Guide to LLB. Entrance Examination any movable property = ring is movable property cut of the possession of any person = Viru’s intention is to take the ring out of Surya’s possession 5. without that person's consent = obviously Surya's consent is absent, otherwise there is no need for Viru to make so muuch effort 6 moves that property = Viru moved the ring from the table to the underside ofthe sofa cover 7. in order to suck taking = the whole object of moving the ring was to take the ring, even though at some later time 8. is said f0 commit theft = Virw committed theft because he moved the ring with the dishonest intention of taking it out of Surya’s possession without Surya’s consent. 9. Whoever commits theft = Virw 10. shal be punished. 11. with imprisonment which may extend to three years or with fine or with both, - a The great benefit of this method of analysis is that you not only arrive at the correct answer, You arrive 50 forthe right reasons. This is important because the choices invariably test your reasoning power With the benefit ofthe aforementioned analysis, i should be obvious to you that . ~ Viru can never be liable for the theft of Surya’s Jand or house because both are immovable Properties and Viru cannot move then ~ If Viru were to hide the same ring at the same Place by way of a practical joke, he wou Sill not be lable forthe Bevo he Sea dishonest intention to take property out of the possession of Surya without Surya's concent ~ Vira was to borrow the ring from Surya and ater refuse to return it, he would liable for theft because he took the tiny Surya’s possession with his consent Later when he developed a dishonest intention the riny mac Surya's possession, no question can avec of his moving the ring with the intention to take it out of Surya’s possession. (Don't get alarmed, there are other provisions in Criminal, Law which will take care of Viru. The point being made is that not every situation can be called ‘theft’ in law. Don't let your outrage determine your choice! ) It should be clear that Virw is also liable for theft in the following situation: Viru is a beggar, who has not had anything to eat for the past three days. He sees a jar of pickle lying in the verandah of Surya’s house. He opens the gate, walks upto the verandah, picks up the jar and eats the pickle. Then he walks out of the gate but is caught. Vig moved movable property (pickle) out of the of Surya (by eating it and thereby putting it into ky | own stomach) without Surya’s consent and he dit 50 dishonestly (in law the word ‘dishonestly” mean causing wrongful loss and ‘wrongful loss” mears los by unlawful means of property to which the perso, losing is legally entitled In the early stages it is advisable to do the above analysis in writing, but by the time you have solved more than 500 questions that occur at various places in this book, the process will become naturally ment, speedier and accurate. That is the stage, after which you can confidently keep yourself update with the Entrance-Test. AREAS OF TESTING IN LEGAL REASONING/LEGAL APTITUDE Questions in the Legal Reasoning Section are asked ‘mainly from the following areas:— (A) Criminal Law (B) Law of Torts (C) Law of Contract (D) Constitutional Law | | In aforementioned exam jou can easily | undertand tat bie ee! | | The Legal Principle defines ‘theft’ under Section 378 and prescribes for its punishment under Section 379 of the Indian Penal Code, The ‘theft’ in dwelling house is also defined under Section 380 of Indian Penal Code Further, the questions in the Legal Reasoning Section are mainly. of, objective types. We are incorporating, therefore different types of questions in legal reasoning asked in the entrance tests of CLAT and other premier law schools in India = To equip you with legal reasoning skills for law entrance exams, we shall take each ares of law one BY one, explain important legal principles and provide illustrations or examples explaining the legal principle so that you learn the way to apply legal principles to given factual situation and arrive at the most correct A. CRIMINAL LAW The Principle of ‘Mens Rea’ “Actus non facit reum nisi mens sit rea is a latin maxim which lays down a fundamental principle of criminal law. W says that the act actus) in itself is nota frime unless it is done with ‘mens rea’ ic., a guilty x 1W means a criminal intention is essential to constitute 2 But there might be offences even without mens ret Several modem statutes passed in the interests of public Scanned with CamScannersafely and social welfare which impose strict liability, ‘The doctrine of strict liability excludes the principle of mens rea, on the ground that such regulations are enacted to preserve and protect the social and economic interest. of the community which requires strict adherence to laws. Examples of such enactments are the Essential Commodities Act, the Motor Vehicles Act, etc. Exasue 2 Mrs. Deep was married to Mr. Deep. After one year she was deserted by her