Advertisements
Advertisements
प्रश्न
Consists of legal proposition(s)/ principle(s) (hereinafter referred to as 'principle') and facts. Such principles may or may not be true in the real and legal sense, yet you have to conclusively assume them to be true for the purposes of this Section. In other words, in answering these questions, you must not rely on any principle except the principles that are given herein below for every question.
Further, you must not assume any facts other than those stated in the question. The objective of this section is to test your interest in the study of law, research aptitude, and problem-solving ability, even if the 'most reasonable conclusion' arrived at may be absurd or unacceptable for any other reason. It is not the objective of this section to test your knowledge of the law.
Therefore, to answer a question, the principle is to be applied to the given facts and to choose the most appropriate option.
Principle: Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code provides that ‘When a criminal act is done by several persons in furtherance of the 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.’
Facts: Three vagabonds, Sanju, Dilbag, and Sushil decided to commit burglary. In the night, Sushil opened the lock and they broke into a rich man’s house when the entire family was on a pilgrimage. Sanju had gone to that house earlier in connection with some cleaning job. Ther e was only a servant lady in the house. Hearing some sounds from the master bedroom, the servant switched on the lights and went up to the room from where she heard the sound. Noticing that the servant was going to cry for help, Sanju grabbed her and covered her mouth with his hands and dragged her into the nearby room. The other two were collecting whatever they could from the room. When they were ready to go out of the house, they looked for Sanju and found him committing rape on the servant. They all left the house and the servant reported the matter to the police and identified Sanju. Subsequently, all three were arrested in connection with the offences of housebreaking, burglary, and rape. Identify the legal liability of the three.
विकल्प
All three are liable for all the offences as there was a common intention to commit the crimes.
Sanju will be liable only for housebreaking and rape as he did not participate in the burglary.
Only Dilbag and Sushil are liable for burglary in looting the house, and all three will be liable for housebreaking and rape as they did not stop Sanju from committing the offence and hence were an accomplice to the offence.
Only Sanju will be liable for rape as he was the one who actually committed the offence.
उत्तर
Only Sanju will be liable for rape as he was the one who actually committed the offence.
Explanation:
Only Sanju will be liable for rape as he was the one who actually committed the offence. Sanju, Dilbag, and Sushil together decided to commit burglary and would hence be together charged for burglary, and as it was only Sanju who was committing the act of rape and only he will be charged under it. (Durga Prasad @ Bablu vs State on 28 August, 2009)
APPEARS IN
संबंधित प्रश्न
Direction: The passage given below is followed by a set of question. Choose the most appropriate answer to each question.
On May 14, the Ministry of Home Affairs issued a Request for Proposal (RFP) to select a private agency for creating a National Database of Sexual Offenders for India. The said RFP states that the purpose of establishing the database of sex offenders is to help in the early detection and prevention of crime against women, arrests of persons accused of criminal offences and to keep a watch on habitual offenders. Media reports suggest that the public will have access to the details regarding convicted sex offenders and law enforcement officials will have access to data about persons on trial for sexual offences. This registry seems to be one more knee-jerk and populist reaction to the problem of sexual violence against women and children in India.
The ministry seems to have launched this initiative without analysing the evidence on the limited efficacy of such registries in other jurisdictions in reducing rates of repeat offending and without examining its appropriateness in the Indian context. Various states in the US have had such publicly accessible registries for around 28 years and multiple studies have shown that they have limited public safety benefits and significant social costs. Sex offender registries are predicated on the assumption that convicted sex offenders have a high likelihood of committing offences after serving their sentences. This assumption is not borne out by data. In India, the percentage of recidivism among arrested persons according to data collected by the National Crime Records Bureau (NCRB) for 2016 is only 6.4%.
The registry is being proposed in response to widely-reported horrific incidents of rape. The logic seems to be that if the police have a list of offenders living in the area, investigation becomes simpler and people, especially parents, can be more vigilant if they are aware of offenders living around them. However in India, as per the NCRB data for 2016, in 94.6% of reported cases of rape against women and children, the perpetrator is known to the victim. Such a registry offers little protection from such offenders. In fact, the fear of the offender being included in the registry may exacerbate the problem of underreporting by making people apprehensive about reporting sexual violence involving family members and acquaintances.
