---

---

Diagnostic Mock Test on CLAT Pattern

---

---

SECTION III: LEGAL APTITUDE

 

111. Principle: “Volenti non fit injuria”, means that a person has no legal remedy for

the injury caused by an act to which he has consented.

Facts: An old man in his 70s was walking in a narrow one-way lane in the opposite direction. It was late in the evening and there was no street lighting. A car moving in right direction but without headlights knocked him down since the driver could not see him nor could the old man see the approaching car. He filed a suit against the driver.

(a) He would lose, because he violated the traffic rules in the first instance by walking in the wrong direction.

(b) He would lose, because he voluntarily exposed himself to risks.

(c) The driver would lose, because he drove without proper headlights and did not take necessary care while driving the car.

(d) None of the above.

112. Principle 1: Employer’s liability is concerned with the employer’s personal duty in

respect of the physical safety of his employees.

Principle 2: Employer’s liability is absolute.

Facts: A was employed by B for mining work. A was killed during a mining accident. B had delegated this duty by entrusting mine safety to a manager. Who will be liable for the death of A?

(a) Manager will be liable.

(b) B and Manager both will be liable. (c) B will be liable.

(d) No one will be liable for the death of A.

113. Principle: Employers’ has a duty to provide adequate plant and equipment to its

employees.

Facts: X was an employee of Z. X lost his eyesight when a tool supplied by Z split and a chip flew into his eye. Z purchased the tool from a reputable supplier and there was no means of discovering the defect by inspection. Who is liable to

compensate X?

(a) Supplier of the tool is liable since he provided defective tools to Z. (b) Z is liable since it provided defective tools to X.

(c) No one will be liable since Z fulfilled his duty of care. (d) None of the above.

114. Principle: A person has no remedy against an injury caused by an act to which he has consented.

Fact: Ninad was in a hurry to get to the railway station to catch the Delhi bound train and he hired a taxi run by Mast Bread Taxi Company, well known in city. Ninad asked the driver to drive fast, in a bid not to miss the train. In the city zone, there was a speed limit of 110 km per hour and the driver, rather reluctantly, drove quite fast at times 100 km per hour in his pursuit to reach the station in time. As a result of the fast driving, the driver lost control and hit a truck parked outside a mill and Ninad was badly injured. Ninad filed a suit against the taxi company.

(a) The Mast Bread Taxi Company would not be liable since Ninad asked the driver to drive fast.

(b) The Mast Bread Taxi Company would be liable, because the driver ought not to have exceeded the speed limit.

(c) The Mast  Bread Taxi Company would be liable,  because the request  of

“driving fast” does not mean consent to negligence.

(d) None of the above.

115. Principle: A person is entitled to use reasonable force for self-defence.

Fact: Praveer was living in a farmhouse at Lonavala with his family members. One night, a group of robbers broke open the door of the house and there was scuffle between the intruders and the residents. Praveer took out his licensed pistol and fired a shot at one of the intruders. The shot did not hit the target and the robbers ran out of the house and by that time, the neighbours gathered in front of Praveer’s farmhouse. Praveer in a fit of anger came out of the house with his pistol and fired at fleeing robbers who by that time mingled with the neighbours. The shot injured a robber and he filed a suit against Praveer.

(a) Praveer is not liable, since his action was in continuation of self-defence.

(b) Praveer is liable, because he should have realised that the robbers have left the scene and there was no further harm to anyone from the robbers. Praveer is liable, because the action was in not in self-defence but was due to his anger.

(c) Praveer is not liable since his act was for the betterment of society.

(d) None of the above.

116. Principle 1: If a person suffers mere damage but no legal injury, he is not entitled to any legal remedy.

Principle 2: Any person who has been arrested by the police must be produced before a Judicial Magistrate within 24 hours of the arrest.

Facts: David was once suspected by police to be part of a gang of mafia. On

18May 2014 there was a theft in the locality and the police suspected him to be involved in the crime. He was picked up by the police and tortured in the custody for several days to obtain information and eventually released. Can he sue the responsible police officers?

(a) No, he has suffered actual injury but no legal injury.

(b) This is not a case where tort law is applicable, therefore, he cannot recover any damages.

(c) He can recover damages as he has suffered legal injury.

(d) None of these.