husband. She made all sible enquiries about him. Ultimately, she came fo know that her husband was on a ship bound for London which was destroyed in the Arabian sea. She supposed herself a widow and married another man next year. In the meantime Mr. Deep reappeared. Mrs. Deep was charged for the criminal act of ‘bi ‘The question before the Court of Appeal was whether Mrs. Deep committed the offence of bigamy, with a guilty intention. The Court, by majority, applied the principle of “Mens Rea” and acquitted her as she had acted under a bona fide belief that her first husband was dead. There was no guilty mind or ‘mens rea’ in General Exceptions There are cer neral defences under the criminal law which accused ean plead before the Court {o prove his innocence. The burden of proof of any. such exception lies on the accused himself. For example: ‘A commits an offence when he is of unsound mind or insane. The burden of proving insanity lies on A himself, of course, A’s lawyer will prove on his behalf ‘The general exceptions are maisily (a) Unsoundness of mind or insanity of accused. (b)_ Intoxication of accused, (0) Right of private defence of accused. This to be noted that onus of proving exception lies on acctised who wants to take benefit of such lawf exception. Generally. the burden of proof for accusation lies on prosecution. Unsoundness of Mind or Insanity of Accused Exam 3 LEGAL PRINCIPLE: Not an offence done by a person who, at the time of doing it, by reason of unsoundness of mind, is incapable of knowing, the nature of the act or what he is doing is wrong or contrary to law. FACTUAL SITUATION: A takes his son B who is three years old, for a bath to the well. He throws his son inside the well so that he could have a good bath. Att 10 minutes, he also jumped in the well to take a good zal Aptitude / Legal Reasoning 85 bath and took his son out of the well. He was rescued by villagers. His son was found dead. He is charged for murder. Medical Report declares him to be of unsound mind suffering from serious mental disorder. Decide. (a) As A kills his son B by throwing him in the well, he commits murder and be punished therefore. (©) Acan plead unsoundness of mind as a defence and he should not be charged for murder. (©) A's family should be responsible for murder to let him take child to the well. Of course, the correct answer shall be (b). Only a person of unsound mind can throw his own child in a well to have good bath. Medical evidence also supports his insanity. Intoxication of Accused “Nothing is an offence which is done by a person, who, at the time of doing it, is by reason of intoxication, incapable of knowing the nature of the act or that what he is doing is either wrong or contrary to law, provided the thing which intoxicated him was administered to him without his knowledge or against his Wi By going through the principle consciously, you can easily point out two important legal points to claim the immunity offered by this exception— 1. Intoxication must be involuntary or without knowledge and 2. The level of intoxication must be such as to make a person incapable of knowing the nature ofhis acti, it must be very high Exaunur 4 LEGAL PRINCIPLE: Any person who interferes with the discharge of duties by a public servant is liable for punishment. Nothing is an offence if the person who committed it was unable to appreciate the consequences of his act, due to intoxication, provided such intoxication was administered against his will and without his consent. FACTUAL SITUATION: Mohandas got drunk of his own volition and on his way back home he assaulted 8 policeman, He is prosecuted for intimidating a public servant. Is Mr. Mohandas liable for punishment? Answer: Mohandas would be liable for punishment for interfering with the discharge of duties by a public servant. He has been intoxicated voluntarily. He can’t take the defence of intoxication to avoid liability. Right of Private Defence of Accused Sections 96 to 106 of IPC deals with Right of Private defence. A person has all right to protect his Scanned with CamScannerGuide to LL.B. Entrance Examination 86 body and property as well as the body and property of other person from any attack or aggression which endangers his own life or property of that of other person. The most important thing about this right of self defence is that it must be exercised very reasonably and cautiously. Tt means no more harm should be caused ie she uggrtasor af i naceeeaiy io Srakel Sae'c Gorn es other's body and property. So, if you shoot a thief who has parted with the stolen goods and who is of a run to save himself, you may be charged for murder and your plea of self defence may not work. This is because, you have exceeded the right of private defence. Following points should be kept in mind while solving a question fon legal reasoning based upon the concept of this exception— 1. Right of private defence is a general exception because one may not be punished even for killing another person. if it is done in valid exercise of the right of self defence. 