Module 3

Question 1

There is burden of proof on the accused

Answer 1

Section 105 evidence act 1872

Question 2

General Exceptions which chapter

Answer 2

Chapter 4, section 76-106

Question 3

Mistake of Law case and section

Answer 3

State of Maharashtra v MH George [Section 79]

Question 4

Mistake of Fact

Answer 4

Section 76

Question 5

Which section defines good faith

Answer 5

Section 52

Question 6

Mistake of fact latin maxim

Answer 6

Ignoratia facti doth excusat

Question 7

Mistake of law latin maxim

Answer 7

Ignorantia juris non excusat

Question 8

section __ is bound by law and section __ is justified by law

Answer 8

76, 79

Question 9

Accident [Section]

Answer 9

80

Question 10

essentials of accident

Answer 10

act should be lawful
manner should be lawful
without criminal intention and knowledge
with due care
should happen by accident

Question 11

What is Necessity? [sec + case]

Answer 11

in order to prevent a biggest harm, doing a smaller harm
Section 81
R v Dudley and Stevens

Question 12

doli inacapax

Answer 12

sec 82

Question 13

doli capax

Answer 13

sec 83

Question 14

explain doli incapax

Answer 14

act of a child under seven years of age is not an offence
provides absolute immunity
however if there is a special law eg sec 130 of Indian Railway Act, 1890, then special law will prevail

Question 15

doli incapax special law example case

Answer 15

Wali Mohd. case
two kids, aged 8 and 5 were tried for throwing stones at a railway train

Question 16

What is doli capax

Answer 16

act of chlid above 7 and below 12, the presumption of innocence and immaturity is there but can be challenged
court will ascertain whether child has attained maturity or not

Question 17

What is the Godi Case

Answer 17

Girl was married as a child but she thought it was a game, therefore not liable

Question 18

Insanity [Section]

Answer 18

84

Question 19

What is Insanity

Answer 19

Act of a person of unsound mind.—Nothing is an offence which is done by a person who, at the time of doing it, by reason of unsoundness of mind, is incapable of knowing the nature of the act, or that he is doing what is either wrong or contrary to law.

Question 20

What are the four tests of insanity

Answer 20

Wild Beast test [R v Arnold]
Insane Delusion test [Hatfield Case]
Bowlers test
McNaughten rules aka Right and Wrong test

Question 21

What is the WIld Beast Test

Answer 21

When a person cannot differentiate between right and evil hence, is entitled to defense of insanity.

Question 22

What is the insane delusion test

Answer 22

when person has insane delusion. Hadfield was discharged from the army on the ground of insanity and was tried for high treason in attempting to assassinate King George III. The counsel of the accused, Lord Thomas Erskine, defended him and proved in front of the judge that Hadfield only pretended to kill the King and is not guilty, on the ground of insane delusion from which the accused was suffering.

Question 23

Bowler’s case

Answer 23

the jury has to decide when the accused committed the offence, whether he was capable of distinguishing right from wrong or under the control of an illusion. After the Bowler’s case, the courts have placed more emphasis on the capacity of the accused to distinguish right from wrong, though the test was not that clear.

Question 24

McNaughten Rules

Answer 24

There are five rules
1. Every man is presumed to be sane and is considered to be responsible for his acts unless contrary proved
2. Defect of mind and knowledge to be seen at the time when the crime was committed
3. test is to process the power to distinguish between right and wrong not in a way abstract but with regard to act when it was done
4. If a person commits a crime under insane delusion, he would be responsible to extent he could have been if he supposed the facts had existed and had knowledge of the fact.
5. Knowledge merely of wrongfulness and coupled with the fact which is contrary to law makes the accused liable.

Question 25

Essentials of Defense of Insanity

Answer 25

accused was suffering from unsoundness of mind at the time of committing the offence
he was incapable of knowing the nature of the act

Question 26

an insane man is excused from punishment because:

Answer 26

Furiosus furore sui ponier: a madman is punishable by his madness only.

Furiosus nulla voluntus est: a mad man has no will.

Question 27

what is the difference between legal insanity and medical insanity

Answer 27

LEGAL INSANITY: INCAPABLE OF KNOWING
-THE NATURE OF THE ACT
ACT IS WORNG/ CONTRARY TO LAW

MEDICAL INSANITY CAPABLE OF KNOWING
THE NATURE OF ACT
HIS ACT IS WRONG/CONTRARY TO LAW

Question 28

does depression come under unsoundness of mind under sec 84

Answer 28

no

Question 29

Case law for insanity

Answer 29

Ashok Dattareya v UOI
ccused a labourer kills sister and law due to quarrel on money . He absconds for 3 months. He starts working in neighbouring village within 15 days of committing crime.
Plea of sanity
Court said your conduct is inconsistent and no defence of sanity.

Question 30

Ratan Lal v State of MP facts

Answer 30

accused was putting fire on a haystack, psychologists report showed him to be unstable and his plea was accepted

Question 31

Act of person incapable of judgement by reason of intoxication beyond his will [section]

Answer 31

85

Question 32

Conditions for the defence of involuntary intoxication

Answer 32

Must be intoxicated at the time
unable to understand the nature of the act [this must be a result of the intoxication]
the intoxicant must be administered without one’s will or even without one’s knowledge

Question 33

The earliest case of intoxication was in England where the court approved the death sentence for a homicide committed in extreme intoxication

Answer 33

Reninger v. Fogossa

Question 34

if is a person’s intoxication is voluntary in nature then it will be considered as an aggravation and not a defense.

Answer 34

DPP V BEARD

Question 35

Voluntary intoxication

Answer 35

86

Question 36

Basudev v Pepsu facts

Answer 36

Retired officer and boy aged 15 years went to bride’s house to take mid day meal. The officer being intoxicated asked the boy to step aside so that he could occupy the seat.
The boy didn’t move. The result was the officer had shot dead the boy in his abdomen.
After shooting the victim, he ran away from scene and was caught in short distance proved he had knowledge of the act.

Question 37

Volenti non fit injuria

Answer 37

Section 87

Question 38

Private defence which sections

Answer 38

96 to 106