the discharge of such trust, or willfully
suffers any other person so to do, commits ‘criminal breach of trust’.

FACTS: Vishal has a VISA Debit Card and gave the card to his friend Siddarth and asked him
to give it to his mother, as he was leaving out of town. Siddarth knew his ATM PIN code. As
Siddarth needed some cash, he used Vishal’s card and withdrew Rs.20,000 from the ATM.
The Bank gave a text message to Vishal stating money has been withdrawn from his account.
Has Siddarth committed any offence?

a. Yes. He should have checked with Vishal before withdrawing the amount.
b. No, he used the card only because he was in urgent need of money
c. Yes, he has committed the offence of criminal breach of trust.
d. No, he did not have any dishonest intention to steal, as the bank has given a message.

5
SRIRAM LAW ACADEMY, India’s Premier Institute for Law Entrance Exam Training.
Visit us at www.sriramlawacademy.com for all updates and notifications.
 Legal Reasoning
[Topic: Indian Penal Code] – LA-O3

8. Principle:
Whoever with the intent to cause, or knowing that he is likely to cause wrongful loss or
damage to the public or to any person, causes the destruction of property, or any such
change in any property or in the situation thereof as destroys or diminishes its value or
utility, of affects it injuriously, commits mischief.
Fact:
A lent his laptop to B. when in possession of the laptop, B inserted a pen drive into the
laptop. When he did a virus scan, he realized that the pen drive was infected. Since he
urgently required a file that was on the laptop, he nevertheless opened the files on the pen
drive, in the process infecting the laptop.
a. B has committed mischief because he has affected the laptop injuriously.
b. B has not committed mischief because he did not intend to do so.
c. B has not committed mischief because the laptop continued working.
d. B has not committed mischief because the laptop was in his possession.

9. Principle:
Whoever enters into or upon property in the possession of another with the intent to
commit an offence 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 offence commits criminal trespass.
Fact:
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.
a. A has committed theft.
b. A has committed criminal trespass.
c. A has not committed criminal trespass, because he entered with permission.
d. A has not committed any offence.

6
SRIRAM LAW ACADEMY, India’s Premier Institute for Law Entrance Exam Training.
Visit us at www.sriramlawacademy.com for all updates and notifications.
 Legal Reasoning
[Topic: Indian Penal Code] – LA-O3

10. PRINCIPLE: Nothing is an offence which is done by a person who is, or who by reason of a
mistake of fact and not by reason of a mistake of law in good faith believes himself to be,
bound by law to do it.

FACTS: The police personnel came to Chennai from Mumbai, with a warrant to arrest Tilak, a
terrorist. After reasonable enquiries and a well founded suspicion they arrested a man with
the same name, believing in good faith that he must be arrested. But later the arrested
person was found to be an innocent person. The arrested person filed a case against the
police officer on account of wrongful confinement.

a. The police are not liable as they arrested him in a good faith under the authority given to
them by law after proper deliberation.
b. The police are not liable as it was the complainant’s mistake of not clarifying the police
about his identity
c. The police are liable as a thousand guilty persons can escape but not a single innocent
man can be punished.
d. The police are liable as they were negligent in carrying out their duty and arrested an
innocent person damaging his personality.

11. PRINCIPLE: Nothing is an offence merely by reason of its being done with the knowledge
that it is likely to cause harm, if it be done without any criminal intention to cause harm,
and in good faith for the purpose of preventing or avoiding other harm to person or
property.

FACTS: Jack saw a multi storied building on fire and heard a child’s cry for help. He
immediately went up the stairs and on the fifth floor he found a small child crying for help.
In the mean time the fire had engulfed the whole building and as a result there resulted an
electrical fire. Jack in order to save the child threw the child out of the window aiming for a
nearby bush. But unfortunately the child fell on the pavement and suffered multiple
fractures. The child’s parents sued Jack for the injury caused to the child.

a. Jack is guilty as he was the cause of the injury to the child by way of fractures.
b. Jack is not guilty as he threw the child to save from a greater harm of electrical fire.

7
SRIRAM LAW ACADEMY, India’s Premier Institute for Law Entrance Exam Training.
Visit us at www.sriramlawacademy.com for all updates and notifications.
 Legal Reasoning
[Topic: Indian Penal Code] – LA-O3

c. Jack is guilty as he did not take due care while throwing the child out and the injuries
are a result of his negligence.
d. Jack is not guilty as it was an act of God to have landed the child in the pavement
instead of the bush.

12. PRINCIPLE: Nothing is an offence which is done by accident or misfortune and without any
criminal intention or knowledge in the doing of a lawful act in a lawful manner by lawful
means and with proper care and caution.

FACTS: Prem was a wood cutter in the forest area. He used to cut the wood with a big axe
which was sharp enough to cut big trees. One day while he was cutting the wood, his axe
lost grip flew away from his hands and chopped the head of a woman who suddenly came
there to collect some wood. He was arrested for the death of the woman.

a. Prem is guilty for the woman’s death as he was negligent in carrying out his work of
cutting the woods.
b. Prem is not guilty of the woman’s death as it is the duty of the woman to take care of
her in the wild.
c. Prem is not guilty of the woman’s murder as it was a mere accident and he had no
criminal intention.
d. Prem is guilty of the woman’s murder as he could have avoided it by cutting the trees
with a driller than an axe.

13. PRINCIPLE: Nothing is an offence which is done by a child under seven years of age.

FACTS: James is a child of six years of age. On his birthday his father promised to buy him a
remote controlled car. But due to his official work he wasn’t able to make it for the party
and did not attend it. This angered James and in rage mixed the household toilet acid in his
father’s milkshake. He had the knowledge that it was harmful but did not know the entire
consequences. His father drank it and as a result died due to its poisoning.

a. James is guilty of his father’s murder as he had the criminal intent and knowledge of his
act.
b. James is guilty of his father’s murder as it was to avenge the absence of him during the
party and thus is punishable.

8
SRIRAM LAW ACADEMY, India’s Premier Institute for Law Entrance Exam Training.
Visit us at www.sriramlawacademy.com for all updates and notifications.
 Legal Reasoning
[Topic: Indian Penal Code] – LA-O3

c. James is not guilty of his father’s murder as his father was negligent in drinking the
milkshake without checking it.
d. James is not guilty as no offence can be committed by him under law.

14. Principle: When five or more persons jointly commit robbery. They are said to have
committed the offence of dacoity.

Facts: Six persons agreed to commit robbery in the house of Mr. Santosh Jain, a jewellery
merchant. It was agreed that robbery would be committed on the night of 1 st May 2006 at
about midnight. On the agreed day at the agreed time, only four of them were present. They
committed robbery without waiting for the arrival of the other two.

a. The offence of dacoity has been committed. There are six person involved though only
four have committed robbery.

b. The offence of dacoity was not committed as the robbery was committed only by four
persons.

c. There is conspiracy to commit the offence of Dacoity

d. The other two persons are deemed to have participated in the robbery. Hence the
offence of dacoity was committed.

15. Self Defence

a. Is a private remedy

b. Is a judicial remedy

c. Is available as defence only in civil law

d. Is available in both torts and crimes

16. There are four stages in the commission of a crime; intention, preparation, attempt and
commissions. The attempt to commit a crime is

a. Punishable
9
SRIRAM LAW ACADEMY, India’s Premier Institute for Law Entrance Exam Training.
Visit us at www.sriramlawacademy.com for all updates and notifications.
 Legal Reasoning
[Topic: Indian Penal Code] – LA-O3

b. Not punishable

c. Not ordinary punishable

d. None of the above

17. __________ are those offences which are punishable with imprisonment for two years or
less. These offences can be compromised between the parties.

a. Compoundable offences

b. Non-compoundable offences

c. Bailable offences

d. Non-cognizable offences

18. Conspiracy needs, at least ______ persons

a. One

b. Two

c. Three

d. Five

19. Section ___ of the Indian Penal Code punishes a murderer

a. 299

b. 300

c. 301

d. 302

20. ____ are those offences for which a police officer can arrest a person without a warrant

a. Cognizable offences

b. Non-cognizable offences

c. Bailable offences

d. Non-bailable offences

10
SRIRAM LAW ACADEMY, India’s Premier Institute for Law Entrance Exam Training.
Visit us at www.sriramlawacademy.com for all updates and notifications.
 Legal Reasoning
[Topic: Indian Penal Code] – LA-O3

21. Crime is a

a. Private wrong

b. Public wrong

c. Civil wrong

d. State wrong

22. A, a surgeon, in good faith communicates to a patient his opinion that he cannot live. The
patient dies of shock

a. A commits murder

b. A commits no offence

c. A commits abetment of murder

d. A commits offence of shock

23. Accomplice in legal terms means

a. Partner in a crime

b. Eye witness

c. On looker

d. Criminal mind

24. Delinquent child is one who:

a. Has no parents

b. No education

c. Has no legs

d. Has committed an offence

25. Burden of proof means

a. Take allegation

b. Contradictor statement

c. Prove an allegation ANSWERS ON NEXT PAGE

d. Clean judgment

11
SRIRAM LAW ACADEMY, India’s Premier Institute for Law Entrance Exam Training.
Visit us at www.sriramlawacademy.com for all updates and notifications.
 Legal Reasoning
[Topic: Indian Penal Code] – LA-O3

Q.No Answer Hints / Explanations

1. d B had exercised force which was proportional to the threat of being hurt. It was
unfortunate that the other person has a condition which led to his death- it will
be counted as an accident, and in any case, will not be attributable to B.

2. d It is unimportant as to whether Jinxy colludes with them because they have

already constituted the minimum requirement of two people colluding to
commit an illegal act, (which is to sell liquor without a commercial licence).

3. c Option is self-explanatory

4. a As A had voluntarily got himself intoxicated, he cannot take the defence of

intoxication.

5. b As Gladson was unaware of Rionel’s antecedents, he is not liable.

6. a Straightforward application of the principle

7. c Siddharth is guilty of criminal breach of trust as he had withdrawn money from

Vishal’s account.

8. a B knowingly inserted the infected pen drive.

9. b As A intended to steal books, he is guilty of criminal trespass

10. a Going by the principle, the police are not liable as they acted in good faith.

11. b Jack acted in good faith and with an intention to save the child.

12. c Answer is self-explanatory

13. d James is not guilty as he has protection under law.

14. b As only 4 were present and engaged in robbery, it is not a case of dacoity.

15.d 16.a 17.a 18.b 19.d 20.a

21.b 22.b 23.a 24.d 25.c

12
SRIRAM LAW ACADEMY, India’s Premier Institute for Law Entrance Exam Training.
Visit us at www.sriramlawacademy.com for all updates and notifications.