Criminal Law Essentials — Practice

Question 1

Principle: A lawful act, done lawfully and with proper care, that causes harm by pure accident is not an offence.
Facts: A is chopping wood with due care when the axe head unexpectedly flies off the handle and injures a bystander.
Is A criminally liable?
(a) Yes, the bystander was injured (b) No — the harm was a pure accident during a lawful, careful act (c) Yes, using an axe is dangerous (d) No, only because the bystander stood too close

Accepted Answer

(b) No.

Chopping wood is lawful, A took proper care, and the injury was a pure accident with no guilty mind. There is no mens rea, so no offence.

Question 2

Principle: A mere guilty intention, unaccompanied by any act, is not a crime.
Facts: A tells a friend he wishes his wealthy uncle would die so that he could inherit the estate, but does nothing at all to bring it about.
Is A criminally liable?
(a) Yes, he clearly had a motive (b) No — a guilty wish without any act is not a crime (c) Yes, because he told someone (d) No, only because the uncle is still alive

Accepted Answer

(b) No.

A had a guilty thought but committed no act towards any offence. Intention alone is not punishable, so A is not liable.

Question 3

Principle: An act that moves beyond mere preparation towards the actual commission of an offence is a punishable attempt, even if the offence is not completed.
Facts: Intending to kill B, A mixes poison into B's food and places the plate before B. A is seized just as B lifts the first spoonful.
Is A liable for an attempt to murder?
(a) No, B never actually ate the poison (b) Yes — A moved beyond preparation towards commission (c) No, buying and mixing poison is only preparation (d) Yes, but only if B falls ill

Accepted Answer

(b) Yes.

Mixing the poison and serving it to B is a direct movement towards commission, well beyond preparation. It is a punishable attempt even though B did not eat it.

Question 4

Principle: An act done by a person under a genuine and reasonable mistake of fact, believing in good faith that he is justified, is not an offence. (Mistake of law is no defence.)
Facts: Leaving a restaurant, A picks up an umbrella from the stand, honestly and reasonably believing it is his own identical umbrella. It actually belongs to another customer.
Is A guilty of theft?
(a) Yes, he took someone else's umbrella (b) No — a genuine, reasonable mistake of fact negates the dishonest intent (c) Yes, he should have checked (d) No, only because the umbrellas looked alike

Accepted Answer

(b) No.

A acted under a genuine, reasonable mistake of fact and lacked the dishonest intention theft requires. The mistake of fact is a defence.

Question 5

Principle: Ignorance of the law is no excuse — a mistake of law does not exempt a person from criminal liability.
Facts: A, newly arrived from another country, carries an item that is legal there but prohibited in India, genuinely unaware of the Indian ban.
Is A liable?
(a) No, he did not know it was banned here (b) Yes — mistake of law is no defence (c) No, because it is legal in his own country (d) Yes, only if the item is dangerous

Accepted Answer

(b) Yes.

A's error is a mistake of law, which is no excuse. His genuine ignorance of the Indian prohibition does not exempt him from liability.

Question 6

Principle: The right of private defence is available only against an imminent threat and only to the extent of force proportionate to that threat.
Facts: X slaps Y once and immediately walks away. Enraged, Y chases X down the street and stabs him fatally.
Can Y claim private defence?
(a) Yes, X hit him first (b) No — the threat had passed and the force was grossly disproportionate (c) Yes, a slap is an assault (d) No, only because X was unarmed

Accepted Answer

(b) No.

The threat ended once X walked away, so Y's stabbing was retaliation, not defence. It was also grossly disproportionate to a single slap. Private defence fails on both imminence and proportionality.

Question 7

Principle: When several persons act together with a common intention, each is liable for an act done by any of them in furtherance of that common intention, as if he had done it alone.
Facts: P, Q and R plan a robbery, agreeing beforehand to use force to overcome any resistance. During the robbery, R kills the guard who tries to stop them.
Are P and Q also liable for the killing?
(a) No, only R struck the guard (b) Yes — the killing was in furtherance of their shared plan to use force (c) No, they did not intend a death (d) Yes, but only R is liable for murder

Accepted Answer

(b) Yes.

The three shared a common intention that included using force to overcome resistance. The guard's killing was in furtherance of that plan, so under common intention P and Q are liable along with R.

Question 8

Principle: Selling adulterated food is an offence whether or not the seller knew the food was adulterated (a strict-liability offence).
Facts: S sells a sealed packet of food which, unknown to him, had been adulterated by the manufacturer.
Is S liable under this principle?
(a) No, he did not know it was adulterated (b) Yes — the offence requires no knowledge; the sale alone suffices (c) No, the manufacturer is the only wrongdoer (d) Yes, only if a buyer falls ill

Accepted Answer

(b) Yes.

The passage defines this as a strict-liability offence — no mens rea is needed. S's lack of knowledge is irrelevant; selling the adulterated food is enough. (Follow the passage's rule, even though other principles condition liability on knowledge.)

Question 9

Principle: A child below the age of criminal responsibility cannot commit an offence, as the law presumes he is incapable of forming criminal intent (doli incapax).
Facts: A six-year-old, treating it as a plaything, walks out of a shop with an expensive watch.
Is the child guilty of theft?
(a) Yes, he took the watch (b) No — a child below the age of criminal responsibility cannot commit an offence (c) Yes, but only his parents are punished (d) No, only because the watch was on display

Accepted Answer

(b) No.

At six, the child is below the age of criminal responsibility and is presumed incapable of forming criminal intent. Under the doli incapax principle, no offence is committed.

Practice — Criminal Law Essentials

Sign in to save attempts to your dashboard and track your accuracy over time

Find a verified tutor

Join a live course

Browse coaching centres

About

Categories

Support

Documentation

Get Study Tips & Updates

Download Our App

Download for iOS

Download for Android

Popular Cities