General Exceptions MCQ Quiz in मराठी - Objective Question with Answer for General Exceptions - मोफत PDF डाउनलोड करा

Explanation- Section 80 of the Indian penal code sets up a defence of Accident and nothing is an offence which is done by accident, without any criminal intention in doing a lawful act in lawful manner by lawful means with proper care and caution.

The correct answer is The act must be reasonable and committed in good faith

Key PointsSection 76 and 79 of the Indian penal code deals with such situation as to mistake of fact believing himself to be bound by law and mistake of law believing himself bound by law grants if such act was committed in good faith and was reasonable then it is not an offence.

Section 76.Act done by a person bound, or by mistake of fact believing himself bound, by law.
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.

Illustrations
(a) A, a soldier, fires on a mob by the order of his superior officer, in conformity with the commands of the law. A has committed no offence.

Section 79. Act done by a person justified, or by mistake of fact believ­ing himself justified, by law.—Nothing is an offence which is done by any person who is justified by law, 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 justified by law, in doing it.

Illustration

 A sees Z commit what appears to A to be a murder. A, in the exer­cise, to the best of his judgment exerted in good faith, of the power which the law gives to all persons of apprehending murder­ers in the fact, seizes Z, in order to bring Z before the proper authorities. A has committed no offence, though it may turn out that Z was acting in self-defence.

The correct answer is option 1.

Key Points

•  Section 82 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) provides for what is essentially described as "absolute immunity" for a certain class of individuals based on age.
• Specifically, it states, "Nothing is an offence which is done by a child under 7 years of age." This provision embodies the principle of doli incapax, a Latin term meaning "incapable of [committing] wrong".
• This legal doctrine is premised on the understanding that children under a certain age are incapable of forming the necessary mens rea (guilty mind) to commit a crime because they do not fully understand the difference between right and wrong or the nature of their actions.
• The provision for absolute immunity under Section 82 recognizes the innocence associated with childhood and the need to protect children from the criminal justice system's full weight.
• It implies that, regardless of their actions, children under the age of seven cannot be prosecuted for criminal offenses because they are legally incapable of understanding the implications of their actions.
• This section is part of Chapter IV of the IPC, which deals with "General Exceptions." These exceptions outline circumstances under which individuals may not be held criminally liable for their actions, even if those actions would ordinarily constitute an offense.
• By including age as a factor that exempts certain individuals from criminal liability, the IPC acknowledges the importance of age and maturity in determining culpability.

The correct answer is option 4.Key Points

• Section 81 of Indian Penal Code 1860 comes under chapter 4 which deals with General Exceptions.
• Section 81 of Indian Penal Code 1860 deals with act likely to cause harm, but done without criminal intent, and to prevent other harm.
• 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.
• Explanation.—It is a question of fact in such a case whether the harm to be prevented or avoided was of such a nature and so imminent as to justify or excuse the risk of doing the act with the knowledge that it was likely to cause harm.

Additional Information

• Section​ 105 of Indian Evidence Act 1872 deals with  burden of proving that case of accused comes within exceptions.
• When a person is accused of any offence, the burden of proving the existence of circumstances bringing the case within any of the General Exceptions in the Indian Penal Code (45 of 1860), or within any special exception or proviso contained in any other part of the same Code, or in any law defining the offence, is upon him, and the Court shall presume the absence of such circumstances

The correct option is Section 87.

Key Points

• Section 87 extends the scope of the Act not intended and not known to be likely to cause death or grievous hurt, done by consent.
  • It says:
    • "Nothing which is not intended to cause death or grievous hurt and which is not known to the doer to be likely to cause death or grievous hurt is an offence because of any harm that it may cause or be intended by the doer to cause to any person above eighteen years of age, who has given consent whether express or implied, to suffer that harm; or because of any harm which it may be known by the doer to be likely to cause to any such person who has consented to take the risk of that harm".
  • Illustration:
    • A and Z agree to fence with each other for amusement. This agreement implies the consent by each to suffer any harm which in the course of such fencing may be caused without foul play, and if A, while playing fairly, hurts Z, A commits no offence. 
  • This is based on the premise that everybody is the best judge for himself. 
  • If a person knowingly undertakes a task that is likely to cause certain damage, then he cannot hold anybody responsible for suffering that damage.
  • Thus, a person watching another lighting up firecrackers agrees to take the risk of getting burned and must not hold anybody responsible if he gets burned. 
• Case: Nageshwar vs Emperor
  • A person asked the accused to try dao on his hand believing that his hand was dao proof due to a charm. He got hurt and bled to death, However, the accused was acquitted because he was protected under this section. The deceased consented to the risk of trying dao on his hand.

The correct answer is Option 3.

Key Points

•  Section 73: Solitary Confinement
• Whenever any person is convicted of an offence for which under this code the court has power to sentence him to rigorous imprisonment, the court may, by its sentence, order that the offender shall be kept in solitary confinement for any portion or portions of the imprisonment to which he is sentenced, not exceeding three months in the whole, according to the following scale, that is say:
  • A time not exceeding one month if the term of imprisonment shall not exceed six months;
  • A time not exceeding two months if the term of imprisonment shall exceed six months and [shall not exceed one] year;
  • A time not exceeding three months if the term of imprisonment shall exceed one year.
• Solitary confinement is a kind of punishment which secludes the prisoner from any intercourse of sight of and communication with other prisoner ,it may be accompanied with or without labour .
• In leading case of Kishore Singh V. State Of Rajasthan it was held by Supreme Court  that solitary confinement is a type of imprisonment in which there is complete isolation of prisoner from the co prisoner and segregation from outside world and fellow prisoner .

