Offence against state MCQ Quiz - Objective Question with Answer for Offence against state - Download Free PDF

The correct answer is sedition

Key Points

• Sedition is an offence related to acts or speech that incite discontent or rebellion against the government; it is neither against the human body nor property.
• Cheating, Murder, and Robbery are offences directly against the human body or property.

Additional Information

• Cheating: Offence against property involving deception.
• Murder: Offence against human body (life).
• Robbery: Offence against property involving theft with violence.

The correct answer is Preparing to commit suicide.

Key Points 

• Offences Under Indian Penal Code (IPC), 1860:
  • Preparing to wage war against Government of India
  • Punishable under Section 121 (waging, or attempting to wage war against the Government of India).
  • Preparing to commit dacoity or robbery
  • Punishable under Sections 399 and 400 (preparing to commit dacoity), and Section 392 (robbery).
  • Preparing to commit depredation on the territory of friendly State of the Government of India
  • Covered under Section 130 and related provisions regarding offences against friendly states.
• Preparing to commit suicide:
  • This is not an offence under IPC.
  • Attempt to commit suicide was punishable under Section 309 IPC, but the Supreme Court and Parliament have moved towards decriminalizing this.
  • Moreover, preparing to commit suicide is not specifically an offence under IPC.

Additional Information

• Preparing to wage war against Government of India: Clearly an offence under IPC (Section 121).
• Preparing to commit dacoity or robbery: Punishable as preparation for serious crimes.
• Preparing to commit depredation on territory of friendly state: Offence under IPC related to foreign relations.

The correct answer is 'Five persons'

Key Points

• Definition of Unlawful Assembly under Section 141 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC):
  • As per Section 141 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC), 1860, an assembly of five or more persons is considered an unlawful assembly if its common object falls under any of the conditions mentioned in the section.
  • The unlawful assembly is formed with an intention to:
    • Resist the execution of any law or legal process.
    • Commit an offense involving criminal force.
    • Overawe any public servant by use of force.
    • Forcibly deprive any person of property or a right.
    • Compel someone to do something against their legal right by use of force.
  • If less than five persons are involved, the assembly does not fall under the definition of an "unlawful assembly" under Section 141.

Additional Information

• Two Persons:
  • Two persons do not constitute an unlawful assembly under Section 141.
  • For a crime involving fewer people, charges like criminal conspiracy (Section 120A IPC) or rioting may apply.
• Four Persons:
  • Even though four people may commit an illegal act, they do not meet the minimum requirement of five persons for unlawful assembly under Section 141 IPC.
• Seven Persons:
  • Seven persons can form an unlawful assembly, but the minimum requirement is five; hence, "seven persons" is not the correct specific answer.

The correct answer is Option 3.

Key Points

•  Under Section 121 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC),
• “Whoever wages war against the Government of India, or attempts to wage such war, or abets the waging of such war, shall be punished with death, or imprisonment for life, and shall also be liable to fine.”

 The correct answer is Kedar nath v. State of Bihar

Key Point

• Landmark judgment on sedition (Section 124A IPC):
  • The Supreme Court in Kedar Nath Singh v. State of Bihar (1962) upheld the constitutional validity of the sedition law but narrowed its scope.
• Defined boundaries of sedition:
  • The Court clarified that criticism of the government, however strongly worded, does not amount to sedition unless it incites violence or creates public disorder.
• Protection of free speech:
  • The judgment protected freedom of speech and expression under Article 19(1)(a), unless the speech has the tendency to incite violence against the state.
• Established legal test:
  • The “incitement to violence or public disorder” test was laid down to separate legitimate dissent from criminal sedition.

Additional Information

• Option 1. Ranbir Singh v. State of Haryana is Incorrect: This case deals with police misconduct and custodial violence, not sedition or freedom of speech.
• Option 2. Gyan Kaur v. State of Punjab is Incorrect: This case relates to the validity of euthanasia and right to die, not sedition or free speech.
• Option 4. Shreya Singhal v. Union of India is Incorrect (but related): This case struck down Section 66A of the IT Act for curbing online speech, but it did not directly interpret sedition law.

The correct answer is option 4.Key Points

• Chapter 6 in Indian Penal Code 1860 deals with offences against the State.
• Section 121 of I.P.C. 1860 deals with waging or attempting to wage war or abetting waging of war against the Government of India.
• It says whoever wages war against the Government of India, or attempts to wage such war, or abets the waging of such war, shall be punished with death, or imprisonment for life and shall also be liable to fine.
• Section 399 of I.P.C. 1860 deals with making preparation to commit dacoity.
• Whoever makes any preparation for committing dacoity, shall be punished with rigorous imprisonment for a term which may extend to ten years, and shall also be liable to fine. 

The correct answer is 148

Key PointsSection 148.Rioting, armed with deadly weapon
Whoever is guilty of rioting, being armed with a deadly weapon or with anything which, used as a weapon of offence, is likely to cause death, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to three years, or with fine, or with both.

The correct answer is Sec 124 A

Key Points

• Kedarnath Singh v. State of Bihar, AIR 1962 SC 955
• Issue Decided:
  • The constitutional validity of Section 124A of the Indian Penal Code, which deals with the offence of sedition, was challenged on the ground that it violated the right to freedom of speech and expression under Article 19(1)(a) of the Constitution.
• Supreme Court’s Decision: The Court upheld the validity of Section 124A IPC.
• However, it narrowed its scope, holding that:
  • Only those acts that involve incitement to violence or intent to create public disorder will fall under the ambit of sedition.
  • Mere criticism of the government or its policies without inciting violence does not amount to sedition.
• Significance: This case laid down the guidelines to prevent misuse of the sedition law and balanced it with freedom of speech.