Once the general public has unfettered access to data about sex offenders online, it can open a Pandora's Box. The fears of offenders being ostracised and vilified become very real. Among a host of foreseeable problems, they will find it particularly tough to find employment or housing. India has already witnessed cases of lynchings of people suspected to be child kidnappers. It is not paranoid to expect the public reaction to convicted offenders to be much worse. Once offenders are pushed into the margins, their access to treatment, supervision and support systems becomes diminished, which may be quite counterproductive. If the state imposes restrictions on where such offenders can live, the housing crisis they will face will be exacerbated. They may become homeless or be compelled to live in areas far from home where they may face less scrutiny. The stigma and ostracisation that such offenders will face will invariably extend to their families. Studies in the US have shown that a combination of social ostracisation, lack of psychiatric support and the inability to find a job or housing, can even increase chances of recidivism; thus, defeating the very purpose of the registry. In such circumstances, registration in such a database can turn into a 'scarlet letter' like badge of shame that can punish offenders much beyond their sentences and make their rehabilitation and reintegration into society next to impossible.
As per the National Family Health Survey (NFHS) data from 2015-2016, we know that 85% of cases of sexual violence against women, which excludes cases of marital rape and assault, go unreported. Such a registry does not begin to address this problem.
Before implementing this registry, the Ministry of Home Affairs must create a research base on recidivism among sex offenders and the risk factors and hold a much broader public debate on the need for the registry. This is not to say that sexual offences are not an urgent problem. In the Indian context, the focus needs to be shifted to tackling barriers to reporting, training law enforcement officials and providing support to survivors rather than this ill-conceived registry.
Which of the following focuses on the mistake of the Home Ministry which issued the RFP?
Which of the following is an assumption on which the Sex offender registries are predicated?
The principle is to be applied to the given facts and to choose the most appropriate option:
Principle: When a person falsifies something with the intent to deceive another person or entity is forgery and is a criminal act. Changing or adding the signature on a document, deleting it, using or possessing false writing is also considered forgery. In the case of writing/painting to fall under the definition, the material included must have been fabricated or altered significantly in order to represent something it is actually no.
Facts: David made a living travelling from city to city, selling paintings that he claimed were done by great artists. Since the artists’ signatures were in place, many people fell for them and purchased the paintings. One of these artists saw three of his alleged paintings in a City gallery containing his name. He knew these were not his works and he complained to the police. Police traced David and initiated legal proceedings. Is David guilty of any offence?
Minimum number of persons required to commit an affray is –
Recently which animal population has shrunk to nearly 40 percent in just 30years?
Dishonestly' has been defined as doing anything with the intention to cause wrongful gain to one person & wrongful loss to another, under
Offence defined in sec _____of IPC
Answer the question which follows form the application of the under mentioned legal principle.
Principle: An assault is an attempt to do a corporeal hurt to another, coupled with an apparent present ability and intention to do that act. A battery is the intentional and direct application of any physical force to the person of another A was sitting on a chair reading a book. His friend. B decided to play a practical joke on him. Accordingly, he pulled the chair from under him, as a result of which A landed on the floor.
Principle: Whoever with the intent to cause, or knowing that he is likely to cause wrongful loss or damage to the public or to any person, causes the destruction of property, or any such change in any property or in the situation thereof as destroys or diminishes its value or utility, of affects it injuriously, commits mischief.
A lent his laptop to B. When in possession of the laptop, B inserted a pen drive into the laptop. When he did a virus scan, he realised that the pen drive was infected. Since he urgently required a file that was on the laptop, he nevertheless opened the files on the pen drive, in the process infecting the laptop.
Principle: When two or more persons agree to do an illegal act, it is criminal conspiracy punishable with imprisonment.
Facts: Mr. Bharath is a student of B.E. in Computer Science. He loves his computer very much. He considers his computer as his close friend and companion. On 1.4.2006, while interacting with his computer, he hacked into the Bank account of Mr. Javed and was successful in withdrawing money from Mr. Javed's bank account. He did it to please his girlfriend.
Principle: Contributory negligence in an accident is a defense to a charge in criminal law.
Facts: X, the deceased was negligently crossing the busy road at Cannaught Place in Delhi while Y's car hit him resulting in the death of X. What is the liability of Y?
