Offences against public tranquility MCQ Quiz - Objective Question with Answer for Offences against public tranquility - Download Free PDF

The correct  answer is Three Years 

Key Points

•  Section 344 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) deals with the offence of wrongful confinement for a period of ten days or more.
• The punishment prescribed for this offence is imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to three years, along with liability to fine.
• Since the maximum punishment under this section is three years, the limitation period for taking cognizance of the offence is governed by the provisions of the Code of Criminal Procedure (Cr.P.C.).
• According to Section 468(2)(c) of the Cr.P.C., when the offence is punishable with imprisonment for a term not exceeding three years, the period of limitation for taking cognizance of such offence is three years.
• This means that after the expiry of three years from the date of the offence, a Magistrate or Court is barred from taking cognizance of the offence unless the delay is condoned under Section 473 Cr.P.C., which allows for extension of the limitation period in appropriate cases.
• Therefore, since the offence under Section 344 IPC is punishable with imprisonment that may extend up to three years, the correct limitation period is three years.
• After this period, courts generally cannot take cognizance of the offence unless special circumstances exist to justify the delay.
• Hence, the correct answer to the question regarding the bar of taking cognizance after the lapse of limitation for an offence under Section 344 IPC is three years.

The correct answer is Option 4

Key Points

• Section 376 IPC (Punishment for Rape)

Section 376 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) prescribes the punishment for the offence of rape. It has three key sub-sections, each dealing with different circumstances and severity of the offence.

🔹 Section 376(1) – General Cases of Rape
Whoever commits rape, except in aggravated cases listed under sub-section (2),

Punishment:

🔸 Minimum: 10 years rigorous imprisonment
🔸 Maximum: Life imprisonment
🔸 Also liable to fine

✅ Therefore, the minimum sentence is 10 years.

🔹 Section 376(2) – Aggravated Forms of Rape

This includes rape by:

• Police officers in custody,
• Public servants,
• Armed forces,
• Jail or hospital staff,
• Teachers, guardians,
• During communal violence,
• On pregnant women, disabled women, etc.
• Punishment:

🔸 Minimum: 10 years
🔸 Maximum: Imprisonment for life (meaning the remainder of natural life)
🔸 Also liable to fine

✅ So, even in aggravated cases, the minimum punishment is 10 years.

🔹 Section 376(3) – Rape on a woman under 16 years of age
Punishment:

🔸 Minimum: 20 years
🔸 Maximum: Life imprisonment for remainder of natural life
🔸 Also liable to fine (to be paid to the victim)

The correct answer is 'A is guilty only of pick pocketing.'

Key Points

• A is guilty only of pick pocketing:
  • The act of pickpocketing involves the intent to steal items from another person's pocket without their knowledge or consent.
  • In this scenario, A's intent was solely to commit theft by picking B's pocket, not to cause any harm or death to B.
  • The fact that B had a loaded pistol that accidentally discharged when A touched it does not change the nature of A's original intent, which was theft, not harm or murder.
  • Therefore, A can only be held accountable for the act he intended to commit, which is pick pocketing.

Additional Information

• A is guilty of B's murder:
  • This option is incorrect because murder involves the intent to cause death or grievous harm. A did not have such an intent; his intention was only to steal.
• A is guilty of culpable homicide by negligence:
  • This option is incorrect as culpable homicide by negligence would imply a lack of due care or recklessness in a situation leading to someone's death. A's actions were targeted at theft, not at causing any harm through negligence.
• A is guilty of grievous hurt:
  • This option is incorrect because grievous hurt involves causing severe injury. A's actions were not aimed at inflicting injury, but at stealing.

The correct answer is Option 3.

Key Points Under the Indian Penal Code (IPC), offences against public tranquillity include unlawful assembly, rioting, and affray. Specifically:

• Affray is defined under Section 159 of the IPC as the act of two or more persons disturbing the public peace by fighting in a public place. This is considered an offence against public tranquillity.

By contrast, bribery, fabricating false evidence, and obstruction to lawful apprehension do not come under this category of offences.

The correct option is the Indian Penal Code of 1870.

Key Points

• Section 141: Unlawful assembly 
  • An unlawful assembly refers to a gathering of individuals who come together to commit an unlawful act or to behave in a violent, boisterous or tumultuous manner.
  • Political gatherings and demonstrations raise the most trouble in some issues involving unlawful assembly.
  • The Indian Constitution under Article 19(1) (b) confers upon all citizens of India the right to assemble peacefully and without arms, but this right is subject to reasonable restriction in the interest of the sovereignty and integrity of India and public order. 
  • The Indian Penal Code of 1870 defines "Unlawful Assembly" and the Code of Criminal Procedure of 1973 lays down the procedure and the powers conferred upon the adjudicating authorities to prevent such assemblies from maintaining public order.