2 This right is available against an act which reasonably cause apprehension of death or grievous hurt or rape or kidnapping or wrongful confinement of any’ person. ‘3. In case of property. this right is available against theft, robbery, mischief by fire, house-breaking, etc, of any person, 4. No right of private defence if there is sufficient time to take recourse of public authorities ¢.., police. 5. Aggressor or one who attacks has no right of Private defence. There is no right of private defence in retaliation or revenge. 6 Right of private defence extends to causing death of the aggressor only in the case when there is a reasonable apprehension of death, grievous hurt, rape, kidnapping or abduction and wrongful confinement of the body or person. 7. One may also cause death of the aggressor where a reasonable apprehension of death or Brievous hurt arises from an act of or attempt of robbery, house breaking by night, mischief by fire, theft or house trespass. 8. The harm or injury inflicted by the person on the aggressor must not exceed the danger or threat posed by his act. One can’t kill a pickpocket for stealing his purse unless there is an apprehension of death or grievous hurt from a weapon in his hand. Thus, Right of private defence is absolutely necessary. While the Government is responsible for protecting its citizen, yet it cannot effectuate safety and security unless this right is granted to its citizens. The vigilance of the Magistrates cay never make up for vigilance of each indivi ‘on his own behalf. ME xamrue S$ LEGAL PRINCIPLE: Every person has a to defend his own person, property or pos: against an immediate harm, and to that end, may reasonable amount of force. FACTUAL SITUATION: Mr. Kaul was passing Mrs. Mattoo’s house. At that time, Mrs. Matto’s ran out and bit Mr. Kaul’s overcoat. Mr. Kaul around and raised the pistol he was carrying in the pocket of his overcoat. The dog ran away, and Mr, Kaul shot the dog as it was running away. Mr. Kaul knew that the dog had attacked so many other people in that locality of Jammu. Mrs. Mattoo claims that her dog was of a rare breed and it was worth © 5000. She is planning to bring a legal action against Mr. Kaul for compensation, (@) She will succeed in getting compensation from Mr. Kaul because he killed” the dog which was not actually attacking him at the time of shooting. (©) She will not “succeed because Mr. Kaul was justified in shooting the dog to protect himself, (©) She will not succeed because Mr. Kaul took the action to protect himself as well as many other members of public in future, The correct answer is (a). EXAMPLe 6 LEGAL PRINCIPLES: (Any person may use reasonable force in order to protect his property or person. (I) However, the force employed must be Proportionate to the apprehended danger. FACTUAL SITUATION: Rayi was walking on a lonely road. Manivan came Senna knife and said to Ravi, “Your life or your purse”. Ravi pulled out his revolver. On seeing it, Maniyan ran. Ravi shot Maniyan on his legs. e Answers: (a) Ravi will not be punished as there was danger to his property. (©) Ravi will not be punished as the force he used was proportionate to the apprehended injury. (©) Ravi will be punished as the force employed was disproportionate to the apprehended injury. (d) as Maniyan ran to escape there was no longer a threat to Ravi’s property. So Ravi will be punished. Scanned with CamScannershe correct answer shall be (dl). You can appreciate {ew bea close option but, once Mr. Maniyan ran to (© Mee there isnot at all any apprehended danger. So, cea here is no threat to a property oF body, no right Miprivate defence available LEGAL. PRINCIPLE: One has right to defend his bei iaively gauss cieiaal ane srevesca Ni ea ete approach pubic author i aaaaryiico get born aincd ater age aL SITUATION: The farm of Xom ouakits Be ian acted Gyle geegen em naar {without informing the police, at first warned the a eeten tha teas ty once Gatlig om fobbers Oy fed and killed one of hem, Atte Sak Be Can avall ing dahl private aloes has Oe iv Ws biccnd jeopery iF canton ava tag ta hy cal awa iepotee hi Wpcesoct aval a ip aah se na foe Seay evan cnusenee: He Ss eval of heighten at Bet he oly Bre heat ) tana © erly (Hand iveny. (Grower to his question Is of cours (c. This is WeoiW has faled to tae. romana to, he ale ae os sclee Further he alla robber wile he Spear sing, Nace Ges waste epprtaeion ESSE ievous hurl Rise Exampur 8 é Won returning home late after work was accosted by an armed vagabond who tried to rob her purse and valuables at knife point. W raised an alarm but was unsuccessful in obtaining help. In the ensuing struggle Wsnatched the knife from the brigand and killed him. Atthe trial W— 1. Can claim the right of private defence as she was defending her life and property. IL Can claim private defence as she tried to obtain help but could not approach public authorities. IL Cannot claim private defence as to