IPC, 1860—General/ Private Defence for Upcoming Exams
[Important points as to private defence (Sections 96-106) will be uploaded shortly]
| 1 | General exceptions/ defence/ Private defence have been dealt under Chapter—IV of the IPC |
| 2 | General exceptions/ defence/ Private defence have been dealt under Sections—Sections 76 to 106 of the IPC |
| 3 | Which Section of IPC declares that the definitions/ illustrations under IPC shall be subject to the general exceptions contained under Chapter IV of the IPC—Section 6 of the IPC |
| 4 | The burden to prove that any act of the accused comes within the purview of general exception as contained under Chapter IV of the IPC or anywhere in the Code lies upon whom—Accused |
| 5 | The burden is upon the accused to prove that the act for which he is being tried falls within the purview of general exception as contained under Chapter IV of the IPC or anywhere in the Code. It is so declared under Section—Section 105 of the Indian Evidence Act |
| 6 | The defence under Sections 76 and 79 relate to—Mistake of facts |
| 7 | Which sections of the IPC are are based upon the common law doctrine “ignorantia facti doth excusat; ignorantia juris non-excusat”—Sections 76 and 79 |
| 8 | R Vs. Tolson (1889) is a leading case on—Mistake of Fact |
| 9 | R Vs. Prince (1875) relates to—Mistake of law |
| 10 | Which section of the IPC gives immunity to judges to act judicially—Section 77 |
| 11 | The acts of the persons/ ministerial officers who do acts in pursuance of the judgment or order of the court is no offence and exempted under Section—Section 78 of the IPC |
| 12 | Accident is a good defence under IPC under Section—Section 80 |
| 13 | The case of Jageswar Vs. Emperor (1923) relates to—the defence of accident (the infant got injured by falling down from his mother’s lap while his mother tried to intervene the fight between A & B) |
| 14 | Section 81 relates to defence of—Necessity |
| 15 | Nothing is an offence merely by reason of its being done with the knowledge that it is likely to cause harm, if it be done without any criminal intention to cause harm, and in good faith for the purpose of preventing or avoiding other harm to person or property. It is so declared under Section—Section 81 |
| 16 | Gregson Vs. Gilbert (1783) is related to—Defence of necessity |
| 17 | The defence of necessity in India is based upon the maxim—Necessitas vinict legal (i.e. necessity overcomes the law) |
| 18 | R. Vs. Dudley and Stephens (1884) is leading case on—Defence of necessity |
| 19 | Dhania Daji’s case (1868) relates to—Defence of necessity |
| 20 | An infant/ a child under the seven years of age shall not be liable for any offence. It is so declared under—Section 82 |
| 21 | Section 82 is based on the principle of—Doli Incapex |
| 22 | An infant/ a child between the age of 7 to 12 years are liable for offence, if he has attained sufficient maturity and understands the nature of his act. It is so declared under Section—Section 83 |
| 23 | Section 84 relates to the defence of –Insanity (Unsoundness) |
| 24 | In 1843 the law of insanity was properly formulated by the House of Lords in the historic case of—R Vs. M’Naghten |
| 25 | True/ False: Legal insanity and medical insanity are two different concepts—True |
| 26 | True/ False: “Irresistible Impulse” is a good defence under IPC—False |
| 27 | Sections 85 and 86 relates to the defence of –Intoxication/ Drunkenness |
| 28 | True/ False: Voluntary intoxication is no defence under the Indian law of intoxication—True |
| 29 | DPP Vs. Beard (1920) of House of Lords is a leading case on—Intoxication/ Drunkenness |
| 30 | The Supreme Court of India in which case discussed in length the law of intoxication under IPC—Basdev Vs. State of Pepsu (1956) |
| 31 | The law relating to consent as a defence is contained under Sections—Sections 87 to 91 |
| 32 | Any consent taken under fear or misconception is no consent. It is so declared under Section—Section 90 |
| 33 | True/False: Any consent given by a person of unsound mind is no consent—True (Section 90, para2) |
| 34 | Any consent given by a person who is under the age of ____years is no consent—12 years (Section 90, para 3) |
| 35 | Any communication made in good faith is not an offence by reason of any harm to the person to whom it is made, if it is made for the benefit of that person. Such communication is a good defence under Section—Section 93 |
| 36 | A, a surgeon, in good faith, communicates to a patient his opinion that he cannot live. The patient dies in consequence of the shock. A has committed no offence, though he knew it to be likely that the communication might cause the patient’s death. A’s action will be protected under Section—Section 93 of IPC |
| 37 | An act, except murder and offences against State punishable with death, is protected under Section—Section 94 |
| 38 | Triviality is a good defence under Section—Section 95 |
| 39 | Which Section of IPC incorporate the maxim “De Minimis Non-Curat Lex”—Section 95 |
Prepared by team LegalMines. Typographical error, if any, is inadvertent. Copyright of contents and style is with the LegalMines.