The correct answer is option 3.Key Points

• Section 141 of Indian Penal Code 1860 deals with unlawful assembly.
• An assembly of five or more persons is designated an “unlawful assembly”, if the common object of the persons composing that assembly is:
  • First.—To overawe by criminal force, or show of criminal force, the Central or any State Government or Parliament or the Legislature of any State, or any public servant in the exercise of the lawful power of such public servant; or
  • Second.—To resist the execution of any law, or of any legal process; or
  • Third.—To commit any mischief or criminal trespass, or other offence; or
  • Fourth.—By means of criminal force, or show of criminal force, to any person, to take or obtain possession of any property, or to deprive any person of the enjoyment of a right of way, or of the use of water or other incorporeal right of which he is in possession or enjoyment, or to enforce any right or supposed right; or
  • Fifth.—By means of criminal force, or show of criminal force, to compel any person to do what he is not legally bound to do, or to omit to do what he is legally entitled to do.
• Explanation.—An assembly which was not unlawful when it assembled, may subsequently become an unlawful assembly. 

The correct option is Option 4.

Key Points

• Unlawful Assembly:-
  • Section 141 of the IPC of 1860 deals with the unlawful assembly.
  • Article 19(1)(B) of the Indian Constitution confers a fundamental right to assemble peacefully however this section seeks to criminalize an unlawful assembly.
• Definition of Unlawful Assembly:-
  • An Assembly of five or more people to commit an unlawful offence is called an unlawful assembly.
  • An important aspect of an unlawful assembly is the presence of a common intention to disturb public peace and tranquillity.
  • The mere presence of a person in an assembly without any motive to infringe on the peace in the surroundings is not punishable.
• Object:-
  • ​To use criminal force against any public servant, state or central government.
  • To resist any legal proceeding.
  • To commit any mischief or trespass on any property or person.
  • To use criminal force against any person to deprive him of the enjoyment of any right.
  • To use criminal force against a person and compel him to do something which he is legally not bound to do.
• AID TO AN UNLAWFUL ASSEMBLY:-
  • Sections 150, 157 and 158 make rendering aid in an unlawful assembly, liable for punishment.
    • SECTION 150- This section punishes the person who connives or hires the people who indulge in the commission of the crime. The law seeks to treat these persons at par with the persons who have committed the offence.
    • SECTION 157- Ensures the conviction of the person who -
      • Assembles or harbours people in a house or any other premises.
      • The house or premise must be under the person so accused. 
      • The objective of such assembly, hiring or employment is to be a part of an unlawful assembly.
      • The person who is convicted for the acts mentioned above must know about these facts.
    • SECTION 158 of the IPC convicts a person who employs or hires himself to be part of the unlawful assembly and hence assists it.

Additional Information

• Section 351: Assault
• Section 146: Rioting
• Sections 59 and 160 of the IPC describe affray and its punishment.

The correct answer is option 2.Key Points

• Section 146 defines "rioting" as an offense committed by an assembly of five or more persons.
• The key elements include the assembly of persons and the commission of violence or use of force by that assembly.
• Essential Ingredients:
• For an assembly of persons to be considered a riot under Section 146, the following elements must be present:
• Five or More Persons:
  • At least five persons must be involved in the assembly. If the number falls below five, the offense of rioting under Section 146 may not be applicable.
  • The requirement of five or more persons is a distinguishing feature of this offense.
• Common Object:
  • The persons in the assembly must have a common object, and that object must be one of the five specified in Section 141 of the IPC. These common objects include:
  • Unlawful assembly with a common object to commit an offense.
  • Unlawful assembly with a common object to resist the execution of any law or legal process.
  • Unlawful assembly with a common object to commit mischief or criminal trespass.
  • Unlawful assembly with a common object to use criminal force or show of criminal force.
  • Unlawful assembly with a common object to disturb the public peace.
• The punishment for rioting is prescribed in Section 147 of the IPC. Those convicted of rioting may face imprisonment for a term that may extend to two years, or with a fine, or both.

The correct option is the Indian Penal Code of 1870.

Key Points

• Section 141: Unlawful assembly 
  • An unlawful assembly refers to a gathering of individuals who come together to commit an unlawful act or to behave in a violent, boisterous or tumultuous manner.
  • Political gatherings and demonstrations raise the most trouble in some issues involving unlawful assembly.
  • The Indian Constitution under Article 19(1) (b) confers upon all citizens of India the right to assemble peacefully and without arms, but this right is subject to reasonable restriction in the interest of the sovereignty and integrity of India and public order. 
  • The Indian Penal Code of 1870 defines "Unlawful Assembly" and the Code of Criminal Procedure of 1973 lays down the procedure and the powers conferred upon the adjudicating authorities to prevent such assemblies from maintaining public order.

Explanation- Under section 141 of the Indian penal code an assembly can be termed as unlawful assembly if five or more person with common object try to resist the execution of any law or any legal process. So here common intention does not find any place.

The correct answer is Kedar Nath v. State of Bihar

Key Points

• In 1962, the Supreme Court decided on the constitutionality of Section 124A in Kedar Nath Singh v State of Bihar.
• It upheld the constitutionality of sedition, but limited its application to “acts involving intention or tendency to create disorder, or disturbance of law and order, or incitement to violence”
• It distinguished these from “very strong speech” or the use of “vigorous words” strongly critical of the government.

