Offence affecting human body MCQ Quiz - Objective Question with Answer for Offence affecting human body - Download Free PDF

The correct answer is Minor or major

Key Points

• Abduction is defined under Section 362 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC).
• According to this section:
  • Whoever by force compels, or by deceitful means induces, any person to go from any place is said to abduct that person.
• Therefore:
  • The age of the person abducted is irrelevant.
  • The person abducted can be a minor or major.
  • The essential element is the use of force or deceitful means.
• Abduction becomes an offence only when it is committed with a specific intent, e.g., kidnapping for ransom, murder, etc.

Additional Information

• Minor – Applies more specifically to kidnapping, not general abduction.
• Major – Not exclusively correct as minors can also be abducted.
• None of the above – Incorrect; both minors and majors can be abducted under IPC.

The correct answer is Section 334

Key Points

• Section 334 applies when a person voluntarily causes hurt to someone.
• The hurt must have been caused due to grave and sudden provocation.
• The person causing hurt must not have:
  • Intended to cause hurt to anyone other than the person who gave the provocation.
  • Known that his act would hurt anyone other than the person who provoked him.
• This section recognizes that sudden provocation may lead to a loss of self-control, reducing the seriousness of the offence.
• Punishment under this section:
  • Imprisonment (simple or rigorous) up to one month, or
  • Fine up to five hundred rupees, or
  • Both imprisonment and fine.

Additional Information

• Section 323 – Punishment for voluntarily causing hurt (in general, no provocation involved).
• Section 324 – Voluntarily causing hurt by dangerous weapons or means.
• Section 332 – Punishment for causing hurt to deter a public servant from duty.

The correct answer is Section 376 (D)

Key Points

• Section 376D of the Indian Penal Code (IPC), 1860 deals with the offence of gang rape.
• It states:
  • Where a woman is raped by one or more persons constituting a group or acting in furtherance of a common intention, each of those persons shall be deemed to have committed the offence of gang rape.
• Punishment:
  • Rigorous imprisonment for not less than 20 years, which may extend to life imprisonment, and
  • Fine, which shall be just and reasonable to meet the medical and rehabilitation costs of the victim.

Additional Information

• Section 376(A) – Deals with punishment for causing death or persistent vegetative state during rape.
• Section 376(B) – Pertains to rape by husband during separation.
• Section 376(C) – Involves rape by a person in authority or taking advantage of official position.

The correct answer is Section 354(A) 

Key Points

• Section 354A of the Indian Penal Code (IPC), 1860 deals with the offence of sexual harassment and prescribes punishment for it.
• As per Section 354A(1)(ii):
  • A man making a demand or request for sexual favours is guilty of sexual harassment.
• This section covers various acts such as:
  • Unwelcome physical contact and advances
  • Demand or request for sexual favours
  • Showing pornography without consent
  • Making sexually coloured remarks
• Punishment:
  • Up to 3 years imprisonment, or fine, or both, depending on the clause violated.

Additional Information

• Section 354B –Pertains to assault with intent to disrobe a woman.
• Section 354C – Deals with voyeurism (watching or capturing images of a woman engaging in a private act).
• Section 354D – Relates to stalking of a woman.

The correct answer is Wrongful Confinement

Key Points

• Under Section 340 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC), 1860, wrongful confinement is defined as:
  • "Wrongful confinement is restraining any person in such a manner as to prevent that person from proceeding beyond certain circumscribing limits."
• If a police officer detains a person in custody despite a valid bail order from the court, it means:
  • The person has a legal right to liberty,
  • The police deliberately and unlawfully restrict that liberty.
• Hence, it constitutes wrongful confinement, which is a criminal offence under IPC.

Additional Information

• Abduction –  Involves taking a person away by force or deceit, not unlawful detention.
• Wrongful restraint – Refers to partial or temporary restriction of movement, not complete confinement.
• None of the above – Incorrect, as this act squarely falls under wrongful confinement.

The correct answer is Kidnapping, seduction, extortion, slavery and forced labour.

• Sections of Indian Penal Code - 359 to 374 are related to Kidnapping, seduction, extortion, slavery and forced labour.