117. Principle:  Employer is liable for the act of his servant during the course of employment.

Facts: A, driver of B was asked to directly go home after dropping B at airport. While returning back from the airport, A knocks down C while driving the car. C files a suit.

(a) A and B both will be liable.     (b) A only will be liable.

(c) B only will be liable.              (d) None of the above.

118. Principle: Nuisance is an unlawful interference with a person’s enjoyment of land

or some rights over or in connection with it.

Facts: Mario has three pet dogs. One of the three entered into the paddy fields of Desie and caused destruction of property. Will anyone be liable for the damage caused to Desie?

(a) Yes, the city’s municipal corporation will be liable.

(b) Yes, Mario will be liable.

(c) Yes, Desie will be liable for the damage caused.

(d) None will be liable for the damage as it was caused by an animal.

119. Principle: Trespass to property refers to an unjustifiable physical encroachment of land of one person by another.

Facts: Ali has a huge and beautiful farmhouse near Kandhala. Ben was a tourist at the place and used his camera to view the activities happening inside the house. Ali sued Ben for trespass to property.

(a) Ali will win the case as Ben’s act amounts to trespass.

(b) Ali will lose since Ben’s interference did not affect Ali’s right to enjoy his property.

(c) None of the above.

(d) Ali will lose.

120. Principle: “Volenti non fit injuria”, means that a person has no legal remedy for

the injury caused by an act to which he has consented.

Facts: A cricket match is being held at Doo’cot park. A man was unable to buy a ticket to view the exciting cricket match, so he climbs up a tree just outside the park. He positions himself perfectly to view the action. When a hard hitting batsman smashed the ball over the boundary, the ball landed outside the park. The landing point was just beside Aman. Fearing that he might get hit from the incoming ball, Aman tries to move and falls down from the tree top and sustains injury on his backbone due to fall from the tree. Who will be liable to compensate Aman?

(a) The organisers and park owners are liable to compensate Aman.

(b) The  batsman  who  smashed  the  particular  ball  is  liable  along  with  the organisers, but the stadium owner is not responsible.

(c) The batsman is only liable to compensate Aman.

(d) No one is liable to compensate Aman.

121. Principle:  There shall be separation of powers  between the  legislature,  the executive and the judiciary.

Facts: The government has enacted a new law to regulate corporate and commercial activities in the country. Under the new enactment, the tribunal for companies has been created. The tribunal will be staffed and regulated by the Ministry of Corporate Affairs and will be a court of first instance for all disputes under the new enactment. Appeals lie to the High Court and subsequently to the Supreme Court. Will the creation of the tribunal be challenged?

(a) No. The executive is merely sharing the judicial functions.

(b) Yes. The executive is taking on judicial functions.

(c) No. Final oversight  remains  with the  judiciary,  and  the judiciary function, though exercised by the executive, is still controlled by the judiciary.

(d) Yes. The legislature is taking on judicial functions.

122. Principle: Right to equality is a fundamental right under the Indian Constitution.

Facts: Harish scored poorly in Class XII Board exams, and is consequently not able to get into the college of his choice at Delhi University. He goes to the Delhi High Court and argues that he is being discriminated on the basis of his marks. Will his argument be taken into consideration?

(a) Yes. This is against his fundamental right.

(b) No. There is no fundamental right against educational institutions.

(c) No. Equality does not imply that everybody will be equal, irrespective of their performance. It means equality among equals.

(d) Yes. He has freedom to choose his educational institution and no one can restrict his right.

123. Principle: An act which causes death amounts to murder if it was done with the intention of causing death, or if it was done with the intention of causing such bodily injury as the offender knows to be likely to cause the death of the injured person, or if it was done with the intention of causing such bodily injury to any person as is sufficient in the ordinary course of nature to cause death, or was an act so imminently dangerous that the actor must have known that it would, in all probability, cause death or bodily injury to cause death.

Facts: Fanny shoots Banny in the head. Has Fanny committed murder?

(a) Yes. Fanny committed an act so dangerous that he would have known that would, in all probability, cause death.

(b) Yes. Fanny indented to cause bodily injury sufficient in the ordinary course of nature to cause death.

(c) Yes. Fanny intended to kill Banny.

(d) Yes. Fanny intended to cause bodily injury likely to cause the death of Banny.

124. Principle: An act which causes death amounts to murder if it was done with the intention of causing death, or if it was done with the intention of causing such bodily injury as the offender knows to be likely to cause the death of the injured person, or if it was done with the intention of causing such bodily injury to any person as is sufficient in the ordinary course of nature to cause death, or was an act so imminently dangerous that the actor must have known that it would, in all probability,  cause death  or  bodily injury to cause death.  Provocation by the deceased can be a defence to murder.

Facts: Darren was playing chess with Colin, David’s son. David intervened in the middle and provokes Darren to an extreme level. In order to take revenge, Darren killed Colin. Has he murdered Colin?

(a) Yes. His actions have resulted in the death of Colin.

(b) Yes. Even if he was provoked, he was provoked by David’s actions, and that cannot be a defence for killing Colin as Colin had nothing to do with provocation.

(c) No. He was provoked.

(d) None of the above.

125. Principle: Negligence is a tort. Negligence involves the breach of a reasonable duty of care causing injury to the victim.

Facts: Kim went to a local clinic for regular check up. The doctor while check up used an injection which was already used once, without the knowledge that injections are only used once and not reusable. Kim suffered from a dangerous disease due to the use of the injection. Is the doctor responsible for negligence?

(a) Yes. Every doctor, no matter where he is working has the responsibility to have expert knowledge. Use of already used injection, constitute a breach of a reasonable duty of care.

(b) No. This lack of knowledge is expected from a local clinic.

(c) Yes. The doctor has caused injury to Kim.

(d) No. There is no duty of care from the doctor with regards to use of injections.

126. Principle: Whosoever causes death by doing an act with the intention of causing death, or with the intention of causing such bodily injury as is likely to cause death, or with the knowledge that he is likely by such act to cause death, commits the offence of culpable homicide. Culpable homicide amounts to murder if the act is one which causes bodily injury such that the actor knows it to be sufficient to cause the death of the injured person, or is sufficient to cause the death of the injured person, or is sufficient in the ordinary course of nature to cause death, or is so dangerous that it must, in all probability, cause death.

Facts: Gauri repeatedly stabs Bani with a knife. Bani dies due to the wounds suffered. Gauri can be convicted for the offence of:

(a) Murder

(b) Culpable homicide

(c) Both culpable homicide and murder

(d) Neither culpable homicide nor murder

127. Principle: Whosoever causes death by doing an act with the intention of causing death, or with the intention of causing such bodily injury as is likely to cause death, or with the knowledge that he is likely by such act to cause death, commits the offence of culpable homicide. Culpable homicide amounts to murder if the act is one which causes bodily injury such that the actor knows it to be sufficient to cause the death of the injured person, or is sufficient to cause the death of the injured person, or is sufficient in the ordinary course of nature to cause death, or is so dangerous that it must, in all probability, cause death.

Facts: Kushal shouts “Six” inside a crowded auditorium. Due to sudden panic, several people died in a stampede caused. Kushal can be convicted for the offence of:

(a) Murder

(b) Culpable homicide

(c) Both culpable homicide and murder

(d) Neither culpable homicide nor murder

128. Principle: Nothing is an offence which is done by accident or misfortune, and without any criminal intention or knowledge in the doing of a lawful act in a lawful manner by lawful means and with proper care and caution.

Facts: Smith was working in a wine manufacturing company. He was in-charge of bottling section. Sandhu was one of the workers in the same area. While working with the bottles, Smith left a cracked bottled in the machine unattended. The same cracked bottled caused a cut in the hand of Sandu and blood flowed profusely. Has Smith committed a crime?

(a) Yes.                                 (b) No.

(c) Cannot be determined.       (d) None of the above.

129. Principle: Nothing is an offence which is done by accident or misfortune, and without any criminal intention or knowledge in the doing of a lawful act in a lawful manner by lawful means and with proper care and caution.

Facts: Watson is at work with a sharp hatchet. While in the course of work, the head flies off and kills a man who was standing by. Has Watson committed a crime?

(a) Yes.

(b) No.

(c) Only if the hatchet was sharp.

(d) Cannot be determined.

130. Principle: Negligence is a tort. Negligence involves the breach of a reasonable duty of care causing injury to the victim.

Facts:  Shami was the owner of an oil company. He discharged oil into the Sydney Harbour. It eventually ignited, causing a large and damaging fire, when rubbish  floating  on  the  oil  was  ignited  by sparks  from  a  welding  operation. Welding operation was done by Kunal. Can anyone be held liable for the damage caused due to the fire?

(a) Yes. Shami is only liable as discharging oil into the Sydney Harbour was breach of reasonable duty.

(b) Yes. Kunal is only liable as welding operation was perfomed by him which ignited the fire.

(c) Yes. Both Shami and Kunal are jointly liable.

(d) No. Though they have been negligent, they did not directly ignite the fire.

131. Principle: Negligence is a tort. Negligence involves the breach of a reasonable duty of care causing injury to the victim.

Facts: Salma was hit by a cricket ball hit over a fence and into the road where

she was standing. Can the cricket club be held liable for the damage caused to

Salma?

(a) Yes. The cricket club should have prepared high fence to stop the ball from going out.

(b) No. The cricket club has not breached the duty of care owed to her, owing to the  unforeseeability of  such  an  accident  combined  with  the  high  cost  of avoiding it.

(c) No. This is an act of god.

(d) Yes. The cricket club has breached the duty of care owed to Salma.

132. Principle: Whoever intending to take dishonestly any moveable property out of the possession of any person without that person’s consent, moves that property in order to such taking, is said to commit theft.

Facts: Pujara and Jadeja are farmers. Their farms adjoin each other and the adjoining areas are heavily forested on three sides and a huge lake on the other side. Pujara seeks to encroach upon Jadeja’s land and claims that several of the trees originally in Jadeja’s land are actually in his farm and attempts to cut them but gets caught while cutting. Has Pujara stolen Jadeja’s trees?

(a) No. The property is still immovable.

(b) No. The trees have not been removed from Jadeja’s possession.

(c) Yes. Pujara has dishonest intent.

(d) Yes. Pujara has moved property belonging to Jadeja without his consent.

133. Principle: Whoever intending to take dishonestly any moveable property out of the possession of any person without that person’s consent, moves that property in order to such taking, is said to commit theft. Nothing is an offence which is done by a child above 7 years of age and under 12, who has not attained sufficient maturity.

Facts: Arbaaz is a nine year old boy who is jealous of his friend Roger’s many toys. One fine day, while playing at Roger’s house, he steals one of Roger’s smaller toys. Has he committed theft?

(a) Yes.

(b) No.

(c) Only if Roger was really attached to the small toy.

(d) Cannot be determined.

134. Principle: An act which causes death amounts to murder if it was done with the intention of causing death, or if it was done with the intention of causing such bodily injury as the offender knows to be likely to cause the death of the injured person, or if it was done with the intention of causing such bodily injury to any person as is sufficient in the ordinary course of nature to cause death, or was an

act so imminently dangerous that the actor must have known that it would, in all probability, cause death or bodily injury to cause death.

Facts: Warner pushed Rahul into a swimming pool. There was rod inside the pool. Rahul died as he landed awkwardly on the rod. Has Warner committed murder?

(a) Yes. Warner pushed Rahul without Rahul’s consent.

(b) Yes. Warner is liable even if the push was unintentional and the outcome was unforeseen.

(c) No. Warner is not liable as the push was not intended to kill Rahul and the outcome was unforeseen.

(d) No. Warner is not liable as the rod was placed by someone else.

135. Principle: The tort of false imprisonment consists of preventing any person from moving beyond certain circumscribing limits.

Facts: Krishna places men with firearms at the outlets of a building, and tells Ram that they will fire at Ram if Ram attempts to leave the building. Is Krishna liable for false imprisonment?

(a) No. Ram is free to leave at the risk of being shot.

(b) Yes. Ram has no practical way of leaving.

(c) Yes. Ram would be stupid to try and take on the gunmen.

(d) No. Ram is free to leave if he finds a way of avoiding the gunmen.

​136. Principle: A person has no legal remedy for the injury caused by an act to which he has consented.

​Facts: One foggy evening Dinanath was jogging on the right side of the street. On  the  same  street,  Vijay  was  driving  his  car  without  a  licence  with  the headlamps switched off. Vijay knocked Dinanath down with his car. Dinanath filed a case against Vijay.

(a) Dinanath will win because Vijay did not have driving licence.

(b) Dinanath will win because Vijay was driving without switching the headlamps on.

​(c) Dinanath will not win because he was walking wilfully on the road.

(d) Dinanath will not win because he was walking on the wrong side of the road.

