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

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 answer is 'Section 85 of the Indian Penal Code'

Key Points

• Section 85 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC):
  • Section 85 deals with the defense of involuntary intoxication, where a person commits an act but was incapable of knowing the nature of the act or that it was wrong or contrary to law, due to involuntary intoxication.
  • Involuntary intoxication means that the person was intoxicated without their knowledge or against their will.
  • This section provides immunity to individuals under such circumstances, as their mental faculties were impaired due to intoxication they did not consent to, making them unable to comprehend their actions.

Additional Information

• Section 84 of IPC:
  • Section 84 provides the defense of insanity. It exempts individuals from criminal liability if, at the time of committing the act, they were of unsound mind and unable to understand the nature of the act or that it was wrong or contrary to law.
  • This section does not deal with intoxication but rather mental incapacity due to a medical condition.
• Section 86 of IPC:
  • Section 86 addresses offenses committed under the influence of voluntary intoxication. It states that if a person voluntarily gets intoxicated and commits an offense, they are still liable as they had knowledge of the potential consequences of their actions.
  • This section differentiates voluntary intoxication from involuntary intoxication, which is covered under Section 85.
• Section 87 of IPC:
  • Section 87 provides that if a person voluntarily consents to suffer harm, and the harm is not intended to cause death or grievous hurt, the offender is not liable. This section is unrelated to intoxication and focuses on acts involving consent.

The correct answer is  None of the above ''

Key Points

• According to Sec. 78, an act done pursuant to the judgment or order of a court of justice (when the person doing the act in good faith believes that the court has jurisdiction) is no offence. If it were to be an offence the hangman who hangs the prisoner pursuant to the order of the judge, would also have to be hanged.
• It may be noted that under Sec. 78, the officer is protected in carrying out an order of a court, which may have no jurisdiction at all, whereas as under Sec. 77, the judge must be acting within his jurisdiction to be protected by it. Thus, mistake of law' can be pleaded as a defence under Sec. 78.

Additional Information

• Explanation of other sections provided in the options:
  • Section 76: This section provides immunity to a person who commits an act under the mistaken belief of being bound by law. For example, a police officer arresting someone under a mistaken but lawful assumption. However, this is not applicable to the hangman as he is acting under a judicial order and not a mistaken belief of law.
  • Section 79: This section protects individuals who commit acts under the mistaken belief that the act is justified by law or necessary. However, this section deals with acts done in good faith under a mistaken belief and does not apply to the hangman who is executing a direct judicial order.
• Judicial Orders and Immunity:
  • Judicial orders are binding and must be executed as per the law. Those executing such orders are protected under various provisions of the I.P.C. to ensure they can carry out their duties without fear of criminal prosecution.
  • Such protections reinforce the principle of rule of law and ensure the smooth functioning of the judicial system.

The correct answer is 'Section 90'.

Key Points

• Section 90 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC):
  • Section 90 of the IPC deals with the concept of "Consent known to be given under fear or misconception."
  • It states that consent is not valid if it is given under fear of injury, misconception of fact, or by someone who is unable to understand the nature and consequences of their consent due to unsoundness of mind, intoxication, or immaturity.
  • Unlike other sections such as Section 89, 92, and 93, the term 'Good faith' is not used in Section 90. This makes it unique in the context of this question.

Additional Information

• Overview of other sections:
  • Section 89: This section pertains to acts done in good faith for the benefit of a person under 12 years of age or of unsound mind, by or with the consent of the guardian. The term 'Good faith' is explicitly mentioned here.
  • Section 92: It covers acts done in good faith for the benefit of another person without the person's consent, provided the act does not cause harm. 'Good faith' is central to this provision.
  • Section 93: This section relates to communications made in good faith, which may cause harm if they are necessary to prevent harm or provide benefit. Again, 'Good faith' is a key term here.
• Meaning of 'Good faith' in IPC:
  • The IPC defines 'Good faith' under Section 52 as an act done with due care and attention, even if the outcome is unintended or negative.
  • The concept of 'Good faith' is used to provide protection to individuals acting with honest intentions in various legal contexts.

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 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 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.

The correct option is Below 7 years of age.

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.
• Case:- Gopinath Ghosh v. State of West Bengal
  • ​ A person under the age of 18 is considered a child in India, and the defence of infancy under criminal responsibility can be raised under Sections 82 and 83 of 'The Indian Penal Code'.
  • The defence of infancy was presented for the first time before the Supreme Court in this case.