Key Points

•  Kidnapping and Abduction: Sections 359 to 374 under IPC, 1860:
  • Kidnapping means taking away a person against his/her will by force, threat or deceit.
  • Kidnapping is classified into two categories in Section 359 of the Indian Penal Code and defined in Section 360 and 361 of the Indian Penal Code.
    • Kidnapping from India
    • Kidnapping from lawful guardianship.
• Section 360 explains kidnapping from India.
  • If any person takes a person beyond the limits of India against the consent of that person or against the consent of someone who is legally entitled to give consent on that person’s behalf, then the offence of kidnapping from India is committed
• Section 361 explains kidnapping from lawful guardianship
  • if a person takes away or entices a minor (i.e, a boy under the age of 16 years and a girl under the age of 18 years) or a person of unsound mind, away from his/her lawful guardian without the guardian’s consent, then that person commits the offence of kidnapping from lawful guardianship.
• Section 361 is to protect minor children from being seduced for improper purposes and to protect the rights and privileges of guardians having their custody.

Additional Information

• Section 307 in the Indian Penal Code Attempted murder.
• Section 377 deals with Unnatural offence.
• Section 375 of the IPC deals with Sexual offences including rape.You can relate section 375 of IPC ( with court room dramam movie Section 375 based on sexual offence)

The correct answer is option 2.Key Points

• Yes, in this scenario, the police officer would be guilty of wrongful confinement.
• Once a bail order has been issued by the court, the individual is entitled to be released from custody. Failure to release the individual constitutes wrongful confinement, as it involves unlawfully depriving them of their liberty.
• This action violates the individual's legal rights and can result in legal consequences for the police officer, including potential civil and criminal liabilities. 
• Section 340 of Indian Penal Code 1860 deals with wrongful confinement.
• Whoever wrongfully restrains any person in such a manner as to prevent that person from proceedings beyond certain circumscribing limits, is said “wrongfully to confine” that person. 

The correct option is Option 1.

Key Points

• Section 302 deals with the punishment for murder.
• Section 149 pertains to every member of an unlawful assembly guilty of an offence committed in the prosecution of the common object.
• Section 302/149 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) deals with punishment for murder committed by any member of an unlawful assembly.
• The provision holds all the members of the unlawful assembly liable for the offence of murder if it is committed in the prosecution of the common object of that assembly.
• In the scenario presented, 10 persons were charged under section 302/149 IPC and six persons were acquitted.
  • This implies that only four persons remain accused.
  • Cannot be convicted for the offence under section 302/149 of IPC.
  • Explanation:
    • With only four persons remaining and six already acquitted, the charge under section 302/149 IPC may not be applicable because the essence of this section requires the involvement of at least five persons in the unlawful assembly.
    • If six persons have been acquitted, the remaining four cannot be held liable under section 302/149 IPC.
    • Given that six persons were acquitted, it means they were not found guilty of the offence.
    • Therefore, the remaining four individuals: Cannot be convicted for the offence under section 302/149 of IPC.

The correct answer is Option 3.

Key PointsProvisions under Indian Penal Code, 1860 regarding Acid Attack were added by the 2013 amendment to the Act under Sections 326A, 326B.

• Section 326A - Voluntarily causing grievous hurt by use of acid, etc.
  • Whoever causes permanent or partial damage or deformity to, or burns or maims or disfigures or disables, any part or parts of the body of a person or causes grievous hurt by throwing acid on or by administering acid to that person, or by using any other means with the intention of causing or with the knowledge that he is likely to cause such injury or hurt, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which shall not be less than ten years but which may extend to imprisonment for life, and with fine.
    • Provided that such fine shall be just and reasonable to meet the medical expenses of the treatment of the victim.
    • Provided further that any fine imposed under this section shall be paid to the victim.
• Section 326B - Voluntarily throwing or attempting to throw acid 
  • Whoever throws or attempts to throw acid on any person or attempts to administer acid to any person, or attempts to use any other means, with the intention of causing permanent or partial damage or deformity or burns or maiming or disfigurement or disability or grievous hurt to that person, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which shall not be less than five years but which may extend to seven years, and shall also be liable to fine.
  • Explanation 1 — For the purposes of section 326A and this section, "acid" includes any substance which has acidic or corrosive character or burning nature, that is capable of causing bodily injury leading to scars or disfigurement or temporary or permanent disability.
  • Explanation 2 — For the purposes of section 326A and this section, permanent or partial damage or deformity shall not be required to be irreversible.

