Law of Crimes MCQ Quiz in తెలుగు - Objective Question with Answer for Law of Crimes - ముఫ్త్ [PDF] డౌన్‌లోడ్ కరెన్

The correct answer is 4.

Key PointsSupreme Court Judgements on Section 375 IPC

• Navtej Singh Johar v. Union of India
  • This landmark judgement decriminalized consensual homosexual acts between adults under Section 377 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC).
  • This judgement does not pertain to Section 375 IPC. Hence statement 1 is incorrect.
• Prahlad v. State of Haryana
  • This case dealt with issues related to criminal law but did not specifically address Section 375 IPC or the rights of girl children below 18 years.
  • Hence statement 2 is incorrect.
• Arnesh Kumar v. State of Bihar
  • This judgement provided guidelines to prevent unnecessary arrests in cases under Section 498A IPC, which pertains to cruelty to women by their husbands or relatives.
  • This judgement is not related to Section 375 IPC. Hence statement 3 is incorrect.
• Independent Thought v. Union of India
  • This landmark judgement held that Exception 2 to Section 375 IPC, which allowed marital rape of a girl child between 15 and 18 years of age, is violative of the rights of girl children and therefore unconstitutional.
  • Hence statement 4 is correct.

Additional Information

• Section 375 IPC
  • Section 375 of the Indian Penal Code defines the offence of rape and its various exceptions.
  • Exception 2 to Section 375 IPC previously allowed for the marital rape of a girl child between 15 and 18 years of age, which has now been declared unconstitutional by the Supreme Court in the Independent Thought case.

The correct answer is 'can amount to rape if wife is below the age of 15 years'

Key Points

• Marital Rape under Indian Penal Code:
  • Under the Indian Penal Code (IPC), Section 375 defines rape and includes exceptions for marital rape.
  • Exception 2 to Section 375 IPC states that sexual intercourse or sexual acts by a man with his own wife, the wife not being under 15 years of age, is not rape.
  • Therefore, if the wife is below the age of 15 years, the act can be considered rape.

Additional Information

• Option 1: Cannot amount to rape as marital rape is not recognised in India:
  • This is partially correct but not entirely. While marital rape is not generally recognized as a criminal offense in India, there is an exception for minors.
  • Sexual acts with a wife below the age of 15 years are considered rape.
• Option 2: Will amount to rape if her consent is not duly taken:
  • This option is incorrect because the IPC exception does not consider the lack of consent in marital relationships as constituting rape, except for minors.
• Option 4: Will amount to rape if wife is below the age of 18 years:
  • This option is incorrect as the specific age mentioned in the IPC is 15 years, not 18 years.
  • However, it is important to note that the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences (POCSO) Act considers any sexual activity with minors under 18 as sexual assault, but this does not override the specific marital rape exception in the IPC.

The correct answer is option DKey Points

•  Community service as a punishment is introduced under Section 4(f) of the BNS, not under Section 53 of the IPC. Therefore, option A is incorrect.
• Option B is incorrect because community service is introduced as the sixth type of punishment under BNS, not the fifth.
• Option C is incorrect because community service is prescribed for petty offences, not serious ones.
• The correct answer is option D. Community service is not defined in BNS, but it is explained in Section 23 of the BNSS , which defines it as work ordered by the court that benefits the community, without any remuneration for the convict.

The correct option is " believes himself to be justified by law"

Key Points

Additional InformationR v. Tolson (1889) 23 QBD 168:

Facts: The defendant's husband was lost at sea, and after a reasonable period, she remarried. The first husband returned alive, and she was charged with bigamy.

Held: The court acquitted her, holding that she acted under a mistake of fact, believing her first husband was dead, which justified her second marriage under Section 79 IPC.

Kartar Singh v. State of Punjab (1994):

Facts: The accused, a police officer, shot a suspect under the mistaken belief that the suspect was trying to escape and posed a threat.

Held: The court held that the officer acted in good faith under a mistake of fact, believing he was justified by law to use force in the given situation. Thus, he was protected under Section 79.

Section 79 provides a crucial safeguard in criminal law, protecting individuals who act under genuine misconceptions of fact, provided they act in good faith and believe they are justified by law. This section upholds the principle that a person should not be punished for an act committed without criminal intent or malice, driven by an honest mistake of fact.

Key Points

Understanding Section 300 of the IPC:

Section 300 of the Indian Penal Code provides a definition of murder, distinguishing it from other types of homicide by laying out specific conditions under which an act of causing death is considered murder. These conditions include (but are not limited to) the intention to cause death or intention to cause such bodily injury as the offender knows to be likely to cause the death of the person to whom the harm is caused.

Analyzing the Assertion (A):

The assertion accurately reflects one of the conditions under which an act is classified as murder under Section 300 of the IPC. Specifically, it mentions two critical aspects: (1) the intention to cause death, and (2) the intention to cause such bodily injury that is likely to cause death. These aspects are mentioned directly in the text of Section 300, indicating that the assertion is true and correctly relates to the legal definition of murder.

Analyzing the Reason (R):

The reason provided explains that the intention behind the act is a crucial element in distinguishing murder from culpable homicide not amounting to murder. This distinction is pivotal in the IPC, with Section 299 defining culpable homicide not amounting to murder and Section 300 delineating specific criteria that elevate such acts to murder. The intention to cause death, or knowledge that an act is likely to result in death, directly influences the classification of the offence and is, therefore, a foundational aspect in defining murder. This makes the reason not only true but also directly pertinent to understanding the assertion.

Selecting the Correct Option:

Considering the analysis, both the assertion and the reason accurately describe the legal framework and distinctions outlined in the Indian Penal Code regarding murder. Furthermore, the reason provided directly supports and explains the basis of the assertion by highlighting the importance of the offender's intent in classifying the act as murder.

Correct Option: A. Both A and R are true, and R is the correct explanation of A.

This option is correct as it acknowledges the accuracy and relevance of both the assertion and the reason, and correctly identifies the reason as the explanation for why the assertion is true, focusing on intent as a defining element in the legal classification of murder under Section 300 of the IPC.

Key Points

Defamation is addressed under Sections 499 and 500 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC).

It involves making a statement that injures a person's reputation in the eyes of the general public, a group of persons, or even an individual. Defamation can be committed by words, either spoken or intended to be read, or by signs or by visible representations, and it must be made with the intent to harm, or knowing or having reason to believe that such a statement will harm, the reputation of the person targeted.

The key characteristics of defamation include:

Publication: The statement must be published, meaning it is made known to someone other than the person defamed.

False Statement: The information shared must be false. True statements, regardless of how damaging to one's reputation, are not considered defamation.

Injury to Reputation: It should be demonstrable that the statement has the potential to or has actually harmed the reputation of the person.

In the given scenarios, 1) L writes an anonymous blog post falsely accusing M of embezzling company funds without any evidence clearly illustrates defamation because:

Publication: The blog post is published online, making the accusation accessible to the public or a specific group of people.

False Statement: L accuses M of embezzlement without any evidence, implying the statement could be false.

Injury to Reputation: Accusing someone of a crime like embezzlement can severely harm their reputation, both personally and professionally.

This case directly satisfies the definition of defamation, focusing on the untrue statement made with the intention of, or with disregard to, harming another individual's reputation.

Key Points

 Extortion: Section 383 of IPC

Whoever intentionally puts any person in fear of any injury to that person, or to any other, and thereby dishonestly induces the person so put in fear to deliver to any person any property, or valuable security or anything signed or sealed which may be converted into a valuable security, commits "extortion".

Illustrations

(a) A threatens to publish a defamatory libel concerning Z unless Z gives him money. He thus induces Z to give him money. A has committed extortion.

Key Points

 The correct arrangement in ascending order based on the chapters of the Indian Penal Code is:
D. Defamation is covered in Sections 499 to 502.

A. Offences Relating to Documents and Property Marks are detailed in Sections 463 to 489E.
B. Offences by or Relating to Public Servants are found around Sections 169 to 171.
C. Criminal Conspiracy is outlined in Section 120A and 120B.

Solution: Option 3) Guidelines for the imposition of the death penalty in "rarest of rare" cases.

Key Points In Machhi Singh vs State of Punjab (1983), the Supreme Court of India elaborated on the "rarest of rare" doctrine, initially mentioned in the Bachan Singh vs State of Punjab case (1980), for the imposition of the death penalty. The judgment aimed to provide a more defined approach towards determining when the death penalty should be awarded, emphasizing that capital punishment should be reserved for cases that are so extreme that they shock the collective conscience of the community. This decision has since played a crucial role in shaping the principles guiding the use of the death penalty in India.

Key Points

 Section 498A of IPC states as under:

Husband or relative of husband of a woman subjecting her to cruelty.
Whoever, being the husband or the relative of the husband of a woman, subjects such woman to cruelty shall be punished with imprisonment for a term which may extend to three years and shall also be liable to fine.
Explanation.—For the purposes of this section, "cruelty means"—
(a) anywilful conduct which is of such a nature as is likely to drive the woman to commit suicide or to cause grave injury or danger to life, limb or health (whether mental or physical) of the woman; or
(b) harassment of the woman where such harassment is with a view to coercing her or any person related to her to meet any unlawful demand for any property or valuable security or is on account of failure by her or any person related to her to meet such demand.]