​137. Principle: Accident or loss as a result of working of natural forces like rain, storm, etc. occurrence of which was extraordinary, i.e. not one which could be anticipated and reasonably guarded against, then in such a situation “act of God” defence can be used to dodge liability.

​Facts: Builder A built a wall for B using sub-standard material. Some days later there was mild rainfall as a result of which the wall collapsed and B was injured.

​Which of the following derivations is correct?

​(a) A can take act of god defence as wall collapsed due to rainfall.

(b) A cannot take act of god defence as he was negligent.

(c) A cannot take act of god defence as the rainfall was predictable.

(d) None of the above.

138. Principle: If a person brings on his land and keeps there any dangerous thing i.e. a thing likely to do mischief if it escapes, he will be prima facie answerable for the damage caused by it when it escapes even though he had not been negligent in keeping it there.

Facts: A works in an ammunition factory. While she was performing her duties, a shell exploded and injured her. There was no evidence of negligence on part of the defendant, i.e. B, the factory owner.

Which of the following derivations is correct?

(a) B is not liable as the shell did not leave the factory premises.

(b) B is not liable as shell explosion is one of the hazards of industry about which

A already knows.

(c) B is liable as A was injured in his factory. (d) B is liable because A is poor.

​139. Principle: When a person enters certain premises under authority of law and having entered there, abuses that authority by committing some wrongful act there, he will be considered trespasser ab initio to that property.

​Facts: Six carpenters entered a store to fix a door. After fixing the door they stole some bread from the store and ran away.

​ ​Which of the following derivations is correct?

(a) The carpenters are trespassers ab initio.

(b) The carpenters are not trespassers ab initio.

(c) Store owner has to decide if carpenters are liable.

(d) None of the above.

140. Principle: Causing of damage, however substantial, to another person is not actionable in law unless there is also violation of legal right of the person who is harmed.

Facts: A created a film named “Santoshi Maa is best”. B said that the film hurt his religious sentiments.

Which of the following derivations is correct?

(a) A is liable to pay damage because B’s right to life is violated.

(b) A is liable to pay damage because B’s right to practice religion has been

violated.

(c) A is not liable because B is free to not watch the movie.

(d) A is not liable as the right to enforce religious views is not a legal right.

141. Principle: When a person consents to the infliction of some harm upon himself he has no remedy for that in tort. Consent to suffer harm can be express or implied.  Consent obtained as a result  of fraud is  invalid.  But if  the mistake induced by fraud is not such which goes to the real nature of the act done, then it cannot be considered to be an element as vitiating the consent.

Facts:  A’s  husband  B  infected  her  with  a  venereal  disease  during  sexual intercourse. B hid the fact that he had the venereal disease.

Which of the following derivations is correct?

(a) B is liable as he obtained consent for intercourse fraudulently.

(b) B is not liable as the wife was fully aware of the nature of act.

(c) B is liable as he threatened his wife’s life.

(d) None of the above.

142. Principle: When one person (principal)authorises another (agent) to commit a tort the liability of that will not only be of that person who has committed it but also of the person who has authorised it.

Facts: B is employee of State Bank of India. A is B’s friend. While attending a get together A gave B some money to deposit in A’s bank account in the State Bank of India. B bought himself a car with that money and fled.

Which of the following derivations is correct?

(a) Bank is liable as B is its agent.

(b) Bank is liable as A is B’s friend and B is bank’s employee.

(c) Bank not liable as B did not accept money in capacity of bank’s agent.

(d) Bank is not liable as B was not in bank premises when he accepted the money.

143. Principle: As a general rule the master is liable for the torts committed by his servant, but an employer is not liable for torts committed by an independent contractor employed by him. But there are certain exceptions to this rule. If an employer authorises the doing of an illegal act, or subsequently ratifies the same he can be made liable for the same;also in case of strict liability and breach of statutory duty, the employer is also liable.

Facts: In a temple, the chief trustee called upon an electric contractor to illegally divert the electric supply given for agricultural purpose, to the temple for one month, for providing facility of lighting and mike in the temple. The job was executed in a palpably obvious hazardous manner, and without informing the electricity board. After about a fortnight, the service line was snapped and the agriculturist working on the fields got injured.

Which of the following derivations is correct?

(a) Trustee is not liable as he got the work done by independent contractor.

