[Solved] Point out incorrect response. The following are the ingredients of section 83 I.P. Code.

Q.	Point out incorrect response. The following are the ingredients of section 83 I.P. Code.
A.	An act done by a child above 7 years but under 12 years of age.
B.	A child of above 7 but below 12 years is in India presumed to be doli incapax, therefore, the prosecution has to establish that he was doli capax.
C.	The child must not have attained sufficient maturity of understanding to judge of the nature and consequences of his conduct.
D.	Incapacity must exist at the time of commission of the act.
Answer» A. An act done by a child above 7 years but under 12 years of age.

1.4k

Do you find this helpful?

View all MCQs in

Indian Penal Code (IPC 1860)

Discussion

No comments yet

Related MCQs

Point out incorrect response. The following are ingredients of section 79 of the Indian Penal Code:
Point out incorrect response. The following are ingredients of the defence of necessity under section 81 of the Penal Code :
Point out incorrect response. The following are the ingredients of the defence of accident under section 80 I.P.C. :-
Point out incorrect response. The following are the ingredients of the defence of unsoundness of mind under section 84 I.P.C. :
Point out incorrect response. The following are ingredients of the offence of wrongful confinement under section 340 I.P.C.
Point out incorrect response. The exercise of the right of private defence under the Penal Code is subject to the following limitations as contained in section 99 of the code :
Point out incorrect response. The following are the ingredients of the offence of kidnapping from lawful guardianship :
Point out incorrect response. The following are the ingredients of theft :
Point out incorrect response. The following are the ingredients of the offence of criminal Breach of trust :
Point out incorrect response. In Barendera Kumar Ghose Vs. Emperor, 52 I.A. 40, the appellant was charged under section 302 read with section 34 of the I.P.C. with the murder of a sub-postmaster. Sub-postmaster was counting money in the backroom. Several persons appeared at the door of the office and demanded the post master to give up the money and immediately afterwards fired pistols at him. Postmaster died immediately and the assailants fled in different directions without taking money. On of them was chased and caught with a pistol in his hand. It was not clear as to who fired the fatal shot. While holding the appellant liable for murder the Privy Council laid down the following principles: