Q.

1 Which one of the following is the date of enforcement of the Indian penal
code 1860?
A. January 1, 1860
B. July 1, 1865
C. January 1, 1861
D. January 1, 1862
Explanation:- D.
 The first draft of the Code was presented before the Governor-General in council in the
year 1837, but subsequent revisions and amendments took two more decades. The
complete drafting of the code was done in 1850 and presented to the Legislative
Council in 1856.

Q.) The draft of the Indian Penal Code was prepared by:-
A. First Law Commission
B. Second Law Commission
C. Third law commission
D. Sixteenth Law Commission
Explanation:- A
 The code was drafted on the recommendations of first law commission of India
established in 1834 under the Charter Act of 1833 under the chairmanship of Thomas
Babington Macaulay.

Q.)  To which of the following is Indian Penal Code not applicable
A. State of J & K
B. A foreigner committing offence in foreign country
C. Offence committed on Indian aircraft flying over Territory of Japan
D. A foreigner committing offence in territorial water of India

Explanation:- B
Q.) A who is a citizen of India commits murder in Uganda. He is arrested in Delhi.
He can be tried and convicted of Murder ?
 A. only in Uganda
B. only in that country of which the deceased was a citizen
C.  in any one of the above
D. in Delhi
Explanation:- D
 Section 4- A, who is a citizen of India, commits a murder in Uganda. He can be tried
and convicted of murder in any place in India in which he may be found.

Q.) Under which of the following situations would the Indian courts have
jurisdiction ?
1. crime committed by an Indian in a foreign country
2. crime committed by a foreigner in India
3. crime committed by a person on Indian ship
A. 1 and 2
B. 1 and 3
C. 2 only
D. 1,2,3

Explanation:- D.

 Section 4. Extension of Code to extra-territorial offences

Q.) Essential ingredients of a crime are –
A.) Actus Reus and mens Rea
B. Actus Reus, mens Rea and motive
C. motive, intention and knowledge
D. knowledge intention and action
Explanation:- A
Q.) Crime which do not require intention, recklessness or even negligence as to
one or more elements in the actus reus are known as -:
A. Vicarious liability
B. Strict liability
 C. Act of God
D. Force majeure
Explanation:- B
Q.) The Maxim actus non facit reum nisi mens sit rea means -:
A. Common and intention
B. group liability
C. guilty state of mind in crime
D. wrongful motive
Explanation:- C
 “an act does not render a man guilty of a crime unless his mind is equally guilty,”
Q.) In every statute Mens Rea is to be applied unless contrary is shown this view
was expressed in -:
A. Sherras v. D. Rutzen
B.  R vs Dudley and Stephen
C. Harding v. Price
D. R vs Prince
Explanation:- A
Q.) For which of the following offences mens rea is not a requisite
A. kidnapping
B. robbery
C. trespass
D. none of the above
Explanation:- A
 The intent of the offender is immaterial for the offence of Kidnapping as kidnapping is a
strict liability offence.
Q.) Qui facit per alium per se is the essence of one of the following principles of:
A. Joint Criminal Liability
B. Vicarious Liability
C. Corporate Criminal Liability
D. Strict Liability
Explanation:- B
 “He who acts through another does the act himself”, is a fundamental legal maxim of the
law of agency. It is a maxim often stated in discussing the liability of employer for the act
of employee in terms of vicarious liability.”
Q.) Which one of the following is the correct sequence of stage in a crime?
A. Intention, Attempt, Accomplishment, Preparation
B. Intention, preparation, attempt accomplishment
C. Preparation, intention, attempt, accomplishment
D. preparation, motive, attempt and accomplishment
Explanation:- B
Q.) In IPC the word women denotes to:-
A. A female above the age of 15 years
B. A female above the age of 18 years
C. A female above the age of 21 years
D. A female of any age including newly born female child

