2019

21. A, intending to murder Z by poison, purchases poison and mixes the sam

A, intending to murder Z by poison, purchases poison and mixes the same with food which he delivers to Z’s servant to place it on Z’s table. A is guilty of

Join Our Telegram Channel
no offence
attempt to commit murder
criminal conspiracy to commit murder
attempt to commit culpable homicide not amounting to murder
This question was previously asked in
UPSC CISF-AC-EXE – 2019
Download PDFAttempt Online
The correct option is B) attempt to commit murder.
Section 307 of the Indian Penal Code deals with the attempt to murder. An attempt is made when the accused does an act towards the commission of the intended crime, and this act is a proximate step towards its commission. Mere preparation is not an attempt, but the act of purchasing poison, mixing it, and delivering it to the servant to be placed on the victim’s table goes beyond preparation and is a direct step towards administering the poison, showing a clear intention to cause death.
Preparation is the stage before the attempt. Buying poison is preparation. Mixing it and arranging for its administration crosses the threshold into an attempt because it is a direct step in the sequence of events leading to the intended murder. Section 307 provides for punishment for such attempts, even if the intended act (causing death) does not occur. Criminal conspiracy requires an agreement between two or more persons to commit an illegal act; while there might be an element of instigation if A involved the servant, the question focuses on A’s actions towards Z. Culpable homicide not amounting to murder involves a lesser degree of intention or knowledge than murder.

Subscribe on YouTube

22. A intentionally causes Z’s death, partly by illegally omitting to give

A intentionally causes Z’s death, partly by illegally omitting to give Z food, and partly by beating Z. A is guilty of

Join Our Telegram Channel
attempt to commit murder
committing culpable homicide not amounting to murder
attempt to commit culpable homicide not amounting to murder
committing murder
This question was previously asked in
UPSC CISF-AC-EXE – 2019
Download PDFAttempt Online
The correct option is D) committing murder.
Section 36 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 states that where causing a certain effect, or an attempt to cause that effect, by an act or illegal omission is an offence, the causing of that effect partly by act and partly by illegal omission is the same offence. In this scenario, A intentionally causes Z’s death, which is the definition of murder under Section 300 IPC, and this death is caused partly by an illegal omission (not giving food) and partly by an act (beating).
Section 300 of the IPC defines murder. If death is caused with the intention of causing death, it is murder (subject to exceptions). The question explicitly states A “intentionally causes Z’s death”. Section 36 ensures that the means used (partly act, partly omission) do not change the nature of the offence when the intention and the resulting death align with the definition of murder.

Subscribe on YouTube

23. A attacks Z under such circumstances of grave provocation that his kil

A attacks Z under such circumstances of grave provocation that his killing of Z would be only culpable homicide not amounting to murder. B, having ill-will towards Z and intending to kill him, and having been subject to the provocation, assists A in killing Z. Here

Subscribe on YouTube
both A and B are guilty of murder
both A and B are guilty of culpable homicide not amounting to murder
A is guilty of culpable homicide not amounting to murder while B is guilty of murder
A is guilty of abetment of murder and B is guilty of murder
This question was previously asked in
UPSC CISF-AC-EXE – 2019
Download PDFAttempt Online
Option C is correct. A attacks Z under circumstances of grave provocation, which, if resulting in death, would reduce the offence for A to culpable homicide not amounting to murder (Exception 1 to Section 300, punishable under Section 304 IPC). B, however, acts with ill-will and *intending to kill Z*. When two people act together, their individual liability is judged based on their own intentions and knowledge, unless they share a common intention (Section 34) or one abets the other (Section 107 onwards). Here, their intentions are different: A acts under provocation, B acts with intent to kill. B’s act, coupled with the intention to kill, constitutes murder (Section 300). A’s act, under grave provocation, is culpable homicide not amounting to murder.
– The liability of each participant in a criminal act depends on their individual mental state (intention, knowledge) unless Section 34 (common intention) applies.
– Grave and sudden provocation is an exception that reduces the crime from murder to culpable homicide not amounting to murder for the person acting under provocation.
– Intention to kill, without any exception applying, results in the charge of murder.
– Section 35 IPC is relevant: “Whenever an act, which is criminal only by reason of its being done with a particular criminal knowledge or intention, is done by several persons, each of such persons who joins in the act with such knowledge or intention is liable for the act in the same manner as if the act were done by him alone with that knowledge or intention.” This supports the idea that B’s liability is assessed based on B’s intention (murderous), regardless of A’s reduced culpability due to provocation.
– Abetment (Section 107) would apply if B merely instigated or aided A without directly participating in the physical act of killing. The phrase “assists A in killing Z” suggests B is involved in the act, making B liable under Section 35 read with the relevant sections defining the offences.

Join Our Telegram Channel

24. A makes an attempt to pick the pocket of Z by thrusting his hand into

A makes an attempt to pick the pocket of Z by thrusting his hand into Z’s pocket. A fails in the attempt in consequence of Z having nothing in his pocket. A is guilty of

Join Our Telegram Channel
theft
attempt to commit theft
no offence
using force
This question was previously asked in
UPSC CISF-AC-EXE – 2019
Download PDFAttempt Online
Option B is correct. This scenario describes an attempt to commit theft under Section 511 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860, read with the definition of theft under Section 378. A forms the intention to commit theft (dishonestly taking movable property out of Z’s possession without consent) and does an act towards its commission (thrusting hand into pocket). The failure to complete the act (because the pocket is empty) does not negate the attempt.
– An attempt to commit a crime requires the intention to commit the crime and an overt act done towards its commission.
– The failure to complete the crime or the fact that the crime was impossible to complete due to circumstances unknown to the offender (like an empty pocket) does not prevent the act from being an attempt, provided the act done was proximate enough to the intended crime.
– Theft requires the actual moving of movable property. Since there was nothing in the pocket, theft was not completed.
– Section 511 IPC punishes attempts to commit offences punishable with imprisonment for life or other imprisonment. Theft (punishable under Section 379 IPC) falls under “other imprisonment”.

Subscribe on YouTube

25. Privileged communication between husband and wife can be admitted as e

Privileged communication between husband and wife can be admitted as evidence in a

Join Our Telegram Channel
charge of murder against the husband
case of embezzlement by the husband
case of matrimonial dispute between them
charge of sedition against the husband
This question was previously asked in
UPSC CISF-AC-EXE – 2019
Download PDFAttempt Online
Option C is correct. Section 122 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 provides privilege for communications made between husband and wife during marriage. However, it explicitly contains exceptions. The privilege does *not* apply in “suits between married persons”, or in “proceedings in which one married person is prosecuted for any crime committed against the other”. A case of matrimonial dispute between them is a “suit between married persons”, where such communications can be admitted as evidence.
– Communications between spouses during marriage are generally privileged and cannot be compelled or permitted to be disclosed without consent.
– This privilege is subject to exceptions, including legal proceedings directly between the spouses or where one is accused of a crime against the other.
– The privilege continues even after the dissolution of the marriage.
– The purpose of this privilege is to protect the privacy and confidence of the marital relationship. However, this protection is lifted when the dispute is between the spouses themselves or when one harms the other.

Subscribe on YouTube

26. Under the Indian Evidence Act, 1872, ‘Public Documents’ include

Under the Indian Evidence Act, 1872, ‘Public Documents’ include

Subscribe on YouTube
records of sovereign authority, official bodies, tribunals, legislatures, Judiciary of India or the Commonwealth or of a foreign country, and agreements of public bank
records of sovereign authority, official bodies, tribunals, legislatures, Judiciary of India or the Commonwealth or of a foreign country, and registered agreements
records of sovereign authority, official bodies, tribunals, legislatures, Judiciary of India or the Commonwealth or of a foreign country, and also public records of private documents
only records signed by public officers and in custody of a government office
This question was previously asked in
UPSC CISF-AC-EXE – 2019
Download PDFAttempt Online
Option C is correct. Section 74 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 defines ‘Public Documents’. It includes documents forming the acts or records of the acts of sovereign authority, official bodies and tribunals, and public officers, legislative, judicial and executive, of India, the Commonwealth, or a foreign country (Part 1), AND public records kept in any State of private documents (Part 2).
– Public documents primarily relate to official acts and records of governmental/public authorities.
– Crucially, records of private documents (like registered deeds) maintained in public offices (like Registration departments) are also considered public documents.
– Examples of public documents include Acts of Parliament, judgments of courts, entries in public registers (births, deaths, marriages), records of official surveys, etc.
– While bank records and agreements might involve a public entity, they are not necessarily public documents in the sense defined by Section 74, unless they form a record of an official act or are registered documents kept in a public record. Option C correctly captures both limbs of the definition.