Additional InformationIn Laxmi v. Union of India (2013), the Supreme Court outlined that establishments selling acid would need a licence to do so and have to be registered under the Poisons Act 1919. The judgement of the case further emphasized on following points:

• Sections 326A and 326B, which particularly addressed the offence of the acid assault, were added to Section 326 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860.
• The Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 was amended to incorporate Section 357B, which ensures that the victim will get reimbursement in addition to the penalties required under Sections 326A and 376D of the IPC. Whereas Section 357A was added to explain the victim compensation programmer.
• COMPENSATION - The victim of acid attack is entitled to compensation of at least three lakh rupees, according to the Government’s Victim Compensation Scheme, which also established a consistent method for paying the compensation.
• It was emphasized that no facility, not even a private hospital, could refuse the victim medical care.
• When hospitals are short on equipment, the victim should first get primary care before being transferred to the appropriate hospital.
• The restrictions on acid sales and purchases were imposed.

The correct answer is option 3.

Key Points

•  The scenario described raises legal questions under the Indian Penal Code (IPC), particularly concerning the liability of Raju for the accidental death caused by the axe flying off while he was cutting wood.
• To determine Raju's liability, one would look at concepts of "negligence" and "accidents" as outlined in the IPC.
• The concept of "Death by Negligence" is encapsulated under Section 304A of the IPC, which states that causing the death of any person by doing any rash or negligent act not amounting to culpable homicide shall be punished. For Raju to be liable under this section, it must be established that his actions were "rash" or "negligent."
• Rashness and negligence relate to the failure to take the care that a reasonable person would in similar circumstances. If Raju was aware that children were playing in the area and still chose to cut wood there without taking adequate precautions to prevent potential harm, his actions could be considered negligent, especially if a reasonable person would have foreseen the risk of the axe flying off and causing injury.
• However, it's important also to consider the provisions related to acts done by accident. An "act done by accident" under Section 80 of the IPC exempts a person from criminal liability for an act that was not intended to cause harm and occurred without negligence or ill will. 
• The determination of Raju's liability would thus depend on the circumstances surrounding the incident, such as whether Raju took reasonable precautions to ensure that cutting wood in the vicinity of playing children was safe. If in the same situation, there was no child but some grown man the situation would come under Section 80 and defence of Accident would be given.
  Given that this scenario seems closely related to an illustration within legal discussions on negligently caused accidents and liability, it is critical for a thorough investigation to consider all factors, including Raju's awareness of the risk, the precautions taken (if any), and the foreseeability of the accident, before a determination of liability is made.

The correct option is Option 1.

Key Points

• Rape is forced sexual intercourse, including vaginal anal or oral penetration, penetration may be by a body part or an object.
• Section 375 of the Indian Penal Code, rape is committed by a man when he has sexual intercourse with a woman under any of the following circumstances:
  • Against her will.
  • Without her consent.
  • With her consent obtained by using fear of death or hurt against her or someone she cares about.
  • With her consent, knowing that he is not her husband, she believes he is another man to whom she is married or believes herself to be lawfully married.
  • With her consent, when she is unable to understand the nature and consequences of giving consent due to unsoundness of mind, intoxication, or the administration of stupefying or unwholesome substances.
  • With or without her consent, when she is under 18 years of age.
  • When she is unable to communicate consent.
• Criminal Law (Amendment) Act 2013:
  • Under the Act, the minimum sentence of rape was altered from seven years to ten years.
  • Furthermore, in cases which resulted in the death of the victim being left in a vegetative state, the minimum sentence has been duly increased to twenty years.

Additional Information

• Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 ( POCSO): 
  • ​The Act was enacted to protect the children from sexual assault, sexual harassment, and pornography.
  • The POCSO Act raised the age of consent to 18 years (which was 16 till 2012) and criminalizes all sexual activities for those under 18 even if consent was factually present between two minors.
  • This Act was also amended in 2019 to make provisions for enhancement of punishment for various offences to ensure safety, security & dignity of a child.

The correct option is All of the above.