Explanation:- D

 “Man”, “Woman”. —The word “man” denotes a male human being of any age; the word
“woman” denotes a female human being of any age.
Q.) The word public servant denotes a person falling under ?
a commissioned officer in the military
B. every judge empowered by law to do any adjudicatory functions
C. every officer of Court of Justice
D. all of the above
Explanation:- D
 21“Public servant”.—The words “public servant” denote a person falling under any of
the descriptions
Q.) It was held that a chief minister or a Minister is in the pay of Government and
therefore public servant within the meaning of Section 21 of IPC in the case of-:
A. Karuna Nidhi versus Union of India
B. Keshav Nand vs State of Kerala
 C. Kalyan Singh versus Union of India
D. Jayalalitha vs State of Tamil Nadu
Explanation:- A
 The Supreme Court held that holder of a public office such as Minister or CM is a public
servant and he gets his salary from Govt. Treasury and thus CM or Minister is covered
under section 21(12) of IPC .
Q.) The definition of movable property under section 22 of Indian penal code
excludes
1. land
2. things attached to the earth
3. Things permanently fasted to anything which is attached to the earth
4. all of the above
Explanation:- D
 “Movable property”.—The words “movable property” are intended to include corporeal
property of every description, except land and things attached to the earth or
permanently fastened to anything which is attached to the earth.
Q.) Whoever does anything with the intention of causing wrongful gain to one
person or wrongful loss to another person is said to do that thing?
1. Fraudulently
2. Dishonestly
3. wrongfully
4. mischievously
Explanation:- B
 Section 24- Dishonestly”. —Whoever does anything with the intention of causing
wrongful gain to one person or wrongful loss to another person, is said to do that thing
“dishonestly”.
Q.) Under which one of the following sections of Indian penal code the principle
of joint criminal liability is applicable
1. Section 36
2. Section 39
3. Section 34
4. Section 40
Explanation:- C
 Section 34 offers a notion of joint liability that is present in both civil and criminal law. It
addresses a scenario where an offense involves a specific criminal intention or
understanding and is committed by multiple persons. Each of those who join the act
with such understanding or purpose shall be responsible in the same manner as if that
intention or understanding was accomplished by him alone.
Q.) Illegal signifies
1. Everything which is an offence
2. Everything which is prohibited by law
3. Everything which furnishes ground for civil action
4. all of the above
Explanation:- D
 The word “illegal” is applicable to everything which is an offence or which is prohibited
by law, or which furnishes ground for a civil action;
Q.) Good faith within the meaning of the Indian penal code means
1. an act done with due care and attention
2. an actual belief that the act done is not contrary to law
3. an act in fact done honestly
4. an act done under Bonafide belief
Explanation:- A Section 52
Q.) Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code
1. creates a substantive offence
2. is a rule of evidence
3. both A and B
4. none of the above
Explanation:- B
Q.) Under Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code?
1. physical presence is necessary
2. physical presence for participation but not all cases
3. physical presence is not necessary
4. physical presence is necessary with common knowledge
Explanation:- B

Q.) To establish Section 34 of IPC:

1. A common intention is to be proved but not overt act to be proved
2. Common intention and overt act both have to be proved
3. Common intention need not be proved but overt act to be proved
4. All of the above
Ans – B
Q.) Which one of the following is not the ingredients of Section 34 of
Indian penal code?
1. Criminal act done by several person
2. In the furtherance of common intention
3. Meeting of the minds of those who involved in crime
4. Similar intention of those who involved in the crime
Explanation:- D
 A, B, and C for instance, had a rivalry with X. In the first case all three of them
devised a plan and shared the common intention to murder X and committed
the act in furtherance of the same for which they were jointly liable under
section 302 read with section 34. While in a second instance, all three,
strangers to each other, while walking from different lanes, spotted X and
used different weapons to attack him to which he succumbed to death.
Therefore, they had murdered X with a similar intention to kill him but there
was no pre-mediation or communication of such plan or such intention nor any
act in furtherance of this intention of all. Therefore, it only constitutes murder
under section 302 and section 34 will not be invoked.
  

