154
71.7k

930+ Indian Penal Code (IPC 1860) Solved MCQs

These multiple-choice questions (MCQs) are designed to enhance your knowledge and understanding in the following areas: Chemical Engineering , Bachelor of Laws (LLB) , Union Public Service Commission (UPSC) .

Take a Test
101.

According to Sec. 79 -- “Nothing an offence which is done by any person who is justified by law and who by reason of mistake of fact in good faith believes himself to be :

A. Bound by law in doing it.
B. Justified by law in doing it.
C. Right in doing it.
D. None of the above.
Answer» B. Justified by law in doing it.
discuss
102.

A attacked with sword B who was behind the bush believing B to be a tiger :

A. A is entitled to get benefit under Sec. 76 and 79 both.
B. A is entitled to get benefit under Sec. 76.
C. A is entitled to get benefit under Sec. 79.
D. A is not entitled to get any benefit.
Answer» C. A is entitled to get benefit under Sec. 79.
discuss
103.

Give the correct response?

A. Mistake of fact in a criminal case is not a good defence.
B. Mistake of law in a criminal case is not defence.
C. Mistake of law in a criminal case may be a good defence.
D. None of the above.
Answer» B. Mistake of law in a criminal case is not defence.
discuss
104.

The maxim ignorantia juris non excusat does mean :

A. Mistake of court is no defence.
B. Mistake of judicial act is no defence.
C. Mistake of fact is no defence.
D. Mistake of law is no defence.
Answer» D. Mistake of law is no defence.
discuss
105.

Point out incorrect response. The following are ingredients of section 79 of the Indian Penal Code:

A. Such a belief must be by reason of a mistake of fact and not by reason of a mistake of law.
B. Act must have been done by a person who is either justified by law or believes himself to be justified by law in doing it.
C. One must be legally bound to do that act and not only legally justified to do it.
D. Belief must be a bona fide belief in good faith.
Answer» C. One must be legally bound to do that act and not only legally justified to do it.
discuss
106.

Point out incorrect response. The following are the ingredients of the defence of accident under section 80 I.P.C. :-

A. The act must not be done with any criminal intention or knowledge.
B. The act must be an accident or misfortune and it must have been done with proper care and
C. The accident must be the outcome of a lawful act, done in lawful manner, by lawful means.
D. The act may be done with the knowledge of the consequences but in no case the act should have been done with criminal intention.
Answer» D. The act may be done with the knowledge of the consequences but in no case the act should have been done with criminal intention.
discuss
107.

Give correct response. In the following cases the defence of accident may successfully be claimed :

A. A was driving a pair of horses without reins. B was walking on the road and was intoxicated. A called out to him twice to get out of the way but since the speed of the horses was high B was run over and killed.
B. A big party consisting of about 100 men went out for shooting pigs. A boar rushed towards the accused who fired at her, but he missed the boar and shot struck the leg of a member of the party.
C. A trespassed into B’s house in his absence and no return B demanded A to leave but A refused to do so. This led to an altercation which excited B who gave him a kick causing injury resulting in death.
D. A takes up a gun, not knowing whether it is loaded or not, posits it in sport at B and pulls the trigger. B is shot dead.
Answer» B. A big party consisting of about 100 men went out for shooting pigs. A boar rushed towards the accused who fired at her, but he missed the boar and shot struck the leg of a member of the party.
discuss
108.

Give correct response. A and his wife W went to have dinner with a friend. He carried his gun with him, and before going to dinner he discharged the gun and kept it in a private place in his friend’s house. A, then went to church after dinner and in the night returned home with his gun. He carried the gun in the room. He in taking it up touched the trigger and the gun went off and killed the wife. It was found that when A was away to church another man had privately taken the gun out to shoot and had returned it loaded to the place where it was put in the friend’s house. In this case :

A. A was negligent in so far as he did not try to ascertain whether the gun was loaded or not, therefore, he would be liable for negligently causing his wife’s death.
B. A is liable not for murder but for culpable homicide because he would have exercised greater caution in handling the gun.
C. A has acted in a mistaken belief that the gun was not loaded, therefore, he was entitled to the defence of mistake and will not be liable.
D. A would not be liable because death was caused by accident as he had reasonable ground to believe that the gun was not loaded.
Answer» D. A would not be liable because death was caused by accident as he had reasonable ground to believe that the gun was not loaded.
discuss
109.