defend a few valuables a person cannot be killed. IV. Cannot claim private defence as it was her own, fault that she was coming home late at night (a) Tand 1 ® m ‘ (© Mandiv @ om Legal Aptitude / Legal Reasoning 87 In this case, W can claim the right of private defence. Hence, the answer will be (a). Theft and Extortion 6UMC2e02 Sections 378 and 380 of IPC defines ‘theft’. Theft is taking away of a movable property out of owner's possession with dishonest intention without owner's Consent. Even if the thing is removed temporarily with dishonest intention, it amounts to theft. IMlustrations (@) A.cuts down a tree on 2's possession without 2's consent. Here as soon as A had severed the tree in order to such taking, he has committed theft, ‘A puts a bait for dogs in his pocket, and thus induces Z’s dog to follow it. Here, if A’s intention be dishonestly to take the dog out of Z's possession without Z's consent, A has ‘committed theft as soon as Z's dog has begun to follow A. Section 383 defines ‘extortion’ and section 384 of IPC prescribes its punishment. Extortion may be of movable or immovable property. Extortion means putting a person in fear of injury to him or other person. and thereby dishonestly inducing him to deliver to such person any valuable property. Thus, extortion is disrobing a person of his property by putting him under fear. ) Mustrations (a) A threatens to publish a defamatory libel concerning Z unless Z gives him money. He thus induces Z to give him money. A has committed extortion. A, by putting Z in fear of grievous hurt, dishonestly induces Z to sign or affix his seal to a blank paper and deliver it to A. Z signs and delivers the paper to A. Here, as the paper so signed may be converted into a valuable security, A has committed extortion. ) Examrce 9 LEGAL PRINCIPLE: Whoever, intending to take dishonestly any property out of the possession of another person, moves that property for such taking, is said to commit theft. FACTUAL SITUATION: Suresh went into the house of his friend Ramesh to discuss some important matter. Since Ramesh was not at home, Suresh waited for him in the latter's drawing room. When Ramesh did not tur up, Suresh took out a pen from Ramesh’s table and wrote down a message and went home. While going back, by force of habit, he just dropped the pen into the pocket, Subsequently, he forgot about it. Since the pen happened to be very valuable one, Ramesh ‘complained to the police and the police traced the pen in Suresh’s house. Scanned with CamScanner88 Guide to LL.B. Entrance Examination (a) Suresh committed theft because he took the pen without Ramesh’s consent. {b). Suresh committed theft because he failed to return the pen (©) Suresh did not commit theft, because he did not have dishonest intention. (@)_ None of the above Answer: (c) Srvviscia LEGAL PRINCIPLE: Whoever, intending to take dishonestly any movable property out of the possession of any person without that person's consent, moves that property, is said to commit theft Whoever commits theft, shall be punished with imprisonment which may extend to three years or with fine or with both FACTUAL SITUATION: Raju sees a cell phone belonging to Ram Iving on the table in Ram's house Raju hides the cellphone in Ram's house in such a place where Ram could not find it ever, due to the fear of immediate search and detection. Raju did this with the intention of taking avway the cell phone from the hidden place when Ram forgets about and then sell it awa (Question: Is Raju guilty of theft? (@) Yes (©) No, because he merely played a prank with the friend (0) Yes, because Raju did not inform Ram about the place where he had hidden the cell phone. (€) Yes, because Raju intended to take the movable property from Ram's. possession and with this intention he moved. the property. The correct answer is (4), Cheating Section 415 of the IPC defines ‘cheating’ and section 417 prescribes its punishment. Cheating, includes 4 fraudulent or dishonest inducement by one person to the other who delivers any’ property to him or any other person. Thus, a person who cheats another, makes a false representation with a dishonest or fraudulent intention so as to induce the deceived person to do or omit to do something. Section 416 defines cheating by personation. Mlustrations (@) A, by falsely pretending to be in the civil service, intentionally deceives Z and thus dishonestly induces Z to let him have goods on credit for which he does not mean to pay. A cheats. (b) A, by pledging as diamonds article which he Knows are not diamonds, intentionally deceives Z, and thereby dishonestly induces Z to lend money, A cheats. a (©) A intentionally deceives Z into a belief that 4 has performed A’s part of a contract made with Z, which he has not performed and dishonestly induces Z to pay money. A cheats, Exampve 11 LEGAL PRINCIPLE: A person is guilty of cheating, when he fraudulently induces another person to deliver the latter’s property to him. FACTUAL SITUATION: A falsely represented to B, a shop-owner that he was an officer from the Commercial Taxes Department. While examining the accounts of the shop, A showed interest in buying 2 microwave oven on instalment basis. B readily agreed with the hope that he would get a favourable assessment from A regarding his tax liability. A paid the first instalment, took the Microwave oven and disappeared from the scene. The police, however, managed to catch hold of A and prosecute him for cheating, (@) A committed cheating, because he induced B to part with the Microwave oven, posing as though he was from the Commercial Taxes Department. A committed cheating, because he did not pay the subsequent instalment. A did not commit cheating, because B handed over the article in order to get a favourable assessment from A. ‘The correct answer would be (a). A falsely represents that he is an officer from Commercial ‘Tax Department. His intention is to get something fraudulently delivered to him from B. Non- Payment of subsequent instalments appear to be a patt of his cheating plan. b) 3) Exaptr 12 LEGAL PRINCIPLE: Cheating is defined 35 deceiving any person to deliver any property and it includes the dishonest concealment of facts. Cheating by personation means a person cheating another bY Pretending to be some other person, or by knowingly substituting one person for another, or representing that he or any other person is a person other than he orsuch other person really is. FACTUAL SITUATION: ‘A’, while leaving 4 restaurant mistakingly picked up the umbrella of ‘B’ instead of his own. The next day he decided to return to the restaurant with the umbrella, hoping to find the real ‘owner. ‘C’, who had never seen ‘B’ in person and had only communicated with ‘B’ through letters was on his way to the restaurant to meet ‘B’. Since ‘B’ and ‘C’ had Scanned with CamScannerLegal Aptitude / Legal Reasoning 89 never met, it was agreed between them to identify each other at the pre-appointed spot, the restaurant door, by the clothing of ‘C’ and umbrella of ‘B’ which they had described {0 each other in detail. ‘C’ saw ‘A’ at the door of the restaurant and identified the umbrella. Thinking "A" to be ‘B’, C’ delivered a parcel labelled Mr. B to ‘A’. ‘A’ received the same without protest and promptly returned home without looking for ‘B’. Is ‘A’ guilty of cheating by personation? (a) ‘A’ is not guilty because he was going to return the umbrella to the real owner and handing over ‘B’s packet to ‘A’ was ‘C's’ mistake. (b) ‘A’ is not guilty because he was overcome by a sudden temptation. (©) ‘A’ is guilty because he was aware of the istaken identity and that the parcel was not meant for him but for ‘8’. ‘A’ is guilty because the parcel might have been valuable to ‘The correct answer is (c) Mischiet SS Section 425 of the IPC defines this offence as follows— “Whoever, with 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 any property, or any such change in any property or in the situation thereof as destroys or diminishes its value oF utility, oF affects it injuriously, commits “mischief”. Section 426 deals with its punishment. Explanation 1.—It is not essential to the offence of mischief that the offender shoiild intend to cause loss or damage to the owner of the property injured ot destroyed. It is sufficient if he intends to cause, or knows that he is likely to cause, wrongful loss or damage to any person by injuring any property, Whether it belongs to that person oF not. Explanation 2.—Mischief may be committed by an act affecting property belonging to the person who commits the act, or to that person and others jointly. Important points to be taken care of are as follows: (a) With intention or knowledge, causing loss or damage to any property of any person. (b) The act destroys or diminishes the value of such property. Examput 13 . LEGAL PRINCIPLE: Anybody with an intention '0 cause damage to the public or to any person ‘uses destruction of any property, he is said to have Committed the offence of mischief. @ FACTUAL SITUATION: The workers of Premium Private Ltd. Co. were on strike demanding. higher bonus. In the course of the strike, a- worker by name, Mr. Chandra has thrown stones at the Company and damaged the costly glass (a) Chandra’s act was justified as the employer company behaved unreasonably by not paying the bonus properly. Chandra has committed mischief. (@) Chandra was on strike along with other workers. Hence, he has immunity from all actions. (4) Chandra has not committed any offence as he as only expressed his freedom of speech and expression, which is his fundamental right. Answer: (0) (b) the offence of Exawrie 14 LEGAL PRINCIPLE: Whoever with the intent to cause, or knows that he is likely to cause, wrongful Joss or damage to the public or to any person, causes the destruction of any property, or any such change in any property or in the situation thereof or destroys or diminishes its value or utility, or affects it injuriously, ‘commits “mischie(”. FACTUAL SITUATION: Q. knowing that his are about to be taken in execution in order to satisfy a debt due from him to Z, destroys those assets, with the intention of thereby preventing Z from obtaining, satisfaction of the debt and it caused damages to Z. Decide whether Q has committed any mischief, DECISION: (a) Q commits mischief, because he knowingly caused the damages to Z. Q does not commit mischief because his act cannot be proved on the ground of law and ‘evidence in its support. (6) Q-eannot be punished because his assets are not sufficient to obtain satisfaction of debt. (4) Qcan be prosecuted only if debt is good debt. ‘The answer is (a) because he commits mischief and is liable for such offence. A. Examrirts LEGAL PRINCIPLE 1: Mischief is an injury to property with the intention of causing wrongful loss to any person or public. LEGAL PRINCIPLE 2: The person to whom the Joss is wrongfully caused by mischief need not be the ‘owner of the property himself. TACTUAL SITUATION: A has leased his house to B for 5 years. After one year A feels the need for (b) Scanned with CamScanner20 the house and requests B to vacate the house, but B refuses. A in order to get F to vacate the house, causes, fire to it, but B with the help of the neighbours quickly extinguishes the fire bofore it could really: damage the property (2) Ais guilty of mischief (©) A cannot be guilty of causing mischief (6) A is not guilty of mischief as there was no damage. The answer would be (a) A would be hiable for mischief because he causes fire to the property to cause wrongtl loss or damage to B. He cannot escape liability for being the owner of the house as it legally in occupation of 8. ‘Damage’ may be very little but 4's knowingly causing wrongful loss will make him liable. Criminal Attempt ‘Attempt is an intentional preparatory action which fails in its object Attempt to Murder defined under section 307 of IPC is punishable with upto 10 years imprisonment o: life impnsonment if the hurt is caused to any’ person by such act. To constitute an offence of attempt to commit an offence requires— (@)_ intention to commit an offence, and (©) doing an act towards the commission of the offence. Mlustrations (2) 4 makes an attempt to pick the pocket of Z by thrusting his hand it 2 pocket ? has nothing, in his pocket. 4 is guilty for attempt to commit theft () A, with the intention of causing the death of a child of tender years, exposes it in a desert place. A is guilty for attempt to murder. (0) A, intending to murder Z by poison, purchases poison and mixes the same with food. A places the food on Z's table. A-has committed the offence of attempt to murder. (d) A makes an attempt to steal some jewels by breaking open a box, and finds after so opening the box, that there is no jewel in it. He has done an act towards the commission of theft and is guilty for attempt to commit theft. Ne XAMPLE 16 LEGAL PRINCIPLE: Whoever attempts to commit an offence punishable by the Indian Penal Code with imprisonment for life or imprisonment, or to cause such an offence to be committed and in such attempt does any act towards the commission of the offence, shall be punished. FACTUAL SITUATION: X stays in South Extension, New Dethi. One evening he thought to steal all the Guide to LLB. Entrance Examination gold jewellery from Mehra & Sons Company at South Extension branch, He called his two friends to help him, in such of his drive towards being rich overnight. Then the tno made the underground hole towards the Mehra & Sons from north side during midnight. During such Process one of his friend died when collided with the concrete of the groundfloor of Mehra & Sons. X and his another friend also received injuries and became unsuccessful to enter into the Mehra & Sons. On the information from the night watchman the police arrived at the spot and arrested X and his surviving friend and sent their dead friend to the ALIMS for postmortem after necessary legal formalities. X and his surviving friend told the police that since they were not successful in theft, not even entering into the jewellery shop and also since one of their friends had died, they were not responsible to either law or Mehra & Sons, Jewellers. DECISION: (9) X and his friend not liable because his friend died. He along with his friend were injured. X and his friend not liable because they have Not touched any jewel X and his friend can be responsible because their act attracts the other thieves that Mehra & Sons has more jewellery and in future it isa Problem with such a big jewellery shop. X and his friend can be responsible because they attempted to commit an offence under the Indian Penal Code and in their attempt did an act towards the commission of offence. The answer is (d). They are liable for attempt to theft. The death of their friend and injury to them does not absolve them from such offence. Birnie 17 LEGAL PRINCIPLE: Preparation to commit an offence is not an offence. After making the Preparation any act done towards