Miscellaneous

‘A’, the Captain of a steam vessel, suddenly and without any fault or negligence on his part, finds himself in such a position that, before he can stop his vessel, he must inevitably run down a boat ‘B’, with thirty passengers on board, unless he changes the course of his vessel and faces the risk to run down boat ‘C’, with two passengers on board. ‘A’ altered his course to save passengers in boat ‘B’ without any intention to run down the boat ‘C’ and in good faith. In the process of altering his course, he runs down boat ‘C’ with 2 passengers. In this case, ‘A’ can be held guilty of which one of the offences given below ?

[amp_mcq option1=”Causing death by rash and negligent act” option2=”Culpable homicide not amounting to murder” option3=”Murder” option4=”Not guilty of any offence” correct=”option4″]

The correct answer is Not guilty of any offence.

– The scenario described is an example of the defense of necessity, covered under Section 81 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860.
– Section 81 states that nothing is an offence merely by reason of its being done with the knowledge that it is likely to cause harm, if it be done without any criminal intention to cause harm, and in good faith for the purpose of preventing or avoiding other harm to person or property.
– In this case, ‘A’, the captain, faced with the imminent harm of running down a boat with thirty passengers, chooses to run down a boat with two passengers to prevent the greater harm. The act is done in good faith and without criminal intent to cause harm to the passengers in boat ‘C’, but to prevent greater harm to passengers in boat ‘B’.

– For Section 81 to apply, two conditions must be met: (1) the act must be done without criminal intention and in good faith, and (2) it must be done for the purpose of preventing or avoiding harm to person or property. The harm avoided must generally be greater than or equal to the harm caused, although the section only requires it to be done “for the purpose of preventing or avoiding other harm”. The illustration under Section 81 in the IPC is very similar to the scenario provided.
– Causing death by rash and negligent act (Section 304A IPC) requires rashness or negligence. Here, ‘A’ acted deliberately to avoid a greater catastrophe, not rashly or negligently in the ordinary sense.
– Culpable homicide (Section 299/304 IPC) requires intention or knowledge as defined in Section 299. While ‘A’ had knowledge that running down boat ‘C’ was likely to cause death, the act was done to prevent a greater harm and in good faith, bringing it under the exception provided by Section 81.
– Murder (Section 300/302 IPC) is a higher degree of culpable homicide requiring specific intentions or knowledge as defined in Section 300, and without attracting any exceptions. The good faith and necessity here exempt the act from being culpable homicide, let alone murder.

Punishment for culpable homicide not amounting to murder is given under which one of the following Sections of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 ?

[amp_mcq option1=”Section 302″ option2=”Section 304″ option3=”Section 299″ option4=”Section 300″ correct=”option2″]

The correct answer is Section 304.

– Section 304 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 prescribes the punishment for culpable homicide not amounting to murder.
– It provides different imprisonment terms based on whether the act was done with the intention of causing death/bodily injury likely to cause death, or merely with the knowledge that the act was likely to cause death.

– Section 299 of the IPC defines “Culpable homicide”.
– Section 300 of the IPC defines “Murder”, listing the circumstances under which culpable homicide amounts to murder. It also provides exceptions where culpable homicide is not murder.
– Section 302 of the IPC prescribes the punishment for murder.
– Therefore, Section 299 defines the act, Section 300 distinguishes murder from culpable homicide not amounting to murder, and Sections 302 and 304 provide the punishments for murder and culpable homicide not amounting to murder, respectively.

Which one of the following statements with respect to number of witnesses is not correct ?

[amp_mcq option1=”No particular number of witnesses shall in any case be required for the proof of any fact.” option2=”It is the quality of the evidence and not the quantity of the evidence which is required to be judged by the court.” option3=”It is held in many judgments that reliance cannot be based on the solitary statement of a witness in any situation.” option4=”The legal system has laid emphasis on value provided by each witness, rather than multiplicity or plurality of witness.” correct=”option3″]

The statement that is not correct is “It is held in many judgments that reliance cannot be based on the solitary statement of a witness in any situation.”

