Which one of the following is not correct in case of defence of intoxication?

Related MCQs

• For a defence of intoxication, to escape criminal liability, the intoxication:
• Consider the following statements: To justify as a defence to a charge of crime: 1. Irresistible impulse per se is no defence to a charge of crime. 2. Diminished responsibility is a defence to a charge of a crime. Which of the statements given above is/are correct?
• Give correct response. A girl of 13 years while going to the market passed through the gate of a mill where B was the only watchman on duty. B in a bid to commit rape caught the girl. She struggled but the accused shut her mouth and pressed the thumb of the other hand on her throat to prevent her from screaming. The girl died. The accused was tried for murder. B pleaded intoxication in his defence. It was held that :
• Assertion (A): Where sister of X was being abducted by force from her parents house by her husband, X caused death of sister’s husband in defence of the sister against an assault with intention of abducting her by force, it was held that the private defence of body extended in the above circumstances to the causing of death. Reason (R): The word abducting in Section 100 IPC includes abduction simpliciter. Direction: The following four items consist of two statements, one labeled the Assertion (A) and the other labeled the Reason (R). You are to examine these two statements carefully and decide if the Assertion (A) and the Reason (R) are individually true and if so, whether the reason is a correct explanation of the Assertion. Select your answer to these items using the codes given below and mark your answer sheet accordingly.
• Intoxication as defence is contained in:
• For a defence of intoxication, to escape criminal liability, the degeneration of mental faculties:
• 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 :
• 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.
• Point out incorrect response. The right of private defence of body extends to the causing of death if the offence which occasions the exercise of the right of private defence is of the following description :
• Point out incorrect response. The right of private defence of body extends to the causing of death if the offence which occasions the exercise of the right of private defence is of the following description :