Q.) In which one of the following cases Lord summer said “they also
serve who stand and wait”
1. Mehboob Shah v. Emperor
2. Inder Singh v. Emperor
3. Barendra Kumar Ghosh v. Emperor
4. None of the above
Explanation:- C
 Barendra Kumar Ghosh v. King Emperor, AIR 1925 PC 1 (also known as
Shankari Tola Post Office Murder Case). In this case several persons
appeared before the sub-post master who was counting the money on the
table and demanded the money. In the mean time they opened fire killed the
sub-post master and ran away without taking any money. Barendra Kumar
was, however, caught with a pistol in his hand and was handed over to the
police.
 The accused was tried under sections 302/34 as he was one of the three men
who fired at the sub-post master. The accused denied his charge on the
ground that he was simply standing outside and had not fired at the deceased.
The court, on being satisfied that the sub-post master was killed in furtherance
of the common intention of all, convicted the accused even if he had not fired
the fatal shot.
Q.) To impose joint liability under Section 34 of IPC the prosecution
needs to prove
1. Intention
2. Same intention
3. Similar intention
4. Common intention
 Ans  D
Q.) In which one of the following cases the Privy Council made a
distinction between common intention and similar intention?
1. Barendra Kumar Ghosh vs Emperor
2. Mahboob Shah vs Emperor
3. Sri Nivasa Badolia vs Emperor
4. Banu Mal vs Emperor
Explanation:- B 
Q.) The difference between section 34 and section 149 of Indian penal
code is that ?
1. In section 34 there must be at least five persons whereas in section 149 two
persons are required
2. That section 149 is only a rule of evidence where as section 34 creates a
specific offence and provides for its punishment
3. That section 34 requires active participation in action whereas section 149
requires mere passive membership of the unlawful assembly
4. That section 34 need not be joined with the principal offence whereas section
149 must be combined with the principal offence
Explanation:- C 
Q.) X armed with a loaded pistol and Y empty handed go to Z’s shop in
furtherance of their common intention to commit robbery.  X enters the
shop and on being resisted in carrying away property shoots Z with
pistol.  Z dies at once.  For what acts of X, Y is liable?
1. Dacoity with murder
2. Extortion and culpable homicide not amounting to murder
3. Attempt to commit robbery when armed with deadly weapon
4. Robbery and murder
Explanation:- D 
 Q.) X a jailor  has the charge of Z, a Prisoner.  X intending to cause Z’s
death illegally omits to supply Z with food, in consequence of which Z is
much reduced in strength but that starvation is not sufficient to cause
his death.  X is dismissed from his office and Y succeeds him. Y without
collusion and cooperation with X illegally omits to supply Z with food
knowing that he is likely thereby to cause Z’s death.  Z dies of Hunger. 
What will be the position under Indian Penal Code? 
1. X and Y are guilty of Murder
2. X is guilty of an attempt to commit murder
3. Y is guilty of an attempt to commit Murder
4. Y is guilty of an attempt to commit culpable homicide
Ans B
Q.) Which of the following punishment cannot be awarded under the
Indian Penal Code?
1. Forfeiture of property
2. Rigorous imprisonment
3. Transportation for life
4. Death
Explanation:- C
53. Punishments.
Q.)Who may commute sentence under IPC?
1. Chief Justice of High Court
2. Chief Justice of India
3. Appropriate government
4. Any appellate Court
Explanation:- C
 55. Commutation of sentence of imprisonment for life.—In every case in which
sentence of imprisonment for life shall have been passed, the appropriate
Government may, without the consent of the offender, commute the
punishment for imprisonment of either description for a term not exceeding
fourteen years.

