[Solved] Point out incorrect response. The following cases are covered by the exception from criminal liability as contained in section 89 I.P.C. :

Q.	Point out incorrect response. The following cases are covered by the exception from criminal liability as contained in section 89 I.P.C. :
A.	A, in good faith, for his child’s benefit, has his child cut for the stone by a surgeon knowing it to be likely that the operation will cause the child’s death but not intending to cause the child’s death.
B.	A, in good faith, for his child’s pecuniary benefit emasculates his child.
C.	A confines his child for its benefit.
D.	A whips his child moderately for the child’s benefit
Answer» B. A, in good faith, for his child’s pecuniary benefit emasculates his child.

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 the examples of cases of strict liability at common law:
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 :
Section 300 of the IPC speaks of situations in which if a murder is committed, then it is treated as culpable homicide not amounting to murder. Which one of the following situations is not covered under S. 300, IPC?
Point out incorrect response. The principle underlying section 91 I.P.C. is that consent will only condone the act causing harm to the person giving the consent, which will otherwise be an offence. Acts which are offences independently of any harm which they may cause will not be covered by consent given by the sufferer. Some instances of such acts are :
Assertion (A): The Indian Penal code contains certain exceptions from criminal liability. Reason (R): There cannot be universal criminal liability in all circumstances. Of the above statements.
In cases where the act involves a specific mens rea, in cases of intoxication under section 86 of IPC:
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:
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.
Give incorrect response. The following are the essential conditions of criminal liability.
Point out incorrect response. The following persons are exempted from the jurisdiction of criminal courts in India.