Q1 to Q5 - Legal Principles:

1. Actus Reus: A guilty act or omission that, when combined with a guilty mind (mens rea), constitutes a crime. A
defendant is only guilty of a crime if their actions directly caused harm.
2. Mens Rea: The mental state or intention to commit a crime. Different crimes require varying levels of intent,
ranging from negligence to premeditation.
3. Causation: A defendant’s act must be the factual and legal cause of the harm. Causation is divided into factual
causation (but-for test) and legal causation (proximate cause).
4. Defenses: Defendants may escape liability if they successfully raise certain defenses, such as self-defense,
insanity, or duress, which negate criminal responsibility.
5. Strict Liability: In certain offenses, mens rea is not required. Simply committing the act (actus reus) is enough to
hold the defendant liable, regardless of intent or knowledge.

Q.1) In November 2021, Vikram was walking through a crowded marketplace when he accidentally brushed against Vicky,
a street vendor. Vicky immediately began shouting at Vikram for knocking over some of his items. A heated argument
ensued, and Vicky made a threatening gesture with a metal rod. Feeling provoked, Vikram pushed Vicky in the chest. Vicky
stumbled backward, tripped over a curb, and hit his head on the pavement. He was rushed to the hospital but later died
from a severe brain injury. Vikram was charged with manslaughter. During the trial, Vikram claimed he only pushed Vicky in
self-defense and did not intend to harm him. The prosecution argued that Vikram’s actions were reckless and directly led to
Vicky’s death. Which of the following is the most accurate statement regarding Vikram’s criminal liability?

(a) Vikram may be found guilty of manslaughter because pushing Vicky in such a situation, even without intent to kill,
resulted in a foreseeable risk of serious harm, fulfilling the requirement for manslaughter.
(b) Vikram should not be liable for manslaughter because Vicky's death was an accidental consequence of the fall, which
was not foreseeable from a simple push, thus negating the causal link to the death.
(c) Vikram is not guilty because he lacked the requisite mens rea for causing Vicky’s death, as his actions were impulsive
and only meant to defend himself, not to inflict any serious harm.
(d) Vikram should be convicted of murder because his violent act in response to the argument implies that he intentionally
caused Vicky’s death, regardless of his initial intention to defend himself.

Q.2) In May 2023, Varun, a father of two, was walking his children in a park late in the evening. A man approached them
with a knife, demanding money and threatening to harm them if they didn’t comply. Fearing for his children’s lives, Varun
grabbed a heavy metal rod lying nearby and struck the man on the head. The man collapsed instantly, suffering a fatal
head injury. Varun was arrested and charged with murder. During the trial, Varun claimed self-defense, arguing that he
acted out of genuine fear for his children’s safety and used the rod to protect them from immediate harm. Which of the
following is the most accurate statement regarding Varun’s defense?

(a) Varun may be acquitted of murder because self-defense is a complete defense when one acts to protect themselves or
others from an imminent threat, especially where the fear of harm is reasonable.
(b) Varun’s self-defense claim could be rejected because using a rod to hit someone threatening with a knife could be
viewed as disproportionate force, thereby making his response excessive.
(c) Varun should still be found guilty because, even though his actions were in defense of his children, killing someone is
inherently excessive, and the law doesn’t excuse taking a life under such circumstances.
(d) Varun could be acquitted because, as a father protecting his children, the law allows the use of any available means
necessary to neutralize an immediate threat.

Q.3) In June 2022, Vikram, a delivery driver, was hurrying to meet a delivery deadline. He was running late and decided to
drive well above the speed limit through a crowded urban area. As he approached an intersection, the traffic light turned
red, but Vikram, determined to make up time, sped through the light. Unfortunately, a car passing through the intersection
was hit by Vikram’s van, causing the other driver to suffer fatal injuries. Vikram was charged with vehicular manslaughter.
In his defense, Vikram claimed that he never intended to cause any harm and was simply rushing due to job pressures.
The court must now decide his fate. Which of the following statements is most accurate regarding Vikram’s criminal
liability?

(a) Vikram should be found guilty of manslaughter because his reckless decision to run a red light and exceed the speed
limit directly led to the fatal accident, which constitutes the necessary actus reus for manslaughter.
(b) Vikram is not guilty because there was no mens rea, as he did not intend to cause the accident or harm the other driver,
and his actions were purely motivated by work-related pressure.

Registered office: 6th Floor, NCL Building, 'E' Block, Bandra Kurla Complex (BKC), (Next to CITY PARK - Garden), Bandra (East), Mumbai - 400051.
(c) Vikram should not be held criminally liable because the accident was unintentional, and his need to meet work
deadlines led to an unfortunate but accidental event, not a reckless act.
(d) Vikram may be convicted of a lesser offense like dangerous driving because, although he was negligent, his actions
were not deliberate enough to meet the threshold for manslaughter, which requires greater intent to harm.

