A with intention to kill her husband, purchases some poison powder from a chemist who by mistake, dispensed plain sugar instead. She put the powder in a cup of tea and served it to her husband who drank it but did not die. Which one of the following statements is correct as far as the charge to attempt a murder is concerned?

Related MCQs

• A with intention to kill her husband, purchased some poison-powder from a chemist who by mistake, dispensed plain sugar instead. She put the powder in a cup of tea and served it to her husband who drank it but did not die. Which one of the following statements is correct so far as the charge to attempt a murder is concerned?
• 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.
• Give correct response. A instigates a child B aged 6 years to put poison into the food of C and gives him poison for that purpose. The child in consequence of the instigation, by mistake, puts the poison into the food of D who is sitting by the side of C. D dies.
• Give correct response. A concerts with B a plan of poisoning Z. It is agreed that A shall administer the poison. B then explains the plan to C mentioning that a third person is to administer the poison, but without mentioning A’s name. C agrees to procure the poison, and procures and delivers it to B for the purpose of its being used in the manner explained. A administers the poison; Z dies in consequence. In this case C’s liability is as follows :
• 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.
• A intending to murder B by poison, purchases poison and mixes the same with a glass of water. He gives the glass to the bearer to serve B. the bearer while approaching B loses balance and the glass drops out of his plate. Which one of the following statements is correct in this context?
• Assertion (A): A person compelled by threats, from another, which reasonably cause apprehension of his instant death, commits murder of the third person, can plead the defence of compulsion. Reason (R): Consent of the deceased (above 12 years) is a defence to the charge of murder if the act causing death is done in good fait for the benefit of the deceased without intention to kill. Of the above statements.
• X, with the intention to kill Y, supplies him powdered sugar beliving it to be poison. Y eats the powder. X is guilty of:
• A is invited by B for a cup of tea. While B is in the kitchen preparing tea. A finds a golden ring on the table. He picks it up and places. It somewhere in the room with the intention of dishonestly taking it away some time later. A commits:
• 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