“The fatal below should be clearly traced to the influence of passion arising from that provocation & not after the passion had cooled down by lapse of lime”. held in

Related MCQs

• 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 :
• A, the captain of a steam vessel, suddenly and without any fault or negligence on his part, finds himself in such a position that before he can stop his vessel, he must inevitably run down a boat B, with twenty to thirty passengers on board, unless he changes the course of his vessel, and that by changing his course, he must incur risk of running down a boat C with only two passengers on board, which he may possibly clear. Here if A alters his course without any intention to run down the boat C and in good faith for the purpose of avoiding the danger to the passengers in boat B. But in the course of this action A runs down boat C.
• The accused & his wife sister’s husband B were sleeping out in the verandah. B got up & entered the accused wife’s room accused also got up & peeping through door he saw B & accused wife was having intercourse. He returned to his charpai & lay down. After some time B come back & lay down on the charpai. When B began to snore accused cutted down him by a knife which he was having with him. This case
• 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:
• The accused without any provocation caught hold of the legs of a 7 year old child and dashed his head thrice in quick succession resulting in the death of the boy. Immediately after the occurrence the accused ran away. The accused pleaded insanity in defence.
• The father of the accused was attacked by the deceased and suffered a simple injury on his head, the accused in order to protect his father administered a fatal below on the chest of deceased with Ballam
• A attacks Z under such circumstances of grave provoca­tion that his killing of Z would be only culpable homi­cide not amounting to murder. B, having ill-will towards Z, and intending to kill him and not having been subject to the provocation, assists A in killing Z. Which of the following judgment under Section 38 of IPC applies to A and B?
• Give correct response. A, B and C three adults and D a boy were on a voyage in an open boat. They had no food after about 18 years of journey. C proposed to B and A to sacrifice the boy so that they may feed upon ut B did not agree. On 20th day C with the consent of A only killed the boy and all the three fed upon the boy for four days when they were picked up. It was found that the boy was in a weaker condition and was likely to die before others and also if the men would not have fed upon the boy, hey would not have survived. Held that:
• Mr. V, an appellant is an owner of a house in City A. The wife of the first respondent Y, was tenant of a part of the first floor in that house. On January 17, 1966, one R a servant of the appellant, called the wife of the first respondent a thief and Halkat. On the following day, the first respondent slapped R on his face which was followed by heated exchange of abusive words and between the first respondent and the appellant’s husband. The first respondent was annoyed and threw at the appellant’s husband a file of papers. The file did not hit the appellant’s husband, but it hit the elbow of the appellant causing a scratch. The appellant lodged information to the police complaining that the first respondent had committed a house trespass in order to the committing of an offence punishable with imprisonment, had thrown a shoe at her and had slapped her servant R. During the course of the investigation the appellant and R refused to be examined at a public hospital, claiming that a p
• A, on grave and sudden provocation from Z, fires a pistol at Z, does not die, A is guilty of L: