Get Advice on Live Video Call
Earn $ Cash $ with
consultations on Bissoy App

Consider the following provision in Section 300 of the Indian Penal Code:<br>Several culpable states of mind are referred to with the:<br>1. intention to cause death<br>2. knowledge that the act is so imminently dangerous that it must in all probability cause death<br>3. intention to cause such bodily injury as the offender know to be likely to cause death of the person to whom harm is caused<br>4. intention of causing such bodily injury as is sufficient in ordinary course of nature to cause death.<br>The correct order of the sequence in which they are placed in the provision is:

Correct Answer: 1, 3, 4, 2

Consider the following statements:
1. Section 34 of Indian Penal Code requires two persons whereas Section 149 of Indian Penal Code require five persons.
2. Section 34 of Indian Penal Code requires common intention, whereas Section 149 of Indian Penal Code requires common object
3. Section 34 of Indian Penal Code and Section 149 of Indian Penal Code both require presence of a prior consent
4. Section 34 of Indian Penal Code and section 149 of Indian Penal Code. Both create specific offence
Which of the above statements are correct?

Carefully read following statements:
1. According to Section 34 of Indian Penal Code, requirement is of two persons, whereas under Section 149 of Indian Penal Code, requirement is of five persons.
2. According to Section 34 of Indian Penal Code, common intention is required whereas under Section 149 Indian Penal Code, common object is required
3. Previous consent is required under Section 34 & 149 of Indian Penal Code
4. Section 34 of Indian Penal Code and Section 149 of Indian Penal Code constitutes a specific offence
Which of the above statements is true:

Principle: Whoever causes death by doing an act with the intention of causing death, commits the offence of culpable homicide. However, a person is guilty of culpable homicide amounting to murder if the act by which the death is caused is done with the intention of causing death.
Factual Situation: Saurab, had a serious argument with his wife. The woman uttered some filthy words at Saurab, which further irritated him. He moved towards the woman with a wooden piece to beat her. Suddenly, their daughter who was sleeping in the room woke up and ran towards her mother. Saurab's blow fell on the child's head and she fell down unconscious. The couple believed that their daughter died due to the blow.
Saurab immediately took out a rope and hung her by the neck on to the ceiling fan to give the impression that the girl committed suicide as she failed in the Class X examination. When the rope got tightened the child cried, but died immediately due to asphyxiation.

Consider the following statements:
1. In the case of Mithu v. State of Punjab, the constitutional validity of Section 303 of the Indian Penal Code was examined by the Supreme Court of India and held that this Section violates Article 14 and Article 21 of the Constitution,
2. Counsel for appellants/petitioners in the above case contended that Section 303 of the Indian Penal Code is arbitrary, because it authorizes deprivation of life by an unjust and unfair procedure.
3. Section 303 of the Indian Penal Code provides punishment for culpable homicide by causing death of person other that the person whose death was intended.
Which of the statements given above is/are correct?

A' and 'B' have been accused of an offence where the accused persons had no intention of causing the death of any one and no injury was found on the deceased which was sufficient to cause death in the ordinary course of nature. As per medical opinion, the injuries were not likely to cause death. It could not be established as to which of the two accused inflicted injuries on the head of the deceased. The accused should be liable to be convicted under:

Consider the following statements:
To claim the benefit of provocation in reducing the liability for murder the offender must prove that the:
1. Provocation was sufficient in ordinary course of nature to cause a person of ordinary temper to lose his self-control.
2. Provocation was grave and sudden to justify the killing
3. Provocation was so grave that it would stir a desire for revenge
4. Sufficient time did not elapse so as to cool down the passion
Of these statements:

If the offender does not know that his act is so imminently dangerous that it must, in all probability causes death he will be guilty of

PRINCIPLES: 1. Nothing is an offence which is done in the exercise of the right of private defense.
2. When an act, which would otherwise be a certain offence, is not that offence, by reason of the youth, the want of maturity of understanding, the unsoundness of mind or the intoxication of that person or by reason of misconception on the part of that person, every person has the same right of private defense against that act, which he would have if that act were an offence.
3. Everyone has the right to defend their life and property against criminal harm provided it is not possible to approach public authorities and more harm than that is necessary has not been caused to avert the danger.
4. If in the exercise of right of private defense against an assault which reasonably causes the apprehension of death, the defender be so situated that he cannot effectually exercise that right without risk of harm to an innocent person, his right of private defense extends to the running of that risk.
5. The right of private defense continues as long as apprehension of danger continues.
FACT: A enters by night a house which he is legally entitled to enter. Z, in good faith, taking A for a housebreaker, attacks A.

Section 317 of the Indian Penal Code punishes the offence of exposure and abandonment of a child under 12 years by parent or person having care of it. Section 304 of the Indian Penal code provides for punishment for the offence of culpable homicide not amounting to murder.
'A' exposes her child with the knowledge that she is thereby likely to cause its death. The child dies in consequence of such exposure. In such circumstances 'A' may be

Read the passage carefully and choose the best answer to each question out of the four alternatives.
In mid-2012 I completed my first massive online open course, or MOOC, the kind widely offered by Coursera, EdX, Udacity and so on in partnership with different educational institutions. It was on clinical trials and ethical practices, offered by Johns Hopkins, on Coursera. This was shortly before the MOOC sensation hit India, and when Coursera, which was founded by two Stanford professors, itself was just a few months old. The MOOC bug had bit me. The course Id completed was mainly designed for health care professionals who would be involved in actual clinical trials, not college students who had no prior knowledge of that area. I decided to enroll in the course because it was the only biology related course open at the time. However, I did see hope in that sometime in the future Id be able to get a glimpse of what classes are like in the hallowed halls of major educational institutions around the world. By early 2013, Coursera and EdX had partnered with so many educational institutions and expanded their course offerings to include everything from food and nutrition to Greek mythology to business, that I was spoilt for choice. I spent hours going through course catalogues and poring over course descriptions, almost delirious with excitement at the fact that I was actually going to be able to take classes offered by universities I had only dreamt of attending.
The course the author completed on MOOC was related to which subject?