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

Under Indian Penal Code, 1860, subject to the restriction laid down under its Section 99 in cases of assault causing reasonable apprehension of death or grievous hurt, the right of private defence extends to the voluntary causing of

Correct Answer: Death

Which of the following among item A and item B are correct?
The right of private defence extends, subject to Section 99, to the causing of death of the assailant or aggressor in the following circumstances:
Item A: For defence of body:
1. Against an act which reasonably causes the apprehension of an assault to outrage the modesty
2. Against an act which reasonably causes the apprehension that the assailant will kill his children living in another city
3. Against an act which reasonably causes the apprehension that grievous hurt would otherwise be the consequence
Item B: For defence of property:
1. While the trespasser is engaged in house breaking during day time.
2. Against a thief who reasonably causes the defender to believe that he would lose his property
3. Against a person who commits mischief under such circumstances as may reasonably cause apprehension that grievous Hurt would be a consequence
Select the correct answer:

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?

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.

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:

In cases of assault causing reasonable apprehension of death or of grievous hurt, the right of private defence extends voluntarily

The right granted under Section 100 of the Indian Penal Code to the extent of causing death can be exercised against an assault which reasonably causes an apprehension that death will otherwise be the consequences of the assault. The above rule has been explained by the Supreme Court in which of the famous cases:

In which of following circumstances does the right of private defence of body, subject to restrictions mentioned in Section 100 of Indian Penal Code, 1860, does not extends to voluntary causing death:

Which two classes use the Shape class correctly?
A. public class Circle implements Shape { private int radius; }B. public abstract class Circle extends Shape { private int radius; }C. public class Circle extends Shape { private int radius; public void draw(); }D. public abstract class Circle implements Shape { private int radius; public void draw(); }E. public class Circle extends Shape { private int radius; public void draw() { /* code here */ } }F. public abstract class Circle implements Shape { private int radius; public void draw() { /* code here */ } }

Which of the following statement/statements is/are incorrect?
1. Nothing is offence which is done in exercise of right of Private Defence under Indian Penal Code
2. A person has right to defend his own body only and not the body of other
3. Right of Private Defence is extended to cause death in defamation case
4. A person has even right of Private Defence where there is time to have recourse to the protection of the public authorities

A' instigates 'B' to cause grievous hurt to 'Z'. 'B', in consequence of the instigation, causes grievous hurt to 'Z'. 'Z' dies in consequence. 'A' knew that the grievous hurt abetted was likely to cause death of 'Z'. 'A' has committed: