Some peoples collected outside the police station to protest over police inaction in connection with the murder of child. They were charged as committing criminal trespass.

Related MCQs

• 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
• Give correct response. A is in a house which is on fire, with Z, a child. People below hold out a blanket, A drops the child from the house top, knowing it to be likely that the fall may kill the child, but not intending to kill the child, and intending in good faith the child’s benefit. The child is killed by fall, Held that :
• Assertion (A): When murder is committed by a member of an unlawful assembly in prosecution of common object of the assembly, all those who are members of that assembly at that time are liable for the murder. Reason (R): Members of an unlawful assembly are liable only if they participate in the commission of the murder. Of the above statements.
• X is charge for murder of Y. About a month before the murder Y had attempted to rape the wife of X, X has an altercation with Y immediately before murder X is:
• Assertion (A): A person is not guilty of dacoity unless he has committed, attempted to commit or aided in committing robbery. Reason (R): When tow persons conjointly commit robbery, then every person so committing robbery is said to commit dacoity.
• 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:
• 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 :
• Some militants are hiding in a house occupied by an individual. Militants are engaged in an attack on the police party by firing from the house. The police persons, to defend themselves, fire towards the house and an innocent person in the house is hit by the bullet and dies as a result. The police persons are guilty of
• Give best response. A entered the house of B at the dead of night with the intention of committing theft. B struck him with a lathi in the dark and A fell down unconscious. B gave him one more blow which fell on A’s head, causing extensive bleeding and A’s death. B is prosecuted for murder and takes the plea that the death was caused in exercise of the right of private defence of property. Here :
• X sees Z committing what appears to X to be a murder. X in exercise, to the best of his judgement, exerted in good faith, of the powers, which the law gives to all persons of apprehending murderers in the act, seizes Z in order to bring Z before proper authorities. But it turns out that Z was acting in exercise of his right of self defence. X is guilty of