Monday: Legal Aptitude at High Altitude
Directions: Kindly read the given information carefully and answer the question that follows.
1. Principles: (1) Any person may use reasonable force in order to protect his property or person.
(2) However, the force employed must be proportionate to the apprehended danger.
Facts: Krishna was walking on a lonely road. Maniyan came with a knife and said to Krishna, "Your life or your purse". Krishna pulled out his revolver. On seeing it, Maniyan ran. Krishna shot Maniyan in his legs. Decide. (NLS 1990)
A. Krishna will not be punished, as there was danger to his property.
B. Krishna will not be punished, as the force he used was proportionate to the apprehended injury.
C. Krishna will be punished, as the force employed was disproportionate to the apprehended injury.
D. As Maniyan ran to escape there was no longer a threat to Krishna's property. So Krishna will be punished.
2. Principles 1: Any person who interferes with the discharge of duties by a public servant is liable for punishment.
Principles 2: Nothing is an offence if the person who committed it was winnable to appreciate the consequences of his act, due to intoxication, provided such intoxication was administered against his will and without his consent. (NLS 1990)
Facts: Krishna got drunk of his own volition and on his way back home he assaulted a policeman. He is prosecuted for intimidating a public servant.
Is Mr. Krishna liable for punishment"?
A. Yes, Krishna is liable for punishment as he assaulted a policeman.
B. No, Krishna is not liable for punishment as he was drunk.
C. Yes, Krishna is liable for punishment as he got drunk of his own volition
D. None of the above
3. Principle: Whoever, intending to take dishonestly any property out of the possession of another person, moves that property for such taking, is said to commit theft.
Facts: Suresh went into the house of his friend Ramesh to discuss some important matter. Since Ramesh was not at home, Suresh waited for him in the latter's drawing room. When Ramesh did not turn up, Suresh took out a pen from Ramesh's table and wrote down a message and went home. While going back, by force of habit, he just dropped the pen into the pocket. Subsequently, he forgot about it. Since the pen happened to be very valuable one, Ramesh complained to the police and the police traced the pen in Suresh's house. Is Suresh liable for theft? (NLSIU-1994)
A. Suresh committed theft, because he took the pen without Ramesh's consent.
B. Suresh committed theft, because he failed to return the pen.
C. Suresh did not commit theft, because he did not have dishonest intention.
D. Suresh is not liable for theft but for Criminal Breach of Trust.
4. Principle: A person commits cheating, when he fraudulently induces another person to deliver the latter's property to him.
Facts: A falsely represented to B, a shop-owner that he was an officer from the Sales Tax Department. In the course of going through the vouchers, A expressed his interest to buy, a costly television on installment basis. B readily agreed hoping that he would get a favorable assessment from A regarding his tax liability. A paid the first installment and took the T.V. and disappeared. The police somehow managed to arrest him and sought to prosecute 'A' for cheating. Decide. (NLSIU-1995)
A. A committed cheating, because he induced B to part with the TV, posing himself as a sales-tax officer.
B. A committed cheating, because he did not pay the subsequent installment.
C. A did not commit cheating, because B handed over the T.V. to him in order to get favorable assessment.
D. A commits the offence of Criminal Misappropriation.
5. Principle: Nothing is an offence which is done by a child under seven years of age.
Facts: A, a child born on January 01, 2005 killed another child B on December 30, 2011.
A. A has committed no offence.
B. A has committed the offence as it is heinous crime.
C. Killing of one child by another child is not an offence.
D. A has not committed the offence for on the date of killing of B, A was a minor.
1. The force employed was way more than the danger level as Maniyan started to run away from Krishna. As the threat was reduced and was continuously reducing, there was no need to shoot Maniyan in the Legs. Hence, option C is correct.
2. The Defense of Intoxication is available in the Indian Penal Code when the said state is not caused by voluntary Act. Krishna Drunk on his volition and hence his Act is punishable. Hence, option C is correct.
3. Dishonest intention is clearly absent from the Act of Suresh. Without Dishonest intention, the act of Theft does not take place. Hence, Suresh is not liable. Hence, option C is correct.
4. Firstly, A falsely impersonated as a Sales Tax officer to buy a television and secondly, he fraudulently induced B to sell that to him. He is liable for cheating. Hence, option A is correct.
5. The child of less than 7 years can commit no crime has been taken from the doctrine ‘Doli Incapax’ which means Not capable of committing a crime. Since facts clearly mention that A was less than 7 years of age, he is not culpable of any crime. Hence, option A is correct.