Point out incorrect response. Mistake means and implies :

A. That facts exist.
B. That the sense impressions of facts i.e., sense is known as erroneous.
C. The sense impressions of facts (which we call sense) are different from the facts and that sense fit or do not fit the facts.
D. That erroneous sense are for a time accepted as true.
Answer» B. That the sense impressions of facts i.e., sense is known as erroneous.
discuss
110.

Give incorrect response. The following are the essential conditions of criminal liability.

A. Knowledge that the act is prohibited by law.
B. Knowledge of facts upon which the good and evil of an act may depend.
C. Intelligence to distinguish between good and evil.
D. Free will.
Answer» A. Knowledge that the act is prohibited by law.
discuss
111.

Point out incorrect response. The following are some of the illustrations of defence of mistake of fact:

A. A in a moment of delusion thought that has only son was a tiger and he assailed him with an axe, thinking by reason of mistake of fact, that he was justified in destroying the deceased whom he did not regard to be a human being but who, as he thought, was a dangerous animal.
B. A was awakened in the night by strange noises in his house ; thinking that he was attacking a burglar, he ran his sword through a cabinet where the intruder was hiding and killed a friend of his servant present by the latter’s invitation.
C. A was charged for selling liquor to B, an intoxicated person who had given no indication of intoxication. There the statute made it an offence for any licensed person to sell any intoxicating liquor to any drunken person. A did not know that B was intoxicated.
D. A, a rail conductor forcibly ejects a passenger believing that the passenger has not paid his fare. The passenger persistently refuses to pay or to show his ticket.
Answer» C. A was charged for selling liquor to B, an intoxicated person who had given no indication of intoxication. There the statute made it an offence for any licensed person to sell any intoxicating liquor to any drunken person. A did not know that B was intoxicated.
discuss
112.

Give correct response. A sees Z commit what appears to A to be murder. A in the exercise of the best of his judgment, exerted in good faith of the power which the law gives to all persons of apprehending murderers in the act seizes Z, in order to bring Z before the proper authorities, Later it was found that Z was acting in self-defence. Here:

A. A is liable because he has failed to make reasonable inquiries which must have elicited the true facts whether Z was a murderer or acting in self-defence.
B. A is liable for wrongfully apprehending Z because Z was acting in self-defence.
C. A is liable because he was neither bound by law nor justified by law to apprehend Z on a simple belief that Z was a murderer.
D. A has committed no offence because he is entitled to the defence of mistake of fact under section 79 of the Penal Code.
Answer» D. A has committed no offence because he is entitled to the defence of mistake of fact under section 79 of the Penal Code.
discuss
113.

The accused was convicted of bigamy having gone through ceremony of marriage within 7 years after she had been deserted by her husband. She believed in good faith that her husband was dead. In this case :

A. she cannot be convicted as she was ignorant about 7 years rule. Exclusive group for Judicial Services Preparation
B. she can be convicted.
C. she cannot be convicted as she is mistaken by the fact.
D. she cannot be convicted of bigamy as she had been deserted by her husband.
Answer» C. she cannot be convicted as she is mistaken by the fact.
discuss
114.

The accused took an unmarried girl below the age of sixteen without her father consent in a bonafide belief that girl was older than 16 :

A. As the tabbing in itself is unlawful and so cannot avail defence under sec. 79.
B. Accused can take good defence of mistake of fact.
C. Accused cannot take this defence as it is not a mistake of fact
D. None of the above.
Answer» A. As the tabbing in itself is unlawful and so cannot avail defence under sec. 79.
discuss
115.