(b) Trustee is liable as the job authorised by him was illegal.

(c) Trustee is liable because this is a case of strict liability.

(d) None of these.

144. Principle: In an action for negligence, the plaintiff has to prove some essential ingredients. The defendant should owe a duty of care to the plaintiff, the defendant should breach that duty and there should be some damage to the plaintiff as a consequence of the breach.

Facts: A and B go to a restaurant. After a few drinks, A and B got into an argument. A said, “Go to hell.”A left to use the rest room, and while he was gone, B noticed that another patron, C, left a lit cigarette on A’s stool. When A came back from the rest room, B thought about warning A, but B decided against it. A sat on the lit cigarette and received painful burns. A sued B for negligence.

Which of the following derivations is correct?

(a) A cannot recover because he cannot establish that B had a duty to  act, and duty is a necessary element of a negligence case.

(b) A cannot recover because he cannot establish that B’s failure to warn A of the

cigarette butt is a cause of A’s injury, and actual causation is a necessary

element of a negligence case.

(c) A cannot recover because he cannot establish damages flowing from having sat on the cigarette, since merely “painful” injuries are not sufficient to establish damages in a negligence case.

(d) None of these.

145. Principle: A mere non-disclosure of truth or mere silence as to certain facts does not amount to fraud.

Facts: Ram, who was a candidate for the LL B exam, was short of required attendance. He did not mention this fact in examination form filled by him. To be on the safer side he bribed a clerk to get his attendance increased. The clerk accepted the bribe but did nothing. Later due to negligence on part of college the examination forms were not checked properly and Ram was allowed to give exam.

Which of the following derivations is correct?

(a) Ram has committed fraud as he bribed the clerk.

(b) Ram’s intention was to mislead college authorities and thus is guilty of fraud.

(c) Ram is not guilty of fraud.

(d) None of the above.

146. Principle: For there to be a case of misstatement the defendant must make the representation with an intention that the plaintiff should rely and act upon that

representation.

Facts: Fraudlal tried to sell a gun to A saying that the gun was manufactured by Lockheed Martin and could shoot down satellites. A was quite impressed and said that he had heard the same. B overheard this conversation. B went and bought the same product from another store at a lower price. When B tried to shoot the gun it back fired and injured his eyes. B sued Fraudlal.

Which of the following derivations is correct?

(a) Fraudlal is liable as he made false claims which could have harmed anyone.

(b) Fraudlal’s statement was not meant for B so he is not liable.

(c) Fraudlal is liable because he and A conspired to sell the gun to B and staged the conversation.

None of these.

147. Principle: Nuisance as a tort means an unlawful interference with a person’s use or enjoyment of land, or some right over, or in connection, with it. Interference may be by the way of noise, heat, smoke, etc. Otherwise lawful activity can become nuisance just because of malicious intention of defendant. Nuisance is generally a continuing harm, i.e. a constant noise or smoke causing discomfort.

Facts: A, a music teacher,was B’s neighbour. A used to constantly play drums which annoyed B. To make A pay, B started hammering his wall and played loud music whenever A took music lessons. In a totally unrelated incident once while playing cricket in his garden A hit a ball which landed on B’s head while he was reading newspaper in his garden.

Which of the following derivations is correct?

(a) A is liable for nuisance.

(b) B is liable for nuisance.

(c) A and B both are liable for nuisance.

(d) Both A and B are not liable.

148. Principle: When plaintiff on his own want of care contributes to damage caused by the negligence of the defendant, he is considered guilty of contributory negligence. The plaintiff should take reasonable steps for his safety.

Facts: When Sushma was travelling by bus she rested her arm on the window sill. A truck coming from the opposite side drove dangerously close to the bus and injured Sushma’s arm.

Which of the following derivations is correct?

(a) Sushma is guilty of contributory negligence as she was resting her elbow on the sill instead of sitting properly.

(b) Truck driver is guilty as he was negligent.

(c) Truck driver is the only one guilty as Sushma took reasonable care.

(d) None of above.

149. Principle:  Animals  like  horses,  camels,  cows,  dogs,  etc.  are  considered harmless by nature and the person keeping them is not liable for damage done by them unless it can be proved that the particular animal is vicious by nature and person owning him has knowledge of the same.

