Advertisements
Advertisements
प्रश्न
Principle: Nothing is an offense if it is done under intoxication and the person committing the offense was incapable to understand the nature of the Act. Intoxication should be without the knowledge or against the will of the person.
Facts: A, B and C were having a party in Bar where A persuaded B and C to take alcoholic drinks. On the persistent persuasion B and C also consumed alcohol along with A. B and C had never consumed alcohol before. After intoxication, there was some argument between B and C where C pushed B with full force causing serious injury to B.
विकल्प
C is liable
C is not liable because he was intoxicated
A is liable because A pursuaded them to consume alcohol whereas they had never consumed alcohol
A and C both are liable
उत्तर
C is liable
Explanation:
According to the principle, a person under intoxication is not liable for an offence if intoxication is without his knowledge or against his will. In this case, C had the knowledge of his intoxication and it happened with his consent. In other words, C was persuaded, not forced to drink.
APPEARS IN
संबंधित प्रश्न
Disagreement between the two Houses of Indian Parliament is finally resolved through
Mark the best option:
Facts: Kumar had a ferocious dog which used to guard his house. One evening when Mohan was returning home after illegally purchasing an unlicensed gun, he happened to pass Kumar’s house, the latter’s dog ran out and bit Mohan’s trouser and on Mohan's turning around and raising his gun the dog ran away. Mohan shot the dog as it was running into the house. Kumar’sdog died after two days because of the gunshot and he sued Mohan for compensation.
Principle:
- Every person has a right to defend his own person, property or possession against unlawful harm.
- The person may use reasonable force in order to protect his person, property or possession.
- However, the force employed should be proportionate to the apprehended danger.
Mark the best option:
In a lawsuit, an action in personam is directed towards –
Legal Principle: The Latin maxim qui facit per alium, facit per se means that he who acts through another, acts himself.
Fact Situation: Heema requests her minor sister Harika to purchase a bag for her from the local shop. Harika purchases the bag on credit telling the shop keeper that her sister will pay for it. Afterward, Heema refuses to pay for the bag.
Which of the following statements is the most appropriate in relation to the legal principle stated above?
Legal Principle: No remedy lies in law where an injury is caused to a person without any infringement of his legal right.
Fact Situation: Ashutosh started a tuition Centre right next to the one being run for the past twenty years by Gulshan. After Ashutosh started his Centre, a large number of students shifted from Gulshan’s tuition Centre to Ashutosh’s Centre forcing Gulshan to close down his establishment suffering huge losses. Can Gulshan initiate legal action against Ashutosh?
Which of the following statements is the most appropriate in relation to the legal principle stated above?
Unliquidated damage stands for
Principle: Negligence is the breach of a duty caused by an omission to do something which a reasonable person would do or an act which a prudent and reasonable person would not do. An action for negligence proceeds upon the principle that the person has an obligation or duty on the part of the defendant, which he/she breaches, leading to damage.
A, a surgeon operated on B. Subsequent to the operation, B complained of pain in his abdomen. On examination, it was discovered that A had left a mop in B ' s stomach while Operating.
Given below is a statement of legal principle followed by a factual situation. Apply the principle to the facts given below and select the most appropriate answer.
Legal principle: A statement is defamatory in nature if it is injurious to a person’s reputation and if the statement has been published.
Factual situation: Rudra had been dating a girl named Kiara for three weeks. But he had introduced himself to her as Ricky Thakur (who is one of Rudra’s friends) and he continued to be Ricky for the rest of their relationship. But ultimately the relationship ended badly and Kiara being upset and angry at Rudra started a website named ‘rickythakur-is-a-jerk.com’. She created this website so as to warn other girls about ‘Ricky Thakur’. The real Ricky Thakur files a suit for defamation. Decide. DECISION:
Given below is a statement of legal principle followed by a factual situation. Apply the principle to the facts given below and select the most appropriate answer.
Legal principle: Necessity knows no law, and any person facing danger may do all that is necessary to avert the same till he can take recourse to public authorities
Factual situation: Akshay, a law-abiding citizen decided to remove the weed of corruption from Indian society. One day, confronted with a bribing official, Akshay decided to teach him a lesson and punched him on his face. Akshay DECISION:
Apply the legal principles to the facts given below and select the most appropriate answer:
Legal Principles:
1. The Tort of Negligence is a legal wrong that is suffered by someone at the hands of another who fails to take proper care to avoid what a reasonable person would regard as a foreseeable risk.
2. The test of liability requires that the harm must be a reasonably foreseeable result of the defendant’s conduct, a relationship of proximity must exist and it must be fair, just and reasonable to impose liability.
3. Volenti non-fit injuria is a defence to action in negligence.
Facts:
X purchased a disused cinema with the intention of turning it into a Multiplex. Six weeks after, X entered the building for the first time, it was set on fire by intruders and destroyed. As a result, the adjacent buildings were also affected and damaged. The cinema building was a target for vandals and children who often played there, but X had had no knowledge of previous attempts to start a fire at the cinema buildings. The owners of the adjacent buildings brought an action for negligence against X on grounds that X failed to take reasonable care for the safety of the buildings by not keeping the cinema locked, making regular inspections and employing a caretaker. Decide whether the occupier of a property owes a duty of care to the adjoining occupiers in respect of acts of trespass on his property resulting in damage to the adjoining properties?