Join Our Telegram Channel

27. A sues B for trespass on his land. B alleges the existence of a public

A sues B for trespass on his land. B alleges the existence of a public right of way over the land, which A denies. The existence of a decree in favour of the defendant in a suit by A against C for a trespass on the same land in which C alleged the existence of the same right of way is

Subscribe on YouTube
relevant, but it will not operate as estoppels
irrelevant, but it may be considered
a conclusive proof that the right of way exists
relevant, but not a conclusive proof that the right of way exists
This question was previously asked in
UPSC CISF-AC-EXE – 2019
Download PDFAttempt Online
Option D is correct. The relevancy of judgments relating to matters of a public nature is governed by Section 42 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872. It states that judgments, orders, or decrees which relate to matters of a public nature relevant to the inquiry are relevant, but they are *not conclusive proof* of that which they state.
– The existence of a public right of way is a matter of public nature.
– A previous decree concerning the same public right of way in a suit between one party and a third party is relevant in a subsequent suit.
– However, such a previous decree is only admissible as evidence and does not conclusively prove the existence of the right; other evidence is still required to establish the fact.
– Section 40 deals with relevancy of judgments as res judicata. Section 41 deals with relevancy of certain judgments in probate, matrimonial, admiralty or insolvency jurisdiction (judgments in rem). Section 42 deals with judgments relating to matters of public nature. Section 43 makes all other judgments irrelevant, unless they are relevant under some other section of the Act. The scenario fits Section 42.
– Estoppel would apply between the parties to the *first* suit (A and C) or their representatives regarding the specific issue decided, but not automatically bind B in a separate suit (A vs B).

Join Our Telegram Channel

28. The Chairman and Vice-Chairman of the Central Board under the Employee

The Chairman and Vice-Chairman of the Central Board under the Employees’ Provident Funds and Miscellaneous Provisions Act, 1952 are to be appointed by

Join Our Telegram Channel
the State Government
the State Government in consultation with the Central Government
the Central Provident Fund Commissioner
the Central Government
This question was previously asked in
UPSC CISF-AC-EXE – 2019
Download PDFAttempt Online
Option D is correct. Section 5(1) of the Employees’ Provident Funds and Miscellaneous Provisions Act, 1952 states that the Central Government shall constitute a Central Board of Trustees. The Chairman and Vice-Chairman of this Central Board are appointed by the Central Government.
– The Central Board of Trustees manages the Provident Fund, Pension Fund, and Deposit Linked Insurance Fund established under the Act.
– The power to constitute the Board and appoint its key office bearers lies with the Central Government.
– The Central Board is a tripartite body with representatives from the government (Central and State), employers, and employees.
– The Central Provident Fund Commissioner (CPFC) is the chief executive officer of the Central Board and is also appointed by the Central Government.

Subscribe on YouTube

29. The doctrine of notional extensions is applicable in which one of the

The doctrine of notional extensions is applicable in which one of the following Laws?

Subscribe on YouTube
The Workmen's Compensation Act, 1923
The Employees' Provident Funds and Miscellaneous Provisions Act, 1952
The Payment of Bonus Act, 1965
The Trade Unions Act, 1926
This question was previously asked in
UPSC CISF-AC-EXE – 2019
Download PDFAttempt Online
Option A is correct. The doctrine of notional extension is applicable under the Workmen’s Compensation Act, 1923 (now largely replaced by the Employee’s Compensation Act, 1923). This doctrine is used to determine whether an accident causing injury or death to a workman arose “out of and in the course of employment”.
– The doctrine extends the area and time of employment beyond the strict physical boundaries of the workplace and working hours.
– It covers situations where an employee is injured while proceeding to or from the place of work through a route habitually used, or at a point close to the employer’s premises, immediately before starting work or immediately after finishing work.
– For an accident to be compensable under the Act, it must satisfy the twin conditions: “arising out of employment” and “arising in the course of employment”. The doctrine of notional extension helps in interpreting the latter condition broadly.
– This doctrine has been developed through judicial pronouncements interpreting the scope of employment under the Act.

Join Our Telegram Channel

30. The total number of members of the Grievance Redressal Committee in an

The total number of members of the Grievance Redressal Committee in an industrial establishment shall not exceed

Join Our Telegram Channel
two
eight
five
six
This question was previously asked in
UPSC CISF-AC-EXE – 2019
Download PDFAttempt Online
Option D is correct. Rule 10 of the Industrial Disputes (Central) Rules, 1957, which details the Grievance Redressal Machinery under Section 9C of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, states that the number of members of the Grievance Redressal Committee shall not exceed six.
– The Grievance Redressal Committee is mandated in industrial establishments employing 20 or more workmen.
– It consists of equal representatives of the employer and the workmen.
– The total number of members is capped at six.
– The representatives of the workmen on the Committee shall be chosen from amongst the workmen.
– The Committee is responsible for resolving individual grievances of workmen.

Subscribe on YouTube
Page 1Page 2Page 3Page 4Page 5