[Solved] Point out incorrect response. Attempt implies three essential elements:

Q.	Point out incorrect response. Attempt implies three essential elements:
A.	An act which constitutes the actus reus of criminal attempt.
B.	Mens Rea on the part of the accused.
C.	A stage of crime where the accused could stop the actual commission by his subsequent change of mind.
D.	Failure in the accomplishment i.e., the act must fall short of completion of the crime intended because of some external intervention.
Answer» C. A stage of crime where the accused could stop the actual commission by his subsequent change of mind.

1.5k

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 essential elements of the offence of extortion:
Assertion (A): One of the most difficult tasks in attempt cases has been to find out the dividing line between preparation and attempt. Reason (R): Shooting at the shadow sufficiently near a person as to put him in danger is attempt to commit murder. Of the above statements.
Point out incorrect response. Actus reus and mens rea are the two important elements of a crime. Actus reus may be defined as ‘such result of human conduct as the law seeks to prevent.’ It is made up of three constituent parts, namely :
Point out incorrect response. Mistake means and implies :
Point out incorrect response. The maxim nullum poena sine leg, nullum crimes sine leg, known as the principle of legality implies the following:
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:
Point out incorrect response. The following persons are exempted from the jurisdiction of criminal courts in India.
Point out incorrect response. The following persons are exempted from the jurisdiction of criminal courts in India.
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:
Point out incorrect response. The following principles were laid down in Mahboob Shah v. Emperor 72 I.A. 148.