Q.4) In March 2023, Vishnu, a licensed pharmacist working in a busy city hospital, accidentally gave a patient the wrong
medication. The patient had been prescribed a drug to treat high blood pressure, but due to an error, Vishnu provided a
powerful sedative meant for another patient. Shortly after taking the wrong medication, the patient began experiencing
severe complications, including difficulty breathing and an abnormal heart rate. Fortunately, the hospital’s emergency team
acted quickly, and the patient survived after intensive treatment. However, Vishnu was charged with criminal negligence
due to the severity of the error. In his defense, Vishnu claimed it was an honest mistake under stressful working conditions,
and he had no intention of causing harm. Which of the following is the most accurate statement regarding Vishnu’s criminal
liability?

(a) Vishnu could be found guilty of criminal negligence because his actions fell below the standard expected of a
reasonable pharmacist, and the harm caused, despite being unintentional, resulted from a breach of his duty of care.
(b) Vishnu should not be held liable for criminal negligence because he lacked the mens rea or intent to cause harm, and
the mistake occurred due to stressful working conditions, making it a non-criminal error.
(c) Vishnu should be acquitted because the patient survived, and no long-term harm occurred, making the imposition of
criminal charges inappropriate in this case.
(d) Vishnu’s conduct may be better addressed in a civil lawsuit for malpractice rather than a criminal case, as there was no
willful misconduct or intent to harm the patient.

Q.5) In August 2022, Vikrant, a manager at a manufacturing plant, was responsible for ensuring that all machinery in the
factory was functioning safely and met regulatory standards. Several workers had previously reported that a key piece of
equipment was malfunctioning and posed a safety hazard. Despite these warnings, Vikrant did not take action to replace or
repair the faulty machine. One day, while operating the machine, a worker suffered a severe injury when the equipment
malfunctioned. Vikrant was charged with a strict liability offense for failing to comply with workplace safety laws. During the
trial, Vikrant argued that he never intended for anyone to be harmed and that the malfunction was unforeseen. Which of
the following statements is most accurate regarding Vikrant's liability?

(a) Vikrant is guilty of the strict liability offense because, in strict liability cases, mens rea (intent) is not required, and the
fact that he failed to act on the safety warnings is sufficient to establish his guilt.
(b) Vikrant should not be liable because there was no intent to cause harm, and the malfunction could have happened
without his knowledge or control, so he should not be held responsible.
(c) Vikrant is likely to be acquitted because even though the equipment was faulty, the injury was not foreseeable, and strict
liability requires some level of foreseeability of harm.
(d) Vikrant may be able to avoid liability if he can prove that the equipment was inspected recently or if a third party was
responsible for its malfunction.

Q.6) Principle: Under Section 299 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC), culpable homicide is the act of causing death with the
intention of causing death or with the knowledge that the act is likely to cause death. Section 300 of the IPC distinguishes
murder from culpable homicide by requiring either a higher degree of intention or the presence of special circumstances,
such as extreme cruelty or premeditation.

Factual Situation: Vinay, during an argument with his neighbor, Pranav, lost his temper and pushed Pranav down a flight
of stairs. Pranav suffered serious injuries and was taken to the hospital. Two days later, Pranav succumbed to his injuries.
During the trial, Vinay argued that he had no intention to kill Pranav and merely wanted to push him away in the heat of the
moment. The prosecution argued that Vinay’s act of pushing someone down a flight of stairs demonstrated enough
knowledge that death could occur. Determine Vinay's liability under the IPC.

(a) Vinay is liable for murder because pushing someone down a flight of stairs is inherently dangerous, and death was a
foreseeable result of his actions.
(b) Vinay is liable for culpable homicide not amounting to murder because he had knowledge that his act was likely to
cause death, but there was no premeditation or extreme cruelty.
(c) Vinay is not liable for any offense because he did not intend to kill Pranav, and his actions were the result of a heated
argument with no intent to cause grievous harm.
(d) Vinay is only liable for causing hurt under the IPC as the death occurred later, and there was no direct intention or
knowledge to cause death during the initial push.

Registered office: 6th Floor, NCL Building, 'E' Block, Bandra Kurla Complex (BKC), (Next to CITY PARK - Garden), Bandra (East), Mumbai - 400051.
Q.7) Principle 1: Under Section 124A of the Indian Penal Code (IPC), sedition is the act of bringing hatred or contempt, or
exciting disaffection toward the government established by law in India through words, spoken or written, or by signs, or by
visible representation.

Principle 2: Under Article 19(1)(a) of the Constitution of India, all citizens have the right to freedom of speech and
expression. However, Article 19(2) imposes reasonable restrictions on this right in the interest of the sovereignty, integrity,
and security of India, public order, and morality.

Factual Situation: Vinita, a political activist, delivered a speech at a public rally where she criticized the government’s
economic policies. During her speech, she claimed that the government had failed the people and urged the audience to
organize peaceful protests. A few days later, violent protests broke out in various parts of the city, and the authorities
arrested Vinita for sedition under Section 124A of the IPC. Vinita argued that she was merely exercising her right to free
speech under Article 19(1)(a) of the Constitution and that she never intended to incite violence. Determine Vinita’s liability.

(a) