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

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:

Correct Answer: Amjad Khan v. State

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:

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?

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

Which of the following combinations are correctly matched?
1. Harbour ⇔ Section 51A, Indian Penal Code
2. Wrongful Loss ⇔ Section 23, Indian Penal Code
3. Gang rape on woman under twelve years of age ⇔ Section 376DB, Indian Penal Code
4. Gang rape ⇔ Section 376D, Indian Penal Code
Select the correct answer:

Which of the following statements regarding the 'advisory jurisdiction of Supreme Court' is correct:
1. The opinion of Supreme Court may be sought by the President on any question of law or fact
2. In case the opinion of the Supreme Court is sought it is bound to give
3. The advice given by Supreme Court on matters referred to it is binding on the President
4. Advisory jurisdiction of Supreme Court can also be exercised over disputes arising out of references made over preconstitutional treaties

Statement A: Bail granted under Section 167(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 has same incidents as bail granted under Chapter XXXIII of the Code.
Statement B: Bail granted under Section 167(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 cannot be cancelled under Section 437(5) of the Code.

A five-judge bench of the Supreme Court passes judgment in a matter. In a later case before a high court, a party presents the Supreme Court judgment as a binding authority. The opposing party claims that the high court is not bound by the Supreme Court's judgment because relevant provisions of law were not brought to the notice of the Supreme Court in that case. Which of the following is most correct in this case?
Principle: Article 141 of the Constitution provides that the law declared by the Supreme Court is binding on all courts within the territory of India.