A accused of murder, alleges that by reason of unsoundness of mind, he did not know the nature of the act.

Related MCQs

• In a case the accused who was a widower led a homely life with his 12-year-old son, nephew and unmarried daughter. The accused suffered from no insanity. One day the accused accompanied by his son went with an axe in his hand to woods to gather siadi leaves. Sometimes after his nephew who had been working in the field discovered the accused sleeping under a tree with the blood stained axe beside him. There was no trace of the son of the accused. Later his son was found hacked to death. It transpired in evidence that the accused for the time being was seized of a state of mind in which he visualised that a tiger was going to pounce on him and as such mistaking his son as the tiger he cut him into pieces.
• The accused & his wife sister’s husband B were sleeping out in the verandah. B got up & entered the accused wife’s room accused also got up & peeping through door he saw B & accused wife was having intercourse. He returned to his charpai & lay down. After some time B come back & lay down on the charpai. When B began to snore accused cutted down him by a knife which he was having with him. This case
• 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.
• 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): 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.
• A, intending to cause theft instigates B, to take property belonging to Z out of Z’s possession. A induces B to believe that the property belongs to A. B takes the property out of Z’s possession in good faith, believing it to be A’s property. With reference to the above statement Assertion (A): A is guilty of abetment of theft even if B is innocent. Reason (R): Liability of abettor is not dependent on the liability of the principal accused. Directions:- the following item consist of two statements, one labeled as Assertion A and the other labeled as 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 answers to these items using the codes given below and mark your answer sheet accordingly.
• A scarified his son before his Goddess who according to him appealed him in dreams and asked for the sacrifice. On being charged for murder he set up the plea of unsoundness of mind. Can his plea be sustained?
• Insanity as a defence means that a person at the time of doing an act, by reason of unsoundness of mind is incapable of knowing:
• For unsoundness of mind, the impairment of the cognitive faculty of mind to escape criminal liability:
• 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: