Legal Implications Of Insanity

Q56. A complaint was filed by X, the complainant alleging that Y, the accused person took him to a car showroom under the pretense of discussing a vehicle, held him hostage in their house and demanded money from X’s wife for his release. Next day, when X tried to escape, he was beaten and taken hostage in a four- wheeler. One of the co-accused sent a photo of X’s tied hands and feet to his wife asking for money, X’s wife deposited Rs. * Lakhs. An FIR was registered against the accused (appellants) under various IPC sections. The appellants were arrested during the investigation. The trial court sentenced the appellants but they appealed arguing that the detention was linked to a financial dispute over a vehicle sale (truck), they helped to sell the X’s vehicle to Z and X has not paid the total amount to appellant and therefore the appellants along with co-accused has detained him only to take his money back. Whether the appellants can be convicted under Sec. 364A of IPC (kidnapping for ransom)? a. Yes, since X’s wife informed that the co-accused demanded money amounting to five lakhs for X release. b. No, since the demand of money for ransom did not establish a credible threat to X's life. c. Yes, since evidence showed the appellants detained the X was coupled with a demand for ransom and threat to X’s life. d. No, since the evidence showed the appellants detained X to recover money owed to them and not for ransom. Q57. The prosecution alleged that the appellants abducted a class 12th student for ransom, attempting to kill him during the incident. Despite sustaining grievous injuries, the victim escaped, leading to the amputation of his right leg. The victim residing as a paying guest was picked up by the accused for a motorcycle ride but was later attacked, with attempts to strangle him. Believing him to be dead the accused poured petrol on him and set him on fire, looting his mobile phone and cash. The victim however survived, escaped, and soughtmedical attention, prompting police involvement. The court noted the prosecution's successful establishment of attempted murder and robbery charges beyond reasonable doubt. However, doubts surfaced regarding conviction under Sec. 364A of the IPC. Decide: a. Yes, the prosecution established the charges under Sec. 364A of the IPC since the victim mentioned about the ransom demand during his testimony in the court. b. No, the prosecution did not establish the charges under Sec. 365A of the IPC since the lack of substantial evidence for a ransom demand. c. Yes, the prosecution established the charges under Sec. 364A of the IPC since abduction alone is an offense under this section. d. Cannot be determined. Q58. In relation to making out an offense under Sec. 365A of the IPC, which of the following statements is/are true: a. There should be a kidnapping or abduction of a person or a person is to be kept in detention after such kidnapping or abduction. b. There is a threat to cause death or hurt to such a person or the accused by their conduct give rise to reasonable apprehension that such person may be put to death or hurt. c. Both a and b. d. None of the above. Q59. The prosecution alleged that the accused kidnapped a *-year-old child, after the tuition classes, he was kidnapped by the accused who lured him into their car by falsely telling him that his father was going to buy a car and waiting for him in a toy store. The accused called the child’s father demanding a ransom of Rs. * lakhs for his release and threatening to kill the child if the ransom was not paid. The child’s father lodged a complaint, and the accused were arrested the next day with the child in their car at a toll gate. The court reviewed testimonies from the child’s parents and found that while they received a ransom demand, there was no evidence connecting the accused to the demand or the threats made. Decide: a. Yes, the conviction of the accused under Sec. 365A based on the remaining evidence i.e, call records and the testimony of the child’s parents. b. No, the conviction of the accused was not established under Sec. 365A of IPC since the court discarded the call record evidence. c. Yes, the conviction of the accused under Sec. 365A of the IPC because the threats given to the child’s parents by the accused were established. d. No, the conviction of the accused was not established under Sec. 365A of IPC since there was insufficient evidence connecting the accused to the threats made. Q60. X, the victim received a call from Y, the accused asking him to come to Vasant Vihar the next day. The next day X and Y wnt to the Y’s office in Gurgaon in the accused’s car. At the office, Y called two others A and co-accused B, they tied up X, wrapped him with a sheet and put him in the boot of the accused’s car. They drove to the Y’s haveli in Rewari. A ransom call was received by X’s father on his office landline froman unknown number. X escaped from the boot and took a motorcycle lift to Rewari bus stand, hired a taxi to Delhi and informed his aunt from the STD booth. X’s mobile phone and a pistol were recovered from the accused. Whether the accused can be convicted under Sec. 364A of IPC (kidnapping for ransom)? a. Yes, since the demand for ransom was explicitly communicated to X’s father to compel the payment. b. No, since the ransom amount which was demanded was not translated into action. c. Yes, since the ransom amount was demanded and the threat to X’s life was directly associated with that demand. d. None of the above

Q61. In relation to distinction between the negligence under civil law and criminal law, which one of the following statements is true? a. There is no distinction; both terms mean the same thing.b. In order to establish liability under civil law, the level of negligence must be higher than the amount of negligence sufficient to establish liability under criminal law for damages, meaning it must be egregious or extremely high. c. In the case of criminal law, it will not only be decided by the amount of damage received but also by the degree of negligence whereas in civil law, negligence is neither egregious nor of a higher degree, which may give rise to a lawsuit, but it cannot be the basis for the preceding. d. None of the above. Q62. Mr. X, a medical professional with the necessary qualification, administered an injection of sobita, which contained Sodium Bismuth Tartrate according to the British Pharmacopoeia. However, what was actually given was a Sobita overdose. The patient passed away. The doctor faced accusations of recklessness, homicide, and negligence. He received a conviction. The matter was reached in the form of an appeal before the House of Lords. Decide: a.No, after hearing the appeal, the conviction was not revoked by the Court since Mr. X failed to meet the required standard of care which leads to the patient's death. b. No, after hearing the appeal, the conviction was not revoked by the Court since the court found sufficient evidence to support the negligence on the part of Mr. X. c. Both a and b. d. None of the above. Q63. A leaf of datura and * drops of stramonium were given to the accused, who was suffering from guinea worm, a registered homeopath. Before giving it to the patient, it was not searched by the accused as to what happens when such drugs are given to people. The prosecution failed to provide sufficient evidence in support of its claim that the datura leaf is poisonous and harmful to the human body. Section * of IPC was eliminated against the accused by the court. But after it was discovered that datura and stramonium leaves are toxic and that datura leaves are only used in Ayurvedic medicine, not in any other medical system, to treat guinea worms. Decide: a.No, since the prosecution failed to provide sufficient evidence in support of its claim that the datura leaf is poisonous and harmful to the human body. b. Yes, since the accused’s prescription of toxic materials without considering their effects, it was declared to be rash and negligent. c. Yes, since datura leaves are only used in Ayurvedic medicine, not in any other medical system, to treat guinea worms, it was declared to be rash and negligent. d. Cannot be determined. Q64. Assertion (A): Negligence or recklessness being 'gross' is not a requirement of Section 304A of IPC. Reason (R): Criminal complaints are being filed against doctors alleging commission of offenses punishable under Section 304A of the IPC alleging rashness or negligence on the part of the doctors resulting in loss of life or injury (of varying degree) to the patient. a. Both (A) and (R) are true and (R) is the correct explanation of (A) b. Both (A) and (R) are correct and (R) is not the correct explanation of (A)c. (A) is correct and (R) is false. d. (A) is false and (R) is correct. Q65. X was admitted to a private ward in a CWC Hospital, which was situated in Ludhiana. On February *, the patient suffered from breathing problems. Y, who was the older brother of the informant was present there and after seeing his father in pain, he called the nurse and doctor, but even after calling them, no one arrived there for about *-* minutes. After * minutes, two doctors visited the patient room, named A and B. After coming there, he immediately ordered the oxygen gas cylinder to be connected to the mouth of the patient. However, after doing so, the patient started to feel more problems because it was found that the oxygen gas cylinder was empty, and after searching all over, it was discovered that there was no other gas cylinder present in the hospital. Y started searching for another gas cylinder, but after * minutes, the doctors confirmed that the patient was dead. Y filed an FIR under Section 304A of the IPC, alleging negligence by the hospital staff, leading to the patient's death. Decide: a.Yes, since the patient started to feel more problems because it was found that the oxygen gas cylinder was empty. b. No, since after * minutes when doctors visited the patient room, they immediately ordered the oxygen gas cylinder to be connected to the mouth of the patient. c. No, since lack of evidence that the death of the patient was the negligence act done by doctors named A and B. d. None of the above.