Section 134 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 expressly states, “No particular number of witnesses shall in any case be required for the proof of any fact.” This statutory provision establishes the principle that evidence is weighed, not counted. The court can base its decision on the testimony of a single witness if it finds that witness to be credible and reliable. Statements A, B, and D all reflect this principle – that the law does not require a minimum number of witnesses and emphasizes the quality or value of the evidence over the quantity. Statement C directly contradicts this principle by claiming that reliance cannot be based on a solitary statement in *any* situation, which is incorrect under Indian law.

While courts often prefer corroboration, especially in certain types of cases, the evidence of a single credible witness is sufficient to establish a fact. There is no rule of law requiring multiple witnesses for proof; it is a matter for the court to decide based on its assessment of the reliability of the witness’s testimony.

Which one of the following pairs is not correctly matched as per the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 ?

[amp_mcq option1=”Section 101 : Burden of Proof” option2=”Section 135 : Order of Production and Examination of Witnesses” option3=”Section 120 : Dying Declaration” option4=”Section 129 : Confidential Communication with Legal Advisors” correct=”option3″]

The pair that is not correctly matched is Section 120 : Dying Declaration.

– Section 101 deals with the Burden of Proof, stating who must prove a fact. This is correctly matched.
– Section 135 deals with the Order of Production and Examination of Witnesses, stating that the order is regulated by procedural law or discretion of the court. This is correctly matched.
– Section 129 deals with Confidential Communication with Legal Advisors, providing privilege to such communications. This is correctly matched.
– Section 120 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 deals with the competency of parties to a civil suit, and their wives or husbands, and the husband or wife of a person under criminal trial, to be witnesses. It does not deal with Dying Declarations. Dying Declarations are covered under Section 32(1) of the Act.

Section 32(1) makes statements by persons who are dead (among other conditions) relevant in certain cases, including statements as to the cause of death or circumstances leading to death, which forms the basis for the admissibility of dying declarations.

Which one of the following is not a public document ?

[amp_mcq option1=”Documents forming the acts, or records of the acts of the sovereign authority” option2=”Documents of unregistered will” option3=”Public records of private documents” option4=”Records of acts of tribunals” correct=”option2″]

Among the given options, an unregistered will is not a public document.

Section 74 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 defines what constitutes public documents. These include documents forming the acts or records of acts of sovereign authority, official bodies and tribunals, and public officers (legislative, judicial, executive). It also includes public records kept in any State of private documents.
An unregistered will is a private document created by an individual. It does not fall under any of the categories listed in Section 74.

Options A, C, and D are explicitly covered by Section 74:
A) Documents forming the acts, or records of the acts of the sovereign authority are public documents under Section 74(1)(i).
C) Public records of private documents are public documents under Section 74(2). For example, registered sale deeds, registered mortgages etc., where a public record of a private transaction is maintained.
D) Records of acts of tribunals are public documents under Section 74(1)(ii).

When is a confessional statement by an accused to be proved against him in criminal proceedings ?

• 1. When it is made to a police officer
• 2. When it is made in the immediate presence of a Magistrate
• 3. When it is made to a respectable person of the locality where he resides

Select the correct answer using the code given below :

[amp_mcq option1=”1 only” option2=”2 only” option3=”3 only” option4=”1, 2 and 3″ correct=”option2″]

Under the Indian Evidence Act, 1872, a confessional statement made by an accused while in the custody of a police officer can be proved against him if it is made in the immediate presence of a Magistrate. This corresponds to point 2.

Section 25 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 explicitly states that “No confession made to a police officer, shall be proved as against a person accused of any offence.” This rules out point 1. Section 26 states that “No confession made by any person whilst he is in the custody of a police officer, unless it be made in the immediate presence of a Magistrate, shall be proved as against such person.” This means that a confession made while in police custody *is* admissible if made in the immediate presence of a Magistrate. Point 2 describes this specific exception. While a confession to a respectable person (point 3) might be admissible if voluntary and not hit by Section 24 (inducement, threat, or promise), Section 26 provides a statutory condition for admissibility even when in police custody, making point 2 the most clearly and specifically admissible scenario described among the options in the context of the restrictions imposed by Sections 25 and 26.