Key Points

• Section 299:
• This section deals with Culpable homicide. 
• It states that whoever causes death by doing an act with the intention of causing death, or with the intention of causing such bodily injury as is likely to cause death, or with the knowledge that he is likely by such act to cause death, commits the offence of culpable homicide.
• Culpable homicide is not murder: 
  • If it is in the exercise of the right to private defence.
  • If is done by the public servant acting in good faith.
  • If it is committed without premeditation in a sudden fight in the heat of passion upon a sudden quarrel.
  • It is not murder when the person whose death is caused, being above the age of eighteen years, suffers death or takes the risk of death with his own consent.

The Correct answer is Culpable homicide 

Key PointsSection 299 of the IPC addresses the concept of culpable homicide as the act of causing another person's death. According to this section, an individual commits culpable homicide if the act resulting in death is carried out with the intention of causing death, or with the awareness that death is a probable outcome. Furthermore, the provision includes scenarios where the act is done with the intent to inflict bodily injury that is likely to lead to death, or with the understanding that the inflicted bodily harm has a high likelihood of resulting in death.

Section 300 of the Indian Penal Code delineates murder as a more severe instance of culpable homicide. While culpable homicide does not always equate to murder, for a case of culpable homicide to be classified as murder, it must meet one of the four specified conditions under Section 300:

• Murder occurs when the act causing death is performed with the explicit intent to cause death.
• It is considered murder if the act is carried out with the intention of inflicting bodily harm that the perpetrator knows is likely to result in the death of the person who suffers the harm.
• The act is deemed murder if done with the intention to cause bodily harm, and the harm intended is of such a nature that it would, in the ordinary course of events, likely lead to death.
• Murder is also defined as committing an act that the doer has knowledge of being so dangerously life-threatening that it will in all probability cause death or such severe bodily harm that is likely to result in death, without any justification for taking such a risk.
• These criteria escalate culpable homicide to the graver classification of murder, except in specifically excluded circumstances as outlined within the legal provisions.

 Additional InformationIn Re: Palani Goundan vs Unknown on 7 April 1919 The Hon’ble High Court overruled the judgement of the sessions court and held that the accused will not be held liable for murder or culpable homicide. He will instead be held liable only for the grievous hurt caused when using the ploughshare to hit the victim and for tampering with evidence.

The correct answer is option 3Key Points

• Section 353 comes under Chapter 16 (Offence against human body) of Indian Penal Code 1860 deals with assault or criminal force to deter public servant from discharge of his duty.
• Whoever assaults or uses criminal force to any person being a public servant in the execution of his duty as such public servant, or with intent to prevent or deter that person from discharging his duty as such public servant, or in consequence of anything done or attempted to be done by such person to the lawful discharge of his duty as such public servant, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to two years, or with fine, or with both.
• The offence under section 353 is a non-bailable and cognizable offence provided under 1st schedule of Cr.P.C. 1973.

The correct answer is 'Fine up to Rs.500.'

Key Points

• Provision under IPC for vitiating the atmosphere:
  • The Indian Penal Code (IPC) prescribes a penalty for individuals who voluntarily vitiate the atmosphere in a place.
  • Vitiating the atmosphere generally refers to actions that make the environment harmful, unpleasant, or unsafe for individuals in that location.
  • Under the IPC, such actions are punishable with a fine of up to Rs.500.
  • This penalty ensures accountability for actions that compromise public health, safety, or peace in a given space.

Additional Information

• Explanation of Incorrect Options:
  • Fine up to Rs.1000: The IPC specifies a fine of up to Rs.500 for this offense, not Rs.1000. The higher amount mentioned in this option does not align with the prescribed penalty.
  • Imprisonment term up to 6 months: The IPC does not prescribe imprisonment for this specific offense. It is a minor offense that carries a monetary penalty rather than a jail term.
  • Imprisonment term up to 3 months: Similar to the previous option, imprisonment is not mentioned as a punishment for voluntarily vitiating the atmosphere under the IPC.
• Purpose of the fine:
  • The fine serves as a deterrent against actions that harm the atmosphere of a place, ensuring public spaces remain safe and conducive for everyone.
  • It also emphasizes the importance of individual responsibility in maintaining public health and order.