Q.) In calculating fractions of terms of punishment, section 57 of the

Indian Penal Code prescribes that the imprisonment for life shall be
reckoned as equivalent to imprisonment for
1. 10 years
2. 4 years
3. 20 years
4. 25 years
Ans – C
Q.) Under section 65 of the Indian penal code 1860 sentence of
imprisonment for non-payment of fine shall be limited to?
1. one third of the maximum term of imprisonment fixed for the offence
2. one fourth of the maximum term of imprisonment fixed for the offence
3. one half of the maximum term of imprisonment fixed for the offence
4. one fifth of the maximum term of imprisonment fixed for the offence
Explanation:- B
 Limit to imprisonment for non-payment of fine, when imprisonment and fine
awardable.—The term for which the Court directs the offender to be
imprisoned in default of payment of a fine shall not exceed one-fourth of the
term of imprisonment which is the maximum fixed for the offence, if the
offence be punishable with imprisonment as well as fine.
 Q.) Under Indian Penal Code if the offence is punishable with fine only
and accused has been awarded with 50 rupees fine the period of
imprisonment in default shall be
1. Not exceed one month
2. Not exceed two months
3. Not exceed 3 months
4. Not exceed 4 months
Explanation:- B
 Imprisonment for non-payment of fine, when offence punishable with fine only
Q.) If an offender is sentenced to an in present for a term exceeding one
year,  the term of solitary confinement shall not exceed
1. 1 month
2. 2 months
3. 3 months
4. no limit
Explanation:- C
 Section 73- A time not exceeding one month if the term of imprisonment shall
not exceed six months; a time not exceeding two months if the term of
imprisonment shall exceed six months and shall not exceed one year; a time
not exceeding three months if the term of imprisonment shall exceed one
year.
Q.) Imprisonment for life means, imprisonment for
1. 20 years
2. 74 years
3. 14 years
4. whole of the remaining life
Explanation:- D 
Q.) The Maxim ignorantia juris non excusat means:
1. ignorance of law is no excuse
2. ignorance of fact is no excuse
3. ignorance of law is an excuse
4. ignorance of fact is an excuse
Explanation:- A
 Act done by a person bound, or by mistake of fact believing himself bound, by
law.—
Nothing is an offence which is done by a person who is, or who by reason of a
mistake of fact and not by
reason of a mistake of law in good faith believes himself to be, bound by law
to do it.
Q.) Ignorantia facit excusat maxim means
1. Mistake of law is excused
2. Ignorance of facts is an excuse
3. Ignorance of law is not an excuse
4. none of these
Explanation:- B 
Q.) Assertion:-  A a soldier fires on a mob by the order of a superior
officer in conformity with the commands of law.  A has committed no
offence
Reason : Nothing is an offence which is done by a person who is bound
by law to do it
 Choose the correct answer from the codes given below
1. Both A and R are true and R is the correct explanation of A
2. Both A and R are true and R is not the correct explanation of A
3. A is true but R is false
4. A is false but R is true
 Explanation:- A
Section 76 IPC illustration 
Q.) A who is a police officer without warrant apprehends Z who has
committed murder. A has committed the offence of
1. wrongful confinement
2. wrongful restraint
3. A and B both
4. No offence
Explanation:- D 
Q.) A in good faith accuses Z before a magistrate
1. A has committed no offence
2. A has committed the offence of defamation
3.  A has committed the offence of defamation but he can take defence under
section 93 of IPC
4. None of the above
Explanation:- A 
Q.) A Hangman who hangs the Convict pursuant to the order of the court
is exempted from criminal liability by the virtue of
1. Section 94 of IPC
2. Section 76 of IPC
3. Section 78 of IPC
4. Section 77 of IPC
Explanation:- C
 Act done pursuant to the judgment or order of Court.—Nothing which is done
in pursuance
of, or which is warranted by the judgment or order of, a Court of Justice; if
done whilst such judgment or
order remains in force, is an offence, notwithstanding the Court may have had
 no jurisdiction to pass such
judgment or order, provided the person doing the act in good faith believes
that the Court had such jurisdiction.
Q.) Which of the following is not an essential ingredient of the defence
of accident under Section 80 of Indian penal code
1. The act must be an accident or misfortune
2. The act must not be done with any criminal intention
3. The act need not be done with proper care and caution
4. The accident must be the outcome of a lawful act done in lawful manner by
lawful means
Explanation:- C
 Accident in doing a lawful act.—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.