Additional Information

•  Section 74 provides Limit of solitary confinement

The correct answer is Option 4.

Key Points Section 90 in The Indian Penal Code, 1860

• Consent known to be given under fear or misconception.—A consent is not such a consent as it intended by any section of this Code, if the consent is given by a person under fear of injury, or under a misconception of fact, and if the person doing the act knows, or has reason to believe, that the consent was given in consequence of such fear or misconception; or
• Consent of insane person.— if the consent is given by a person who, from unsoundness of mind, or intoxication, is unable to understand the nature and consequence of that to which he gives his consent; or
• Consent of child— unless the contrary appears from the context, if the consent is given by a person who is under twelve years of age.

Additional Information Udaya v. State of Karnataka (2003)

• In this case, the prosecutrix gave her consent to the appellant for having sexual intercourse. It was alleged that the accused Udaya expressed love and promised to marry the prosecutrix on the later date. She started cohabiting with the accused consciously and became pregnant. The accused was charged and tried for committing rape as the prosecutrix pleaded that she consented under the misconception of fact that the accused Udaya shall marry with her. 
• Rejecting this contention it was held that the accused Udaya was not liable for the offence of committing rape because the prosecutrix was aware of the fact that they belonged to different castes and proposal of their marriage will be opposed by the family members and yet she started cohabiting with accused consciously and become pregnant. Consent to have sexual intercourse, in this case, cannot be said to be given under a misconception of fact i.e., promise to marry because she also desired for it. False promise to marry is not a fact within the meaning of the Penal Code.

Important Points

• Section 87. Act not intended and not known to be likely to cause death or grievous hurt, done by consent.
• Section 88. Act not intended to cause death, done by consent in good faith for person's benefit.
• Section 89. Act done in good faith for benefit of child or insane person, by or by consent of guardian.

The correct option is A is not guilty of the offence.

Key Points

• The doctrine of necessity is a legal defence that can be used in the Indian Penal Code to justify an act that would otherwise be considered a crime.
• Section 81 of the Indian Penal Code of 1860  deals with this doctrine.
• Legal Provisions about Doctrine of Necessity.
  • The doctrine of necessity is contained in Section 81 of the IPC.
  • This section is contained in Part IV of IPC and is a part of general exceptions.
  • Section 81 deals with the act likely to cause harm, but done without criminal intent, and to prevent other harm.
  • It states that -
    • Nothing is an offence merely because of its being done with the knowledge that it is likely to cause harm if it is done without any criminal intention to cause harm, and in good faith to prevent avoiding other harm to a person or property.
  • Explanation—
    • It is a question of fact in such a case whether the harm to be prevented or avoided was of such a nature and so imminent as to justify or excuse the risk of doing the act with the knowledge that it was likely to cause harm.
• Illustration -
  • A, in a great fire, pulls down houses to prevent the conflagration from spreading. He does this with the intention in good faith of saving human life or property. Here, if it is found that the harm to be prevented was of such a nature and so imminent as to excuse A’s act. A is not guilty of the offence.

Additional Information

• This doctrine was invoked in India in the landmark case of Gullapalli Nageswara Rao v. APSRTC (1958).

The correct option is Proof of the child's age.

Key Points

• Act of Child under the Indian Penal Code:-
  • It is assumed that a child does not have an evil mind and does not do things with evil intentions.
  • He cannot even fully understand the implications of the act that he is doing.
  • Thus, he completely lacks mens rea and should not be punished. 
  • Indian Penal Code contains for being exemptions for a child.
  • Section 82: Nothing is an offence which is done by a child under seven years of age.
  • Section 83: Nothing is an offence which is done by a child above seven years of age and below twelve years of age who has not attained the sufficient maturity of understanding to judge the nature and consequences of this conduct on that occasion.
  • Through these sections, the Indian Penal Code acknowledges the fact that children under seven years of age cannot have sufficient maturity to commit a crime and is completely excused.
  • In Indian law, a child below seven years of age is called a Doll Incapax.
• Case: Queen vs Lukhini Agradanini 1874 
  • It was held that merely the proof of age of the child would be conclusive proof of innocence.

The correct option is The occurrence of danger to the property

Key Points

• Duration of the right of private defence of property
• Section 105 specifies the duration of the right of private defence of the property as follows-
  • Section 105 The right of private defence of the property commences as soon as a reasonable apprehension of danger to the property commences.
  • It continues-
    • In case of theft, the offender has effected his retreat with the property or either the assistance of the public authorities is obtained or the property has been recovered.
    • In case of robbery as long as the offender causes or attempts to cause any person death or hurt or wrongful restraint.
    • In case as long as the fear of instant death or instance hurt or of instance, personal restraint continues.
    • In case of criminal trespass as long as the offender continues in the commission of criminal trespass or mischief.
    • In case of housebreaking by night as long as the house, trespass which has been begun tty such house breaking, continues.
• Case: Amjad Khan vs State AIR 1952 
  • In this case, a criminal did not break out in the city. A crowd of one community surrounded the shop of A, belonging to another community. The crowd started beating the doors of A with lathis. A then fired a shot which killed a member of the crowd.
    • The Supreme Court held that the right of private defence extended to causing wrath because the accused had reasonable grounds to apprehend that death or grievous hurt would be caused to his family if he did not act promptly.