When the act in itself is wrongful the defence of mistake of fact cannot be availed. It was held in an English case

A. R Vs. Prince.
B. R Vs. Tolson.
C. Baily case.
D. None of the above.
Answer» A. R Vs. Prince.
discuss
116.

Nothing is an offence which is done by :

A. Misfortunate
B. Accident
C. Both (a) and (b)
D. None of the above
Answer» C. Both (a) and (b)
discuss
117.

Nothing is an offence which is done without any criminal intention and knowledge in the doing of :

A. Lawful act in a lawful manner by lawful means.
B. Lawful act in a lawful manner by lawful means and with proper care and caution.
C. Any act in a lawful manner by lawful means.
D. Unlawful act in a lawful manner by lawful means.
Answer» D. Unlawful act in a lawful manner by lawful means.
discuss
118.

A is at work with hatch, the head flies off and killed a person

A. Act of A is an offence and not executable.
B. A is guilty of not taking proper caution and care.
C. Act of A is an offence and executable.
D. None of the above.
Answer» B. A is guilty of not taking proper caution and care.
discuss
119.

Sec. 81 says that nothing is an offence of its being done with the knowledge:

A. To void or harm to other.
B. Without any criminal intention.
C. Both (a) and (b).
D. None of the above.
Answer» C. Both (a) and (b).
discuss
120.

Nothing is an offence of its being done with the knowledge that it is likely to cause harm, without any criminal intention and in good faith :

A. To avoid any harm to other person.
B. To avoid and prevent harm to other is property.
C. To avoid and prevent harm to other person.
D. To avoid and prevent harm to other person and property.
Answer» D. To avoid and prevent harm to other person and property.
discuss
121.

Give the correct response?

A. A statute can exclude that element.
B. Mens Rea is an essential ingredient of criminal offence.
C. Both (a) and (b).
D. None of the above.
Answer» C. Both (a) and (b).
discuss
122.

Mens Rea is an essential element in every offence except in :

A. Cases criminal in form but which are really only a summary made of enforcing a civil right.
B. Cases not criminal in any real sense.
C. Cases of public nuisance.
D. All of these.
Answer» D. All of these.
discuss
123.

A&B, swimming in the sea after ship wrecked, got hold of a plant not large enough to support both. A pushes of B who is drowned. In this case of B who is drowned. In this case :

A. A has good defence under SC 81.
B. A cannot take the defence under this Sec.
C. Cannot say.
D. None of the above.
Answer» B. A cannot take the defence under this Sec.
discuss
124.

A man in order to escape death from hunger kills another for the purpose of eating :

A. He is guilty of murder.
B. He has good defence under Sec. 81.
C. Although he is guilty but not of murder.
D. None of the above.
Answer» A. He is guilty of murder.
discuss
125.

A Bus driver suddenly without any fault or negligence on his part finds himself in such a position that before he can stop the bus he will run down a school children metador unless he incur the risk of turning the bus running down a Rickshaw poles. He choose second option

A. He is not guilty as he has good defence under Sec. 81.
B. Cannot say.
C. He is guilty of death by rash and negligent driving.
D. None of the above.
Answer» A. He is not guilty as he has good defence under Sec. 81.
discuss
126.

Point out incorrect response. The following are ingredients of the defence of necessity under section 81 of the Penal Code :

A. The act constituting the offence is known by the wrongdoer to be 29 likely to cause harm, but it is done without any criminal intention to cause harm.
B. The act must have been done in good faith.
C. The act must have been done for the purpose of preventing or avoiding other harm to person or property.
D. The act must be one done neither with the intention to cause harm nor with the knowledge to cause harm.
Answer» D. The act must be one done neither with the intention to cause harm nor with the knowledge to cause harm.
discuss
127.

Give incorrect response. The defence of necessity will be available in the following cases :

A. Browning was charged with reckless driving. He pleaded that he was trying to escape serious injury and illegal arrest by police officers who wished to ambush him.
B. A placed poison in his toddy pots knowing that if taken by a human being it would cause injury, but with the intention of thereby detecting an unknown thief who was in the habit of stealing the toddy from his pots. The toddy was drunk by soldier who purchased it from an unknown vendor.
C. A, a bargeman threw the goods of the plaintiff out of a barge in order to lighten it in a storm and for the safety of the passengers. It was found that the bargeman had overloaded the barge.
D. A sees a tiger attacking B and he feels sure that the tiger will be on him within a minute. A shoots the tiger fully knowing that B and the tiger are so close that he might kill B and not the tiger. A thus kills B.
Answer» B. A placed poison in his toddy pots knowing that if taken by a human being it would cause injury, but with the intention of thereby detecting an unknown thief who was in the habit of stealing the toddy from his pots. The toddy was drunk by soldier who purchased it from an unknown vendor.
discuss
128.

Give best response. A voted before he has attained the age of majority prescribed for exercising the right of franchise, believing that he was of age. Here:

A. A has violated the election law and cannot plead mistake in his defence.
B. A has committed no offence, he can plead mistake of fact in his defence as he believed in good faith to be of age.
C. Ignorance of law is no excuse; ignorance of fact only is an excuse. A is liable because he has committed mistake of law.
D. Since A was a minor not having attained the age of majority he can plead the defence under section 83 of the Penal Code.
Answer» B. A has committed no offence, he can plead mistake of fact in his defence as he believed in good faith to be of age.
discuss
129.

Give correct response. A, the accused was beating B with his fists, when the latter’s wife with a baby on her shoulder interfered. A hit the woman but the blow struck the child on his head resulting in death. Held :

A. A was not liable for causing death of the child because he intended to hit the woman, and the blow unfortunately fell upon the child.
B. A was not liable for child’s death because he never intended to kill the child who was hit only by accident.
C. A was liable for causing death of the child because he intended to hit the woman and did not act in good faith knowing it fully well that she was having her baby on her shoulder.
D. No doubt the child was hit by accident but the act of A was not a lawful act being done in lawful manner by lawful means, therefore, he would be liable.
Answer» D. No doubt the child was hit by accident but the act of A was not a lawful act being done in lawful manner by lawful means, therefore, he would be liable.
discuss
130.

Give correct response. A, in a great fire, pulls down B’s house in order to prevent the conflagration from spreading. He does this without the intention, in good faith, to saving human life or property. In this case :

A. A would be liable because no amount of necessity can justify causing of harm to innocent parties.
B. A would be liable for causing harm day doing mischief to B and will not succeed in his defence of necessity.
C. A would not be liable because he had no intention to cause harm to B’s property but to save it from being damaged by fire.
D. A would not be liable because he has pulled down B’s house in order to prevent the conflagration from spreading i.e. the act was done in good faith for the purpose of avoiding greater harm to person or property : the rule is that causing of lesser evil is justified to avoid greater evil.
Answer» D. A would not be liable because he has pulled down B’s house in order to prevent the conflagration from spreading i.e. the act was done in good faith for the purpose of avoiding greater harm to person or property : the rule is that causing of lesser evil is justified to avoid greater evil.
discuss
131.

Give correct response. A, B and C three adults and D a boy were on a voyage in an open boat. They had no food after about 18 years of journey. C proposed to B and A to sacrifice the boy so that they may feed upon ut B did not agree. On 20th day C with the consent of A only killed the boy and all the three fed upon the boy for four days when they were picked up. It was found that the boy was in a weaker condition and was likely to die before others and also if the men would not have fed upon the boy, hey would not have survived. Held that:

A. A, B and C would be liable for murder of the boy because self-preservations not an absolute necessity and there can be no necessity that justifies homicide.
B. A, B, and C were not liable for murder of the boy because Sec.81 of the Penal Code justifies causing of lesser evil in order to avoid greater evil.
C. A, B and C were not liable for murder of the boy because to preserve one’s life is generally speaking a duty and in the present case there was no other way of saving the life of all the three except that some one was killed to save others from death by starvation.
D. A, B and C would not be liable because, the rule that a necessity can never be a defence to a charge of homicide is not conclusive and justifies homicide in self-defence.
Answer» A. A, B and C would be liable for murder of the boy because self-preservations not an absolute necessity and there can be no necessity that justifies homicide.
discuss
132.