Q66. X the petitioner at present is posted with BSF as Assistant Sub-Inspector. She joined the force in *. The respondent by the impugned judgment changed the number of posts of pharmacists cadre and it was seen that that respondent has reduced * posts of Assistant Sub-Inspector and * posts of Sub-Inspector whereas * posts of Inspector and * posts of Subedar Major have been increased. The petitioner is assailing notification issued by a Competent Authority. Decide: a.No, since authority has the right to create and abolish posts as an employer not violating her fundamental rights to equality and fair treatment under the Indian Constitution. b. Yes, since this reduction in posts will negatively affect her promotion prospects, violating her fundamental rights to equality and fair treatment under the Indian Constitution. c. No, since the mere fact that there is an increase in posts of Subedar Major and Inspector is not going to substantially affect her rights therefore not violating her fundamental rights to equality and fair treatment under the Indian Constitution. d. None of the above. Q67. Mr. Anirudh, a highly qualified candidate applied for the post of Assistant Professor in a prestigious medical government funded University. The University had advertised the position and received numerous applications. However, before the selection process commenced the competent authority (UGC) decided to abolish the advertised post citing budgetary constraints and a change in academic priorities. Mr. Anirudh challenged this decision arguing that the abolition of the post after she had applied and appeared for the preliminary screening violated her fundamental right to be considered for the post. Decide: a.Yes, since the government's decision was arbitrary and capricious causing loss of opportunity. b. No, since the University abolished the post of Assistant Professor due to budgetary constraints or change in academic priorities. c. Yes, since the abolition of the post after she had applied and appeared for the preliminary screening violated her fundamental right to be considered for the post. d. None of the above. Q68. Sixty-three employees working under the Court Liquidator attached to Calcutta High Court filed writ petition for grant of the status of permanent Central Government employee with effect from the date of completion of 360 days of service besides regular pay scales with avenues for promotion apart from pension, provident fund and other service benefits on the basis of their length of service. Whether granting permanentstatus to the employees would violate their rights? a.No, since the employer has authority over posts. b. Yes, since they did not know their appointments were temporary. c. No, since the employees rights based on their service duration. d. Cannot be determined. Q69. What is the central idea of the passage? a.To increase in higher posts would ultimately benefit by providing more promotion opportunities. b. The competent authority cannot create or abolish promotional posts. c. The right to be considered for promotion is a fundamental right. d. None of the above. Q70. In this of the following case, wherein it has categorically held that the creation and abolition of posts, formation and structuring/restructuring of cadres falls within the domain of the employer. Select the correct option: a.Anuradha V. Union Of India And Others b. Official Liquidator v. Dayanand and others, (*). c. Both a and b. d. None of the above.

Q71. Two Memorandum Of Understanding are executed between X (accused) and Y (complaint company). Y invested Rs. * crores under the first MOU in April * and invested Rs. * crore under the second MOU in January *. X assured Y of monthly returns until the properties were leased out. They promised high rental returns and maintenance services for the properties. X failed to pay assured returns to him with effect from May/August, * which according to the Y, amounts to cheating and criminal breach of trust on the part of the X. Decide: a.Yes, since there is no allegation that X made any willful misrepresentation. b. No, since X had at the time of entering into Memoranda of Understanding with the Y, intention of honoring their commitments towards the Y. c. Yes, since the payments of returns were stopped by X. d. None of the above. Q72. The builder company was accused of selling four excess flats beyond its share as stipulated by the joint development agreement and the supplementary agreement entered into between the parties. The complaint contended that the builders had sold * flats instead of * flats. The High Court refused to quash the criminal charges. While Supreme Court focused on its interpretation and said “ Criminal Breach of trust under Section * of IPC, says misappropriation or conversion of another’s property for one’s use , with a dishonest intention, while the cheating under section * of the IPC also includes dishonest intention aimed at the another party to deliver their property. Whether the builder company's actions constitute criminal breach of trust under Section * IPC? a. Yes, since the builder company sells excess flats beyond the agreed share which implies misappropriation of property with dishonest intent. b. No, since the builder company had a reasonable basis for selling the additional flats. c. Yes, since the builder company converted the property (the four extra flats) for their own use. d. None of the above. Q73. In the above-mentioned facts, whether the builder company's actions constitute cheating under Section * IPC? a. Yes, since the builder company's had dishonest intentions to induce the other party to deliver their property (thefour extra flats). b. No, since the builder company had a reasonable basis for selling the additional flats. c. Yes, since the builder company converted the property (the four extra flats) for their own use. d. None of the above. Q74. Maheep Kaur entered into an agreement to purchase a plot of land, receiving an amount of Rs. * lakhs as earnest money. The sale deed was to be executed by August *, * and later extended to January *. Sanjay Roy files complaints regarding the agreement, initially against property dealers and later including Maheep Kaur alleging cheating under IPC Sections *, 120B