committing the offence with intention to commit it, is an attempt t0 commit the offence, which is by itself an offence. FACTUAL SITUATION: Jai wants to kill Veeru. He buys a gun and cartridges for committing the murdet- He then sets out searching for Veeru and when he sees Veeru, he loads his gun and takes aim at him and pulls the trigger. The gun did not fire (a) Jai is guilty of attempt to murder Veeru from the time he sets out in search of the latter. (b) Jai is guilty of attempt to murder from the time he loads the gun. (©) Jai is guilty of attempt to murder from’ the moment he takes aim at Veeru. (@) Jai is not guilty. The answer is (c), Mere searching for someone OF loading a gun will not constitute attempt. The moment ) ©) (d) Scanned with CamScannerLegal Aptitude / Legal Reasoning 1 Jai takes aim and pulls the trigger, he would be guilty of attempt, J, - Examrir 18 LEGAL PRINCIPLES: ‘A. Preparation to commit an offence is not an offence. B. After one has finished preparation to commit an offence, any act done towards committing the offence with the intention to commit it, is an attempt to commit the offence, which is by itself an offence. FACTUAL SITUATION: A wants to kill B. He buys ‘a gun and cartridges for committing the murder. He then sets out searching for B and when he sees B, he loads his gun and takes aim and pulls the trigger. The gun did not fie. (a) Ais guilty of attempt to murder from the time he sets out in search of B. (b) A is guilty of attempt from the moment he Toads his gun. (©) A is guilty of attempt from the moment he takes aim at B. (a) None of the above. ‘Answer: (c) exannir 19 LEGAL PRINCIPLE: Whoever attempts to commit suicide and does anything towards killing himself is said to have committed an offence. FACTUAL SITUATION: Mr. Ashoka was dejected in his life. He had neither any interest in life nor any interest to live nor any goals to achieve. He was not getting proper sleep. In order to get good sleep, he used to take sleeping tablets. One day he has consumed lot of sleeping tablets. He knew that consuming such heavy quantity of sleeping tablets could be fatal, His family members realized the situation and admitted him to the hospital, where he was treated in the emergency ward. Now he is alright. (a) Mr. Ashoka needs psychiatric treatment. (0) Mr. Ashoka has not committed any offence as he has only consumed lot of sleeping tablets, which anyway he was taking earlier. (©) Mr. Ashoka has committed the offence of attempt to commit suicide. (4) Mr. Ashoka should have taken the sleeping tablets under the supervision of the Doctor. Answer: (c) Sedition Section 124A of IPC defines the offence of sedition. The offence of sedition is doing of certain acts which Would bring the Government established by law in India into hatred or contempt or create disaffection against it. It must be noted that incitement to violence against the State is an essential ingredient of the offence of sedition. Therefore, if a political leader appeals to the masses to remove a government by democratic means say by voting, he cannot be charged for sedition. ‘The punishment for such offence is life imprisonment or imprisonment upto 3 years or with fine depending upon gravity. erase 20 LEGAL PRINCIPLE: Whoever by words, or otherwise brings into hatred or contempt or incites, disaffection towards the Government established by Jaw in India shall be punished with imprisonment for fe. FACTUAL SITUATION: In a public meeting, Yashpal Reddy, the leader of an opposition party thunders, “This is a government of scoundrels, bootleggers and scamsters. They deserve to be unseated. Teach them a lesson in the coming elections by voting them out of power”. The Government is contemplating, to prosecute Yashpal Reddy. (a) Yashpal Reddy is guilty of sedition for having made irresponsible and inflammatory statements against the Government. (©) Yashpal Reddy is not guilty of sedition as he is only exercising his freedom of speech in public. (©) Yashpal Reddy is guilty of sedition,, as his statement would incite people to violence leading to breakdown of law and order. ‘The correct answer is (b). Mr. Reddy is not inciting the public to use violence or attack with weapons against the Government. He is. telling to use democratic means i., votes to oust the Government. He cannot be held liable for sedition. Some other Examples on (Criminal Law ee Exam 21 ‘LEGAL PRINCIPLE: Whoever _dishonestly misappropriates or.converts to his own use any movable property shall be punishable. FACTUAL SITUATION: A and B are Joint Owners of a Maruti Car. One day A took the car from B’s garage to have a morning tour without knowledge of B. On the road A’s friend C met him and took the car to drop his son in Delhi Public School and on the way to School he met with an accident with the DPS bus and the car was damaged. 8 being disgusted on the fact of ’s taking out car without his consent, blamed A of theft and lodged an FIR in Local Police Station. Decide. Scanned with CamScanner