Q.) B is drowning and insensible.  A in order to save his life pulls him
out of the water with the hook which injures him. A is guilty of
1. using criminal force
2. voluntarily causing hurt
3. voluntarily causing grievous hurt
4. no offence
Explanation:- D
92. Act done in good faith for benefit of a person without consent.—Nothing is
an offence by reason of any harm which it may cause to a person for whose
benefit it is done in good faith, even without that person’s consent, if the
 circumstances are such that it is impossible for that person to signify consent,
or if that person is incapable of giving consent, and has no guardian or other
person in lawful charge of him from whom it is possible to obtain consent
in time for the thing to be done with benefit
Q.) A male teacher during the examination, while conducting search, put
his hands in the pocket of the pant of a girl candidate thinking her to be
a boy.  Here the teacher, under the IPC has committed the offence under
section
1. 354
2. 323
3. 509
4. No offence
Answer – D
Q.) X and Y swimming in the sea after a shipwreck got hold of a plank.
The plank was not large enough to support both. X having no other
option, pushed Y who was drowned. X has committed
1. Culpable homicide
2. Murder
3. The offence of causing death by negligence
4. No offence
Explanations – D
Q.) Which one of the following is presumed under law to be Doli incapax
to commit a crime?
1. a child of under 7 years of age
2. a child of under 10 years of age
3. a child below 7 years and under 12 years of age
4. a child between 10 years and 14 years of age
 Explanation:- A
82. Act of a child under seven years of age.—Nothing is an offence which is
done by a child under seven years of age.
 83. Act of a child above seven and under twelve of immature understanding.
—Nothing is an offence which is done by a child above seven years of age
and under twelve, who has not attained sufficient maturity of understanding to
judge of the nature and consequences of his conduct on that occasion.
Q.) Section 82 of the Indian Penal Code deals with the following
1. absolute immunity
2. qualified immunity
3. conditional immunity
4. contingent in unity
Explanation – A
Q.) The leading case on Section 83 of IPC is
1. Bishamber vs Rumal
2. Deo Narain vs State
3. Ullah vs King
4. Dayabhai Chhaganbhai Thakkar vs State of Gujarat
Explanation:- C
In the case of Ulla Mahapatra v. King AIR 1950 Orissa 262, a child of eleven
years of age,  threatens the victim, saying that he would cut him into pieces
while advancing towards him with a knife and he actually kills the victim. The
Court held that it was fully evident by the conduct of the child that he was fully
aware the meaning of his words and that it was a threat and there was a
weapon that fulfils the elements of assault. Thus this proves the intention of
the child of hurting the victim and therefore, Court found him guilty of the
murder of the victim.
 Q.) Assertion:  A  boy aged 9 years intentionally kills B. A is liable to be
convicted.
Reason: A child upto the age of 12 years is immune from criminal liability.
1. Both A and R are true and R is the correct explanation of A
2. Both A and R are true but R is not the correct explanation of A
3.  A is true but R is false
4. A is false but R is true
Explanation – C
Q.) Insanity is
1. lack of free will
2. Incapacity produced due to drunkenness
3. Was incapable of knowing the nature of act committed
4. Diseased mind
Explanation:- C
84. Act of a person of unsound mind.—Nothing is an offence which is done by
a person who, at the time of doing it, by reason of unsoundness of mind, is
incapable of knowing the nature of the act, or that he is doing what is either
wrong or contrary to law.
Q.) In which of the following cases wild beast test was propounded
1. Hadfield’s case
2. Bowler’s case
3. Ferrer’s case
4. R vs Arnold case
Explanation:- D
A person can demand immunity if, due to his unsoundness of mind, he was
incapable of distinguishing between good and evil and did not know the nature
of the act committed by him. This test is known as the “Wild Beast Test.”
 Q.) Unsoundness of mind has not been defined in Indian Penal Code and
has mainly been treated as equivalent to insanity. An accused who
seeks exoneration from liability of any act under section 84 of IPC is to
prove legal insanity and not medical insanity. It was held by Supreme
Court in which of the following cases
1. Abrar versus State of UP
2. Surendra Mishra vs State of Jharkhand
3. CM Sharma vs state of AP
4. Gita versus State of UP
Explanation – B
Q.) The accused at the time of committing the act because of
intoxication which was administered to him without his knowledge or
against his will is incapable of knowing
1. the nature of act
2. that the act is wrong or contrary to law
3.  that the act is Immoral or wrong
4. that the act is of nature which may be ignored
To claim the benefit of section 85 of IPC which of the above need to be
proved
1. 1 and 4
2. 1 and 3
3. 1 and 2
4. 2 and 4
Explanation:- C
85. Act of a person incapable of judgment by reason of intoxication caused
against his will.—
Nothing is an offence which is done by a person who, at the time of doing it,
is, by reason of intoxication, incapable of knowing the nature of the act, or that
 he is doing what is either wrong, or contrary to law: provided that the thing