Give correct response. Section 83 of the Indian Penal Code deals with the defence of infancy. It provides that :

A. A child who is above 7 but below 12 years of age is deemed to be doli capax and he would not
B. A child who is above 7 but below 12 years of age is deemed to be doli incapax, therefore, he would be liable if it be proved that he was doli capax.
C. Section 83 is based on the principle of presumption of innocence of the accused unless the prosecution proves otherwise.
D. In order to avail the defence under section 83 it must be shown that the child was above 7 but below 12 years of age and if that much is proved the burden shall then lie upon the prosecution to prove that he was capable of knowing the nature and quality of his act.
Answer» A. A child who is above 7 but below 12 years of age is deemed to be doli capax and he would not
discuss
133.

Point out incorrect response. The M’ Neghten Rules relating to the defence of insanity provide :

A. If the accused was conscious that the act was one which he ought not too do and five that act was at the same time contrary to the law of the land, he is punishable.
B. That every man is presumed to be same and to possess a sufficient degree of reason to be responsible for his crimes until the contrary be proved to the satisfaction of the jury or the Court.
C. It must be shown that at the time of committing the act, the accused was laboring under such a defect of reason from desease of mind as not to know the nature and quality of the act he was doing, or if he did not know it that he did not know that what he was doing was wrong.
D. Where the criminal act is done under insane delusion as to the surrounding facts which conceal from him the true nature of the act he is doing he would not be under the same degree of responsibility as he would have been on the facts as he imagined them to be.
Answer» D. Where the criminal act is done under insane delusion as to the surrounding facts which conceal from him the true nature of the act he is doing he would not be under the same degree of responsibility as he would have been on the facts as he imagined them to be.
discuss
134.

Nothing is an offence which is done by a child under S.82

A. 14 years of age.
B. 18 years of age.
C. 7 years of age.
D. 10 years of age.
Answer» C. 7 years of age.
discuss
135.

Give the correct response

A. In England a child under 14 cannot be convicted of rape.
B. In India a child of 12 years can be convicted of rape.
C. Both (a) and (b).
D. None of the above.
Answer» C. Both (a) and (b).
discuss
136.

A child of 11 year stolen a neckless worth Rs. 1000 and sold it in Rs. 5/-

A. He cannot be held guilty as he did not attained sufficient maturity.
B. He is guilty of committing theft.
C. A child below 12 years of age cannot be held guilty of any offence.
D. None of the above.
Answer» B. He is guilty of committing theft.
discuss
137.

Nothing is an offence which is done by a child, who has not attained sufficient maturity of understanding to judge of the nature of his conduct and consequence. This provision applies to children of age group of :

A. Below 7 years.
B. 7-12 years.
C. Below twelve years.
D. 7-14 years.
Answer» B. 7-12 years.
discuss
138.

Under Sec. 84 a person is exonerated from liability for doing an act on the ground of unsoundness of mind :

A. Before the time of doing.
B. After the time of doing.
C. At the time of doing.
D. None of the above.
Answer» C. At the time of doing.
discuss
139.

A person is exonerated from liability for doing an act on the ground of unsoundness of mind if he is either incapable of knowing:

A. That he is doing what is either wrong or contrary to law.
B. The nature of the act.
C. Both (a) and (b).
D. None of the above.
Answer» C. Both (a) and (b).
discuss
140.

Nothing is an offence which is done by a child above the age of seven years and below the 12 years and who :

A. Is handicapped.
B. Is an orphan.
C. Has not attained sufficient maturity of understanding the nature and consequence of his conduct.
D. None of the above.
Answer» C. Has not attained sufficient maturity of understanding the nature and consequence of his conduct.
discuss
141.

Point out incorrect response. The following are the ingredients of section 83 I.P. Code.