The rationale behind Sections 25 and 26 is to prevent confessions from being extracted by coercion or undue influence by police officers. The presence of a Magistrate is considered a safeguard to ensure the confession is voluntary. Section 27 is an exception to Sections 25 and 26, allowing the portion of information received from an accused in police custody to be proved if it relates distinctly to the fact thereby discovered.

Any fact from which, either by itself or in connection with other facts, the existence, non-existence, nature or extent of any right, liability, or disability, asserted or denied in any suit or proceeding, necessarily follows is known as :

[amp_mcq option1=”Relevant fact.” option2=”Irrelevant fact.” option3=”Fact in issue.” option4=”Fact in law.” correct=”option3″]

The definition provided in the question precisely matches the definition of a “Fact in issue” as per the Indian Evidence Act, 1872.

Section 3 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 defines several terms. The expression “facts in issue” is defined as follows: “The expression ‘facts in issue’ means and includes any fact from which, either by itself or in connection with other facts, the existence, non-existence, nature or extent of any right, liability, or disability, asserted or denied in any suit or proceeding, necessarily follows.”

“Relevant fact” is defined as one fact being connected with another in any of the ways referred to in the Act’s provisions on relevancy. Facts in issue are the principal facts that a party must prove to establish their claim or defence, forming the points of contention in the suit or proceeding. Relevant facts are those that tend to prove or disprove the facts in issue.

The International Bill of Human Rights consists of the following except the :

[amp_mcq option1=”Universal Declaration of Human Rights.” option2=”International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights.” option3=”International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights.” option4=”International Court of Justice.” correct=”option4″]

The correct answer is (D) International Court of Justice.

The International Bill of Human Rights consists of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights (UDHR), the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR), and the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights (ICESCR), along with their optional protocols. The International Court of Justice (ICJ) is the principal judicial organ of the United Nations, responsible for settling legal disputes between states and giving advisory opinions, but it is not one of the constituent texts of the International Bill of Human Rights.

The three components of the International Bill of Human Rights collectively establish a comprehensive set of civil, political, economic, social, and cultural rights. The UDHR provides aspirational goals, while the ICCPR and ICESCR are binding treaties for signatory states. The ICJ plays a role in international law, but it is a judicial body separate from the core human rights instruments themselves.

The Universal Declaration of Human Rights was adopted in :

[amp_mcq option1=”1947″ option2=”1948″ option3=”1949″ option4=”1950″ correct=”option2″]

The correct answer is (B) 1948.

The Universal Declaration of Human Rights (UDHR) was adopted by the United Nations General Assembly in Paris on 10 December 1948. This date is celebrated annually as Human Rights Day.

The UDHR was a response to the atrocities of World War II and represented the first global expression of rights to which all human beings are inherently entitled. Although not a treaty, it has become a foundational document in international human rights law and has inspired many subsequent international human rights treaties and national constitutions.

A person shall be punishable with rigorous imprisonment for a term which may extend to ten years, and shall also be liable for a fine, if the person :

[amp_mcq option1=”commits theft, having made preparations for causing death or hurt to any person in order to committing of such theft.” option2=”causes death of any person while committing theft.” option3=”causes grievous hurt to any person while committing theft.” option4=”causes simple hurt to any person while committing theft.” correct=”option1″]

The correct answer is (A) commits theft, having made preparations for causing death or hurt to any person in order to committing of such theft.

Section 382 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) deals with theft after preparation for causing death, hurt, or restraint in order to commit theft. The punishment prescribed for this offence is rigorous imprisonment for a term which may extend to ten years and also a fine. This precisely matches the description and punishment mentioned in the question.

Options B, C, and D relate to causing death or hurt *while* committing theft, which would typically fall under more severe offences like robbery (Sections 390-392 IPC), dacoity (Sections 391, 395 IPC), robbery or dacoity with attempt to cause death or grievous hurt (Sections 397, 398 IPC), or even culpable homicide/murder depending on the circumstances and intent. These offences often carry higher minimum or maximum sentences than simple theft with preparation for hurt. Section 382 specifically addresses the preparation *before* or *during* the commission of theft to facilitate the theft by causing death, hurt, or restraint.