Assertion (A): X, because of unsoundness of mind, not knowing the nature of the act attacks Y, who in self-defence and in order to ward of the attack, hits him thereby causing him hurt. Y does not commit an offence. Reason (R): Y had a right of private defence against X under Section 98 of the Indian Penal Code. Of the above statements.

Related MCQs

• Assertion (A): Where sister of X was being abducted by force from her parents house by her husband, X caused death of sister’s husband in defence of the sister against an assault with intention of abducting her by force, it was held that the private defence of body extended in the above circumstances to the causing of death. Reason (R): The word abducting in Section 100 IPC includes abduction simpliciter. Direction: The following four items consist of two statements, one labeled the Assertion (A) and the other labeled the Reason (R). You are to examine these two statements carefully and decide if the Assertion (A) and the Reason (R) are individually true and if so, whether the reason is a correct explanation of the Assertion. Select your answer to these items using the codes given below and mark your answer sheet accordingly.
• Consider the following two statements, one labeled as Assertion (A) and the other as Reason (R): Assertion (A): There is no liability for an attempt to commit an impossible theft. Reason (R): No criminal liability can be incurred under Section 511 of the Indian Penal Code for an attempt to do an act which, if done will not be an offence. Of the above statements.
• Assertion (A): A servant removes wrist watch from the table and keeps it concealed under the carpet in the same room for fear of being detected. He is guilty of theft. Reason (R): To be guilty of the offence of theft, a person must move and take away the property stolen. Directions: - the following item consist of two statements, one labeled as Assertion A and the other labeled as Reason R. You are to examine these two statements carefully and decide if the Assertion A and the Reason R are individually true and if so, whether the reason is a correct explanation of the Assertion. Select your answers to these items using the codes given below and mark your answer
• A, intending to cause theft instigates B, to take property belonging to Z out of Z’s possession. A induces B to believe that the property belongs to A. B takes the property out of Z’s possession in good faith, believing it to be A’s property. With reference to the above statement Assertion (A): A is guilty of abetment of theft even if B is innocent. Reason (R): Liability of abettor is not dependent on the liability of the principal accused. Directions:- the following item consist of two statements, one labeled as Assertion A and the other labeled as Reason R. You are to examine these two statements carefully and decide if the Assertion A and the Reason R are individually true and if so, whether the reason is a correct explanation of the Assertion. Select your answers to these items using the codes given below and mark your answer sheet accordingly.
• Assertion (A) : Crime is punishable because it is provided in the law. Reason (R) : Crime is revolting to the moral sense of Society. The following fifteen items consist of two statements, one labeled the Assertion A and the other labeled the Reason R. You are to examine these two statements carefully and decide if the Assertion A and the Reason R are individually true and if so, whether the reason is correct explanation of the Assertion.
• Assertion (A): There is either theft or extortion in robbery. Reason (R): Theft or extortion precedes robbery. Direction: The following two items consist of two statements, one labeled the Assertion (A) and the other labeled the Reason (R). You are to examine these two statements carefully and decide if the Assertion A and the Reason R are individually true and if so, whether the Reason is a correct explanation of the Assertion. Select your answers to these items using the codes given below and mark your answer sheet accordingly.
• Assertion (A): X and Y independently intending to kill Z strike him with iron rod on his head. Z dies as a result of the injuries. Both X and Y are guilty of murder under Section 302/304, Indian Penal Code. Reason (R): When a criminal act is done by several person in furtherance of common intention of all, each of them is liable as if it was done by him alone.Of the above statements.
• Assertion (A): There is no liability for an attempt to commit an impossible theft. Reason (R): No criminal liability can be incurred under Section 511 of the Indian Penal Code for an attempt to do an act which, if done, will not be an offence.
• Assertion (A): A person compelled by threats, from another, which reasonably cause apprehension of his instant death, commits murder of the third person, can plead the defence of compulsion. Reason (R): Consent of the deceased (above 12 years) is a defence to the charge of murder if the act causing death is done in good fait for the benefit of the deceased without intention to kill. Of the above statements.
• Point out incorrect response. The right of private defence of body extends to the causing of death if the offence which occasions the exercise of the right of private defence is of the following description :