which intoxicated him was administered to him without his knowledge or
against his will.
Q.) In Basudeo vs State of Pepsu the Supreme Court has explained the
true scope of the following section of the Indian Penal Code
1. Section 84
2. Section 85
3. Section 86
4. Section 34
Explanation:- C
86. Offence requiring a particular intent or knowledge committed by one who
is intoxicated.—
In cases where an act done is not an offence unless done with a particular
knowledge or intent, a person who does the act in a state of intoxication shall
be liable to be dealt with as if he had the same knowledge as he would have
had if he had not been intoxicated, unless the thing which intoxicated him was
administered to him without his knowledge or against his will.
Q.) A school teacher for the purpose of enforcing discipline inflicts 
moderate punishment upon a student aged about 11 years.  In this case
1. A is entitled to claim defence under section 89 of IPC
2. A is guilty of causing simple hurt
3. A is guilty of using criminal force
4. A is entitled to claim defence
Explanation:- A
89. Act done in good faith for benefit of child or insane person, by or by
consent of guardian.
Q.) In which of the following case consent is free
1. Consent given by a person under fear of injury
2. Consent given by an intoxicated person
3. Consent given under misconception of fact
4. Consent given by a child who is above 12 but below 14 years of age
Explanation:- D
90. Consent known to be given under fear or misconception.
Q.) The Maxim De minimis Non curat Lex is the foundation of which
general exception under chapter 4 of the of the Indian Penal Code
1. Act causing slight harm
2. Act of child under 7 years of age
3. Act of child above 7 and under 12 of immature understanding
4. Accident in doing a lawful act
Explanation:- A 
Q.) A blacksmith is seized by a gang of dacoits and forced by threat of
instant death to take his tools and to force the door of B’s house.  The
dacoits ten in number loot B’s money and jewellery and killed B’s son. 
A is guilty of
1. dacoity with Murder
2. is guilty of housebreaking and abetment of dacoity
3. is not guilty of any offence
4. is guilty of making preparation to commit dacoity
Explanations – C
Q.) In which of the following cases the Supreme Court has observed that
there is no right of private defence against the right of private defence
1. State of Punjab vs Sohan Singh
2. Surjit Singh vs State of Punjab
3. State of UP vs Ram Swarup
4. Mr Singh vs State of Gujarat
Explanations – C
 Q.) Which of the following statements is correct
1. The right of private defence under Indian penal code is available even against
an act which is not offence under the code
2.  The right of private defence can be exercised to repel unlawful aggression
and also to retaliate
3. The right of private defence is available to defend only one’s own person and
property
4. The right of private defence extends to the causing of death when the assault
is made with the intention of wrongfully confining a person
Explanations – A
Q.) In which of the following cases the right of private defence of body
does not extend to causing of death
1. Assault with the intention of committing kidnapping
2. Assault with the intention of gratifying unnatural lust
3. Wrongful restraint
4. Assault with the intention of committing abduction
Explanation:- C
100. When the right of private defence of the body extends to causing
death
Q.) The right of private defence of the body
1. commences as soon as reasonable apprehension of danger to the body
arises from an attempt or threat to commit the offence and it continues as long
as such apprehension of the danger to the body continuous
2. commences as soon as reasonable apprehension of danger to the body
arises from an attempt or threat to commit the offence and it continues even
after that apprehension ceases
3. commences only when the assault is actually done and continuous during the
period of assault
4. commences only when the assault is actually done and continues even after
the excellent has left
Explanation:- A
102. Commencement and continuance of the right of private defence of
the body.—
Q.) Which one of the following is the correct group of offences against
which right of private defence relating to property can be exercised?
1. theft, extortion, robbery, mischief.
2. theft, extortion, Mischief, criminal trespass
3. robbery, Mischief, criminal trespass, extortion.
4. theft, robbery, Mischief, criminal trespass
Explanation:- D
103. When the right of private defence of property extends to causing death.
Q.) Y picks X pocket. Next day X while buying Paan near his office finds
Y paying money from X’s purse. X catches hold of Y and tries to take
back his purse. Y resists. X twisted Y’s arm with such force that it is
broken. X is charged with causing hurt to Y. X can
1. say that he was acting under right of private defence of property
2.  not raise the plea of right of private defence since he had time to seek the
help of public authorities
3. say that his right of private defence was revived as soon as he saw Y with his
purse
4. say that he did not use more force than was required
Explanation:- B
99. Acts against which there is no right of private defence.
There is no right of private defence in cases in which there is time to have
recourse to protection of the public authorities.