A scarified his son before his Goddess who according to him appealed him in dreams and asked for the sacrifice. On being charged for murder he set up the plea of unsoundness of mind. Can his plea be sustained?

Related MCQs

• In a case the accused who was a widower led a homely life with his 12-year-old son, nephew and unmarried daughter. The accused suffered from no insanity. One day the accused accompanied by his son went with an axe in his hand to woods to gather siadi leaves. Sometimes after his nephew who had been working in the field discovered the accused sleeping under a tree with the blood stained axe beside him. There was no trace of the son of the accused. Later his son was found hacked to death. It transpired in evidence that the accused for the time being was seized of a state of mind in which he visualised that a tiger was going to pounce on him and as such mistaking his son as the tiger he cut him into pieces.
• Give correct response. A was charged with the murder of his wife, takes the defence of insanity and in the alternative of being drunk at the time of commission of the crime and being thus incapable of forming the intent required in murder. It is also pleaded in defence that the accused was a psychopath. The evidence further discloses that the accused had indicated an intention to kill his wife before taking alcohol. Here :
• X is charge for murder of Y. About a month before the murder Y had attempted to rape the wife of X, X has an altercation with Y immediately before murder X is:
• Give correct response. A was charged with the murder of a boy aged 15 or 16 years who had accompanied him to a wedding party. A was drunk at the time he fired the fatal shot, when he asked the boy to step aside to enable him to occupy a convenient seat but the boy did not move. In this case it was held that :
• 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:
• Give best response. A entered the house of B at the dead of night with the intention of committing theft. B struck him with a lathi in the dark and A fell down unconscious. B gave him one more blow which fell on A’s head, causing extensive bleeding and A’s death. B is prosecuted for murder and takes the plea that the death was caused in exercise of the right of private defence of property. Here :
• 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.
• A accused of murder, alleges that by reason of unsoundness of mind, he did not know the nature of the act.
• For unsoundness of mind, the impairment of the cognitive faculty of mind to escape criminal liability:
• Assertion (A): When murder is committed by a member of an unlawful assembly in prosecution of common object of the assembly, all those who are members of that assembly at that time are liable for the murder. Reason (R): Members of an unlawful assembly are liable only if they participate in the commission of the murder. Of the above statements.