‘A’ a foreigner stabbed B another foreigner in a foreign vessel on the high seas. Both A and B were brought to Bombay for treatment where B dies. A is also available in Bombay. Which one of the following propositions is correct in respect of applicability of Indian Penal Code (IPC) to the trial of A?

Related MCQs

• Assertion (A): X and Y independently intending to kill Z strike him with iron rod on his head. Z dies as a result of the injuries. Both X and Y are guilty of murder under Section 302/304, Indian Penal Code. Reason (R): When a criminal act is done by several person in furtherance of common intention of all, each of them is liable as if it was done by him alone.Of the above statements.
• 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.
• Under which of the following situations would Indian courts have jurisdiction? 1. Crime committed by an Indian in a foreign country 2. Crime committed by a foreign in India 3. Crime committed by a person on an Indian ship. Select the correct answer using the codes given below: Codes:
• Which one of the following statements regarding Section 34 and 149 of the Indian Penal Code is correct?
• 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?
• 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.
• 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 correct response. Section 83 of the Indian Penal Code deals with the defence of infancy. It provides that :
• Threatening to commit certain acts forbidden by Indian Penal Code is associated with which one of the following?
• Which one of the following is not punishable under the Indian Penal Code?