[Solved] Give best response. The liability to conviction of an individual depends not only on his having done some outward acts which the law forbids but on his having done them in a certain frame of mind or with a certain will. Exceptions to this general rule are strict liability offences which mean that:

Q.	Give best response. The liability to conviction of an individual depends not only on his having done some outward acts which the law forbids but on his having done them in a certain frame of mind or with a certain will. Exceptions to this general rule are strict liability offences which mean that:
A.	Crimes not requiring any kind of fault or guilty mind on the part of the accused in doing the act constituting the offence but the doing of the act forbidden alone holds one responsible for it.
B.	Crimes requiring some fault on the part of another but not the accused himself.
C.	Crimes though not committed with some guilty intention but are acts in which the accused has acquiesced or connived or is negligent or reckless in some manner.
D.	Crimes where a person is not himself guilty in so far as the actual commission of the act constituting the offences is concerned but he has either authorised the doing of the act or has failed to take precautions to prevent it.
Answer» A. Crimes not requiring any kind of fault or guilty mind on the part of the accused in doing the act constituting the offence but the doing of the act forbidden alone holds one responsible for it.

1.1k

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 doctrine of mens rea requires a mind at fault in all offences. To this general rule, the exceptions are found in statutory offences. Some of the exceptions are offences relating to:
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 :
Give correct response. The common law rule is that no person is criminally liable for the act of another unless he has authorised or assented to it. The following are exceptions to this rule:
Give best response. A and B have been married for some time. Due to acute financial difficulties they decide to commit suicide. A procures some poison which both of them take. But A, the husband survives whereas B, the wife dies as a result of taking the poison. In this case :
Point out incorrect response. There is a presumption that mens rea and evil intention or knowledge of the wrongfulness of the act, is an essential in every offence. However, the following are some of the exceptions to this general rule:
Give correct response. A married girl, Sudha aged about 10 years slept in the night with her mother-in-law. Her husband Vinay aged about 19 years slept with his brother in another hut but in the same homestead. In the early hours of the fateful day the mother-in-law woke Sudha and told her to go about her household duties. Shortly after this Sudha was seen running out of the house and her husband was found mortally wounded on the neck by her. She was hiding herself in a field and could be found only in the afternoon.
Point out incorrect response. The following are the examples of cases of strict liability at common law:
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.
Give the correct response : An intoxicated person is exonerated from liability of his acts provided
Give correct response. In J.M. Desat v. State of Bombay, A.I.R. 1960 S.C. 889, Mr. Desai was the Managing Director of a Dying Company, the company entered into a contract with the textile Commissioner undertaking to dye a large quantity of cloth. Out of the lot some were returned back to the commissioner by the company while others, even after repeated demand, remained undelivered. Therefore, the Managing Director was charged for an offence and he pleaded that the clothes were eaten up by white ants and that he was not personally responsible for damage done to them and their nondelivery.