A. An act done by a child above 7 years but under 12 years of age.
B. A child of above 7 but below 12 years is in India presumed to be doli incapax, therefore, the prosecution has to establish that he was doli capax.
C. The child must not have attained sufficient maturity of understanding to judge of the nature and consequences of his conduct.
D. Incapacity must exist at the time of commission of the act.
Answer» A. An act done by a child above 7 years but under 12 years of age.
discuss
142.

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.

A. Sudha was doli capax as it could be inferred from the case, therefore, she was liable unless proved to be doli incapax.
B. Sudha was doli incapax being below 12 years and was not liable.
C. The circumstances in which murder was committed and the conduct of Sudha were not so as to lead to an inference beyond reasonable doubt that she was guilty.
D. Sudha was not liable because a child below 12 years of age is absolutely immune from liability because of her immature age.
Answer» A. Sudha was doli capax as it could be inferred from the case, therefore, she was liable unless proved to be doli incapax.
discuss
143.

A person cuts of the head of sleeping person because it would be great fun to see him looking for it when he woke up. He is :

A. Entitled to get benefit of see. 84.
B. Not entitled to get such benefit.
C. Guilty of causing death.
D. None of the above.
Answer» A. Entitled to get benefit of see. 84.
discuss
144.

An accused on being commanded in his dream by some one to kill his wife as being a denial, into the head of his wife. He is :

A. Entitled to the benefit of Sec. 84 IPC.
B. Not entitled as he knew the nature of act.
C. Not entitled to the benefit of Sec. 94 IPC.
D. None of the above.
Answer» A. Entitled to the benefit of Sec. 84 IPC.
discuss
145.

Give the correct response.

A. Mere absence of motive of crime cannot in the absence of legal insanity bring the case within Sec. 84.
B. A person is exonerated from liability for his acts on the ground of unsoundness of mind.
C. Both (a) and (b).
D. None of the above.
Answer» C. Both (a) and (b).
discuss
146.

A man suddenly murdered his wife and sister in law and he made no attempt to run away. This case :

A. Falls within Sec. 84.
B. Does fall within Sec. 84 because of absence of motive.
C. Does not fall within Sec. 84 because of presence of motive behind the act.
D. Does not fall within Sec. 84 because absence of motive does not imply unsoundness of mind.
Answer» D. Does not fall within Sec. 84 because absence of motive does not imply unsoundness of mind.
discuss
147.

Give the correct response:

A. Medical insanity and legal insanity under Sec. 84 are different.
B. Medical, insanity and legal insanity under Sec. 84 are same thing.
C. Legal insanity under Se. 84 meant the person’s consciousness of the bearing of his acts on those affected by it.
D. Both (b) and (c).
Answer» C. Legal insanity under Se. 84 meant the person’s consciousness of the bearing of his acts on those affected by it.
discuss
148.

A person suffering from fever killed his children as being annoyed at their crying. He :

A. Is entitled as he was annoyed.
B. Is entitled as he was suffering from decease.
C. Is not entitled to the benefit of Sec. 84 because he knows the nature of act.
D. Is entitled as he did not know the nature of act.
Answer» C. Is not entitled to the benefit of Sec. 84 because he knows the nature of act.
discuss
149.

Give the correct response : An intoxicated person is exonerated from liability of his acts provided

A. That the thing which intoxicated him was administered to him without his knowledge or against his will.
B. That at the time of doing it he was in such state of intoxication that he was unable to know the nature of his acts.
C. Both (a) and (b).
D. None of the above.
Answer» C. Both (a) and (b).
discuss
150.

Voluntary drunkenness is an excuse in case :

A. Delirium Tremens.
B. Where a specific intent is an essential element of an offence.
C. Both (a) and (b).
D. None of the above.
Answer» C. Both (a) and (b).
discuss

Done Studing? Take A Test.

Great job completing your study session! Now it's time to put your knowledge to the test. Challenge yourself, see how much you've learned, and identify areas for improvement. Don’t worry, this is all part of the journey to mastery. Ready for the next step? Take a quiz to solidify what you've just studied.

Take a Test