and *. Decide: a.Yes, Maheep Kaur's failure to execute the sale deed despite receiving earnest money amounted to cheating. b.Yes, Maheep Kaur's delay to execute the sale deed as the initial deadline for executing the sale deed was August * and later extended to January * amounted to cheating. c. Both a and b. d. None of the above. Q75. XYZ Ltd. invested an amount of Rs. * crores in ABC Ltd. in exchange for 100k equity shares. ABC Ltd. failed to carry out the promised Initial Public Offering. XYZ filed a complaint with the police alleging cheating and criminal conspiracy. The police closed the case, but the Chief Metropolitan Magistrate allowed a protest petition by the respondent. The Appellants challenged the CMM's order in the High Court, seeking to quash the FIR. The High Court dismissed the Appellants' petition. The Appellants appealed the High Court's decision to the Supreme Court. Decide: a.Yes, since the Appellants failed to carry out the promised Initial Public Offering. b. No, since the police's closure of the case indicates a lack of sufficient evidence to support claims of cheating. c. Yes, since the Appellants had induced the complainant to purchase shares and invest money through willful misrepresentation. d. None of the above

Q76. The incident occurred on *-*-*, when the appellant forcibly raped a student of class * in a school before classes began. The victim raised an alarm, and the appellant fled the school. The victim’s grandfather filed a complaint with the police. The instant matter involves an appeal against the judgment and order dated *-*-* passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Special Court under the POCSO Act where the appellant/accused was found guilty of committing an offense under Section * of the POCSO Act. The appellant also raised concerns about the non-examination of a friend who had entered the room after hearing the victim’s cries. The appellant further raised the issue of the appellant’s alleged insanity and poor vision, citing doctor’s reports.The State contended that the victim’s testimony was consistent and corroborated by her statement recorded under Section * of the CrPC and a medical examination. It was pointed out that the appellant’s responses during the examination under Section * CrPC indicated alertness. Decide: a. The appellant was found not guilty since the prosecution's case lacked support from school staff and other students who were not examined during the investigation. b. The appellant was found guilty since the victim’s testimony was inconsistent and not corroborated by her statement recorded under Section * of the CrPC and a medical examination. c. The appellant was found not guilty since the appellant’s alleged insanity and poor vision, citing doctor’s reports. d. None of the above. Q77. On Nov *, *, when the convict took a six-year-old girl to his house, locked the door and raped her. The complaint was filed by her aunt. Medical tests and witness testimonies corroborated the survivor'saccount, leading to conviction in a fast-track special court under POCSO Act on Jan *, *. He was convicted under IPC section *-AB and section *(m) read with Section * of Pocso Act and sentenced to life imprisonment till natural death. The verdict was challenged in high court, with the defense counsel arguing that the convict was of 'unsound mind'. However, the high court took note of the observations of psychiatrist Dr A S Saraf and jail superintendent Akshay Singh Rajput, who testified that the convict "displayed normal behavior and understanding" during interactions and routine activities in jail. Whether this appeal will be dismissed by the High Court? a.No, since the testimonies of psychiatrist Dr. Saraf and jail superintendent AS Rajput, who testified that the convict displayed normal behavior and understanding. b. Yes, since the evidence supports the defense's claim of insanity i.e, the convict was of unsound mind at the time of the crime. c. No, since lack of evidence supporting the defense's claim of insanity i.e, the convict was of unsound mind at the time of the crime. d. Cannot be determined. Q78. The appellant was the step of the deceased Samantha ( a *-year-old girl). He was married to Samantha's mother in the year *. His wife went to attend an event in Mumbai. On the night of April *, *, as usual, the appellant and his daughter slept in their bed-room and the doors leading to that room were bolted from inside and assaulted her. At about * or *.* a.m. on the next day Samantha cried that she was being killed. The neighbors gathered in front of the said room and called upon the accused to open the door. When the door was opened they found Samantha dead with a number of wounds on her body. The accused was sent up for trial to the sessions on the charge of murder. Before the Additional Sessions Judge,a defense was set up that the accused was insane when the incident was alleged to have taken place and was not capable of understanding the nature of his act. Decide: a.No, since the witnesses in their statements before the police attributed a clear intention to the accused to commit murder. b. Yes, since the accused in anger or frustration killed his daughter. c. No, since the evidence is sufficient even to throw a reasonable doubt in our mind that the act might have been committed when the accused was in a fit of insanity. d. None of the above. Q79. The doctrine of burden of proof in the context of the plea of insanity may be stated in the following propositions, which of the following statements is correct: a. The prosecution must prove beyond reasonable doubt that the accused had committed the offense with the requisite mens rea, and the burden of proving that always rests on the prosecution from the beginning to the end of the trial. b. There is a rebuttable presumption that the accused was not insane, when he committed the crime. c. Both a and b. d. None of the above. Q80. What does the term “grave legal error” denote which is mentioned in the passage? a. A serious mistake in the judicial process itself. b. An error which is visible in the record and affects a litigant's right(s). c. A significant mistake made by the trial court in its legal reasoning or application of the law. d. None of the above