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

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.<br>'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

Correct Answer: Charged with and convicted of the offences under Sections 317 and 304 of the Indian Penal Code

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.

A (a 25 year old man) was B's (a 23 year old woman) neighbour. He fell in love with her and wanted to ask her to enter into a relationship with him. He sent her a number of text messages proclaiming his love for her. She did not respond to his overtures. On November 18, 2013, A went to B's house and told her that he was in love with her, and wanted to marry her. She told him that she was not interested and asked him to leave. A believed that B was only playing hard to get, and if he persisted, she would change her mind. On November 25, 2013, when B was returning home from her workplace, A met her again and proclaimed his love for her again. She again told him that she was not interested, and threatened to complain to the police. In spite of this, a week later, when B was leaving for work, she noticed that A was waiting outside her house, with a bouquet of flowers, and he tried to give her the flowers. B ignored him once again, and went to the police station to complain about A's acts. Under what Section of the Indian Penal Code should the police register the FIR (First Information Report)

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?

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

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?

W, a married woman lived with her husband, along with a six month old baby, but her life was miserable as her husband frequently used to beat her. She wanted to go to her pursued but her husband threatened to beat her if she dares to do so. But one day when W was missing the husband perused her and found that she was going to her parents with the baby. When W turned around and found her husband running towards her, panic stricken she along with the baby jumped into a well. The baby died but she survived. She was prosecuted for the death of the baby. What offence if any has been committed by her?

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:

W, who had her small baby tied on her back, was proceeding towards her parental place who lived nearby. Since, her husband H, did not like her visits to her parental place prevented her from proceeding further and directed her to return her home and threatened her with dire consequences if she ventured to do so again. She felt very depressed and decided to jump into a well nearby. Unmindful of the presence of her child on her back, she jumped into the well. She survived but the child died. W is guilty of

A, a jailor, has the charge of Z, a prisoner. A, intending to cause Z's death, illegallyomits to supply Z with food; in consequence of which Z is much reduced in strength, but the starvation is not sufficient to cause his death. A is dismissed from his office, B succeeds him. B, without collation with A, illegally omits to supply Z with food, knowing that he is likely thereby to cause Z's death. Z dies. Which of the following judgment applies to both A and B under Section 37 of the Indian Penal Code?

PRINCIPLE: 1. A person is liable for death penalty when he does an act which is likely to cause death, and that person knows that his act in all probability will only result in death.
2. Death penalty is given only in rarest of rare cases.
FACT: Sunita, a married woman was flogged out of her husband's house by her father-in-law. When she was living with her parents, she got involved with a widower who also had an affair with Anita. In a fit of jealousy, Sunita killed her rival, Anita, as well as her little baby. Sunita also disfigured the faces of Anita and her baby and buried the bodies. Later, Sunita was tried for murder.