Facts: A was training his dog to fetch a ball, in a parking lot. B entered the parking lot and proceeded towards his car. B was carrying a bag of meat with him. When the dog sensed the smell of meat he ran towards B and started circling him  playfully while eyeing the package. B feared dogs. Acts of the dog freighted B and he threw his package at the dog and fled the spot. B sued A for loss of his package.

(a) A is liable as he knew that meat would attract dog but did not restrain his dog.

(b) A is not liable as B caused his loss due to his own fear.

(c) A is not liable because dog did acts apt to its nature and caused no direct harm.

(d) None of the above.

150. Principle: If the consequence of a wrongful act can be foreseen by a reasonable person, they are not too remote. If, on other hand, a reasonable man would not have foreseen the consequences then they are remote. The liability of the defendant is only for those consequences which he could have foreseen.

Facts:  A, an employee of BSNL, opened a manhole to do routine repair of telephone line. While the manhole was open a tent was laid on top of it and paraffin lamps were put around to warn pedestrians of the danger. A child playing nearby entered the dark tent carrying a lamp. The lamp fell in the hole which caused a large explosion when the lamp fell on a leaking LPG pipeline in the hole. Due to the explosion the child fell in the manhole and sustained severe burns. The explosion also caused damage to a shop adjacent to manhole.

(a) A is liable for injury caused to child as it was foreseeable that a child could wander into the dark tent and thus carry a lamp with him which could cause fire.

(b) A was responsible for the explosion and the injury caused to the child and

damage to the shop as the explosion was predictable.

(c) A was not liable as the event could not be foreseen by a reasonable man.

(d) A was liable because he was negligent.

151. Principle: Defamation is injury to the reputation of a person. For defamation to be there a defamatory statement must be made by the defendant. The statement must refer to the plaintiff and the statement must be published i.e. must be in public domain.

Facts: A railway guard was checking tickets in a railway compartment. While

checking A’s ticket, the railway guard became suspicious and said, “I think you are travelling with false ticket.” This was said in presence of all passengers. Later it was found that the ticket was in order. A sued railway company for defamation.

Which of the following derivations is correct?

(a) Company is not liable as guard acted in a bona fide manner while performing his duty and according to circumstances of the case, actions taken by guard were not defamatory.

(b) Company is not liable as guard acted on his own accord.

(c) Company is liable as the given statement injured A’s reputation.

(d) Company is liable because the statement was defamatory, it referred to the plaintiff and was published.

152. Principle: Ignorance of law is not an excuse.

Facts: A person buys two houses facing each other in a residential colony which has  total  four  entries.  For  his  convenience  he  constructs  parking  space  in between his houses on the road which blocks one entry of the colony and parks his vehicle. In a foggy night a person gets injured because of low visibility while entering from that entry. Injured person files a case against the parking owner. Determine whether the parking owner is guilty or not?

(a) He is not guilty because he owns two houses in the colony.

(b) He is not guilty because he does not know about any violating law. (c) He is guilty for blocking easement of others.

(d) None of the above.

153. Principle: The criminal intent in order to be punishable must become manifest in some voluntary act or omission.

Facts: Suresh and Mahesh are brothers and they had an oral fight after which Mahesh threatened to commit suicide and jumped from a tall building and died. Is Suresh guilty?

(a) Guilty of abetment.

(b) Not guilty.

(c) Guilty of culpable homicide not amounting to murder.

(d) None of the above.

154. Principle: When a criminal act is done by several persons in furtherance of common intention of all, each of such persons is liable for that act in the same manner as if it were done by him alone. The reason why all are deemed guilty in such cases is that the presence of accomplices gives encouragement, support and protection to the person actually committing an act.

Facts: Four persons entered a bank with a common intention of robbery out of

which one was made to guard the entrance door from outside. One of them killed the cashier and they left the bank from emergency door. The person who was guarding  the  door  was  caught.  Determine  the  correct  option  in  light  of  the principle given above.

(a) Only the person who fired the gun is guilty of murder.

(b) The person guarding the door is not guilty of murder.

(c) All of them are guilty of murder.

(d) None of them are guilty of murder.

155. Principle: Any person intending to take dishonestly any moveable property out of the possession of any person without that person’s consent, moves that property in order to such taking, is said to commit theft.

Facts: Raman sees a diamond ring lying on a table at Abhishek’s house. Raman with the intention of misappropriating the ring at a later point of time hides it behind a painting in Abhishek’s house where it is highly improbable to be searched by anyone.

