0
You visited us 0 times! Enjoying our articles? Unlock Full Access!
Question

PRINCIPLE: When an act, which would otherwise be an offence, is not that offence by reason of the youth, the want of maturity of understanding, the unsoundness of mind or the intoxication of the person doing that act, every person has the same right of private defence against that act which he would have if the act were that offence. Nothing is an offence which is done in the exercise of the right of private defence.
FACTS: A, under the influence of madness, attempts to kill B. B in order to save his life causes grievous hurt to A.
  1. A has committed an offence
  2. B has not committed any offence
  3. A has not committed an offence
  4. B has committed an offence

A
A has not committed an offence
B
A has committed an offence
C
B has committed an offence
D
B has not committed any offence
Solution
Verified by Toppr

The principle is enshrined in Section 96-106 of IPC under the head of 'Right of Private Defence".
B has not committed the offence of grievous hurt on A since B in order save his life from A, has exercised his right of private defence. And nothing is an offence which is done in the exercise of his right of private defence. Therefore, B will not be liable of any offence.

Was this answer helpful?
0
Similar Questions
Q1
PRINCIPLE: When an act, which would otherwise be an offence, is not that offence by reason of the youth, the want of maturity of understanding, the unsoundness of mind or the intoxication of the person doing that act, every person has the same right of private defence against that act which he would have if the act were that offence. Nothing is an offence which is done in the exercise of the right of private defence.
FACTS: A, under the influence of madness, attempts to kill B. B in order to save his life causes grievous hurt to A.
View Solution
Q2
PRINCIPLE: 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 the person doing that act, or by reason of any misconception on the part of that person, every person has the same right of private defence against that act which he would have if the act were that offence.
FACTS: 'X', under the influence of madness, attempts to kill 'Y'.
View Solution
Q3
Assertion :X, because of unsound state of mind and not knowing the nature of the act, attacks Y, who in self-defence and in order to ward off the attack, hits him thereby injuring him. Y has not committed an offence. Reason: Y had a right of private defence against X.
View Solution
Q4
LEGAL PRINCIPLES:
(1) Preparation to commit an offence is not an offence.
(2) After one has finished preparation to commit an offence, any act done towards committing the offence withe intention to commit it, is an attempt to commit the offence, which is by itself an offence.
FACIAL SITUATION: Manish wanted to kill Nandini and had therefore gone to the market to buy explosives to plant in her house. Manish kept those explosives in his godown as he planned to plant them early next morning. But as the explosives were stolen in the night he could not plant them in Nandini's house. However, Nandini came to know about Manish's plan and therefore wants to file a complaint against him. Will she succeed?
DECISION will be ______.
View Solution
Q5
LEGAL PRINCIPLE: Any act done in the exercise of right of private defence shall not be an offence. The right to private defence in no case extends to the inflicting of more harm than it is necessary to inflict for the purpose or private defence.
FACTUAL SITUATION: Rajan saw a thief jumping the boundary wall and entering his house in the night. He picked up the sword and hid in a corner. The moment the person entered the house, he hit the person with sword and cut his head. Did Rajan commit the offence of killing the thief?
DECISION will be ______.
View Solution