Additional Information

• Option 2 (Section 505 IPC): Deals with statements creating public mischief; not directly involved in this case.
• Option 3 (Sec 124A and 505): Only Section 124A was directly under challenge in this case.
• Option 4 (Section 121 IPC): Deals with waging war against the Government of India; not related to this case.

The correct answer is sedition

Key Points

• Sedition is an offence related to acts or speech that incite discontent or rebellion against the government; it is neither against the human body nor property.
• Cheating, Murder, and Robbery are offences directly against the human body or property.

Additional Information

• Cheating: Offence against property involving deception.
• Murder: Offence against human body (life).
• Robbery: Offence against property involving theft with violence.

The correct answer is Preparing to commit suicide.

Key Points 

• Offences Under Indian Penal Code (IPC), 1860:
  • Preparing to wage war against Government of India
  • Punishable under Section 121 (waging, or attempting to wage war against the Government of India).
  • Preparing to commit dacoity or robbery
  • Punishable under Sections 399 and 400 (preparing to commit dacoity), and Section 392 (robbery).
  • Preparing to commit depredation on the territory of friendly State of the Government of India
  • Covered under Section 130 and related provisions regarding offences against friendly states.
• Preparing to commit suicide:
  • This is not an offence under IPC.
  • Attempt to commit suicide was punishable under Section 309 IPC, but the Supreme Court and Parliament have moved towards decriminalizing this.
  • Moreover, preparing to commit suicide is not specifically an offence under IPC.

Additional Information

• Preparing to wage war against Government of India: Clearly an offence under IPC (Section 121).
• Preparing to commit dacoity or robbery: Punishable as preparation for serious crimes.
• Preparing to commit depredation on territory of friendly state: Offence under IPC related to foreign relations.

The correct answer is Niharendu Dutt V/s Emperor

Key Points

• Section 124A of the Indian Penal Code (IPC):
  • Deals with the offence of sedition, i.e., bringing hatred, contempt, or disaffection against the Government established by law.
• Niharendu Dutt Majumdar v. Emperor (AIR 1942 FC 22):
  • This is a landmark case decided by the Federal Court of India.
  • The Federal Court held that mere criticism of the government does not amount to sedition unless it incites violence or public disorder.
  • It interpreted Section 124A narrowly, requiring a tendency to cause public disorder for sedition to be applicable.
• Later development:
  • This view was overruled by the Privy Council in the case of King Emperor v. Sadashiv Narayan Bhalerao, which adopted a broader interpretation of sedition.
• Final clarification in independent India:
  • Kedar Nath Singh v. State of Bihar (1962) – Supreme Court upheld the constitutionality of Section 124A IPC, but limited its application to acts involving incitement to violence or public disorder, aligning more with the Federal Court's view in Niharendu Dutt.

Additional Information

• Option 1) Kedar Nath v. State – Supreme Court case, not Federal Court.
• Option 3) Queen Empress v. Bal Gangadhar Tilak – Decided by Bombay High Court (colonial period).
• Option 4) Emperor v. Sadashivanarayan – Decided by Privy Council, not Federal Court.

The correct answer is Vinayak Damodar Savarkar’s case

Key Points

• The Nasik Conspiracy Case arose from the assassination of A.M.T. Jackson, the then District Magistrate of Nasik, on 21st December 1909 by Anant Laxman Kanhere, a young revolutionary.
• This assassination was part of a broader revolutionary plot inspired and directed by Vinayak Damodar Savarkar, who at that time was in London, actively involved with India House and other revolutionary circles.
• The British authorities traced the source of arms and ideological inspiration to Savarkar. He was:
  • Arrested in London in 1910,
  • Tried and extradited to India, and
  • Sentenced in connection with the Nasik Conspiracy Case.
• Due to Savarkar’s central role, the case is historically identified with his name.

Additional Information

• Option 2) Bal Gangadhar Tilak’s case – Related to sedition charges (not conspiracy or Jackson’s murder).
• Option 3) Madhu Limaye’s case – Concerned civil liberties and the Emergency period, unrelated to Nasik.
• Option 4) None of the above – Incorrect, as option 1 is accurate.

The correct answer is 'Five persons'

Key Points

• Definition of Unlawful Assembly under Section 141 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC):
  • As per Section 141 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC), 1860, an assembly of five or more persons is considered an unlawful assembly if its common object falls under any of the conditions mentioned in the section.
  • The unlawful assembly is formed with an intention to:
    • Resist the execution of any law or legal process.
    • Commit an offense involving criminal force.
    • Overawe any public servant by use of force.
    • Forcibly deprive any person of property or a right.
    • Compel someone to do something against their legal right by use of force.
  • If less than five persons are involved, the assembly does not fall under the definition of an "unlawful assembly" under Section 141.

Additional Information

• Two Persons:
  • Two persons do not constitute an unlawful assembly under Section 141.
  • For a crime involving fewer people, charges like criminal conspiracy (Section 120A IPC) or rioting may apply.
• Four Persons:
  • Even though four people may commit an illegal act, they do not meet the minimum requirement of five persons for unlawful assembly under Section 141 IPC.
• Seven Persons:
  • Seven persons can form an unlawful assembly, but the minimum requirement is five; hence, "seven persons" is not the correct specific answer.

The correct answer is Option 3.

Key Points

•  Under Section 121 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC),
• “Whoever wages war against the Government of India, or attempts to wage such war, or abets the waging of such war, shall be punished with death, or imprisonment for life, and shall also be liable to fine.”