(a) Raman  has  not  committed  theft  because  he  has  not  removed  it  from

Abhishek’s house yet.

(b) Raman has not committed theft because he has not derived any profit from the ring.

(c) Raman  has  committed  theft  because  he  moved  the  ring  with  dishonest intention.

(d) Both (a) and (b).

156. Principle: Nothing is an offence which is done in the exercise of the right of private defence as defined under the Indian Penal Code, 1860. Right to private defence is not available in case the party claiming the right had time to recourse to proper authorities.

Facts: Raman threatened Siddharth to vacate his farmland in a week. The next day Raman comes along with some other men and tries to take the land by force. A fighting ensues in which Siddharth intentionally shoots Raman and kills him.

(a) Siddharth is not guilty of murder because of his right of private defence.

(b) Siddharth is guilty of murder.

(c) Siddharth is guilty of culpable homicide.

(d) None of the above.

157. Principle: Marrying again during lifetime of husband or wife is bigamy and is punishable under Indian law.

Facts: Nitin was the captain of a merchant ship which went missing along with its crew in 1991. His wife Shilpa remarried in 2000 to Arunesh.

(a) Shilpa is not guilty because she reasonably believed her husband to be dead.

(b) Shilpa’s second marriage would be void ab initio.

(c) Shilpa is guilty of bigamy because she did not attain divorce from her first marriage.

(d) Both (b) and (c).

158. Principle: The object of criminal law is to punish only serious infractions of the rules of society, it follows that criminal law cannot punish a man for his mistake or misfortune as long as he reasonably believes that his act poses no threat of injury. An injury is said to be caused accidentally when it is neither wilfully nor negligently caused.

Facts: A was disposing heavy waste material from his rooftop on the adjacent empty plot. Z passing from that plot got hit by the heavy material and died.

(a) A is guilty of culpable homicide.

(b) A is not guilty because it was an accident.

(c) A is guilty because he did not exercise due care and caution. (d) Both (a) and (c).

159. Principle: Involuntary intoxication is a defence under the Indian Penal Code,

1860.

Facts: Vinayak, on returning home from a party, under drunken state administered sleeping pills to his child thinking it to be child’s medicine because he could not differentiate between the two due to near identical packing, which resulted in death of the child.

(a) Vinayak is guilty of murder.

(b) Vinayak is guilty of culpable homicide.

(c) Vinayak is not guilty because he was intoxicated.

(d) Vinayak is not guilty due to absence of mens rea.

160. Principle: Defamation is an offence where a person, by words either spoken or intended to be read or by signs, makes or publishes any false statement about someone with an intention to tarnish his image in public but any accusation preferred in good faith for public good is an exception to defamation.

Facts: A, on being asked for a bribe by a clerk in District Magistrate office, got a letter published in the newspaper accusing the District Magistrate of being involved in corrupt practices.

(a) A is guilty because the reputation of District Magistrate is a matter of public good.

(b) A is not guilty because mistake of fact is an excuse.

(c) A is guilty because the accusation was not made to an authorised person.

(d) A is not guilty because the accusation was made with bona fide intentions.

 

ANSWERS AND EXPLANATIONS

1. (b)                           2. (c)

3. (d)                           4. (c)

5. (c)                           6. (a)

7. (b)                           8. (b)

9. (c)                          10. (d)

11. (d)                         12. (b)

13. (a)                          14. (b)

15. (d)                         16. (c)

17. (a)                         18. (b)

19. (c)                         20. (b)

21. (a)                         22. (b)

23. (d)                         24. (d)

25. (c)                         26. (b)

27. (d)                         28. (a)

29. (d)                         30. (c)

31. (c)                         32. (b)

33. (b)                         34. (d)

35. (d)                         36. (a)

37. (b)                         38. (b)

39. (b)                         40. (c)

41. (c)                         42. (b)

43. (b)                         44. (d)

45. (a)                         46. (d)

47. (a)                         48. (c)

49. (d)                         50. (c)

51. (a)                         52. (a)

53. (c)                         54. (b)

55. (b)                         56. (c)

57. (a)                         58. (a)

59. (c)                         60. (a)

61. (a)                         62. (d)

63. (b)                         64. (c)

65. (c)                         66. (a)

<