Additional InformationRitu Kohli Case

• In 2001, the first case of Cyberbullying was reported in India. Ms. Ritu Kohli reported the case against the illegal act of Manish Kathuria for stalking her on the internet using some social chatting website.
• This case brought an Amendment to the Information Technology Act under section 66E because section 509 of IPC could not deal with such cases.

Vishaka & Ors. v. State of Rajasthan 

• This case is related to protecting women from workplace sexual harassment.
• The Court recognized that under Article 14(2), 19(1)(g), and 21 of the Constitution, the fundamental rights also include the right to a safe working environment.

Laxmi v. Union Of India 

• This case was filed because earlier, in the case of Naeem Khan v. State, 2013, the issue of acid attack under Section 307 came into the limelight when Laxmi, a 16-year-old girl, was made a victim of an inhumane acid attack by the accused.
• The amendment was made in the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 through which Section 357A was inserted by the Act-5 of 2009
• In this case, the Supreme Court has directed the state for gives the minimum compensation of Rs. 3,00,000/- for every acid attack victim to be given by all States and Union Territories of India.

The correct  answer is Three Years 

Key Points

•  Section 344 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) deals with the offence of wrongful confinement for a period of ten days or more.
• The punishment prescribed for this offence is imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to three years, along with liability to fine.
• Since the maximum punishment under this section is three years, the limitation period for taking cognizance of the offence is governed by the provisions of the Code of Criminal Procedure (Cr.P.C.).
• According to Section 468(2)(c) of the Cr.P.C., when the offence is punishable with imprisonment for a term not exceeding three years, the period of limitation for taking cognizance of such offence is three years.
• This means that after the expiry of three years from the date of the offence, a Magistrate or Court is barred from taking cognizance of the offence unless the delay is condoned under Section 473 Cr.P.C., which allows for extension of the limitation period in appropriate cases.
• Therefore, since the offence under Section 344 IPC is punishable with imprisonment that may extend up to three years, the correct limitation period is three years.
• After this period, courts generally cannot take cognizance of the offence unless special circumstances exist to justify the delay.
• Hence, the correct answer to the question regarding the bar of taking cognizance after the lapse of limitation for an offence under Section 344 IPC is three years.

The correct answer is Option 4

Key Points

• Section 376 IPC (Punishment for Rape)

Section 376 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) prescribes the punishment for the offence of rape. It has three key sub-sections, each dealing with different circumstances and severity of the offence.

🔹 Section 376(1) – General Cases of Rape
Whoever commits rape, except in aggravated cases listed under sub-section (2),

Punishment:

🔸 Minimum: 10 years rigorous imprisonment
🔸 Maximum: Life imprisonment
🔸 Also liable to fine

✅ Therefore, the minimum sentence is 10 years.

🔹 Section 376(2) – Aggravated Forms of Rape

This includes rape by:

• Police officers in custody,
• Public servants,
• Armed forces,
• Jail or hospital staff,
• Teachers, guardians,
• During communal violence,
• On pregnant women, disabled women, etc.
• Punishment:

🔸 Minimum: 10 years
🔸 Maximum: Imprisonment for life (meaning the remainder of natural life)
🔸 Also liable to fine

✅ So, even in aggravated cases, the minimum punishment is 10 years.

🔹 Section 376(3) – Rape on a woman under 16 years of age
Punishment:

🔸 Minimum: 20 years
🔸 Maximum: Life imprisonment for remainder of natural life
🔸 Also liable to fine (to be paid to the victim)

The correct answer is 'A is guilty only of pick pocketing.'

Key Points

• A is guilty only of pick pocketing:
  • The act of pickpocketing involves the intent to steal items from another person's pocket without their knowledge or consent.
  • In this scenario, A's intent was solely to commit theft by picking B's pocket, not to cause any harm or death to B.
  • The fact that B had a loaded pistol that accidentally discharged when A touched it does not change the nature of A's original intent, which was theft, not harm or murder.
  • Therefore, A can only be held accountable for the act he intended to commit, which is pick pocketing.

Additional Information

• A is guilty of B's murder:
  • This option is incorrect because murder involves the intent to cause death or grievous harm. A did not have such an intent; his intention was only to steal.
• A is guilty of culpable homicide by negligence:
  • This option is incorrect as culpable homicide by negligence would imply a lack of due care or recklessness in a situation leading to someone's death. A's actions were targeted at theft, not at causing any harm through negligence.
• A is guilty of grievous hurt:
  • This option is incorrect because grievous hurt involves causing severe injury. A's actions were not aimed at inflicting injury, but at stealing.

The correct answer is Option 3.

Key Points Under the Indian Penal Code (IPC), offences against public tranquillity include unlawful assembly, rioting, and affray. Specifically:

• Affray is defined under Section 159 of the IPC as the act of two or more persons disturbing the public peace by fighting in a public place. This is considered an offence against public tranquillity.

By contrast, bribery, fabricating false evidence, and obstruction to lawful apprehension do not come under this category of offences.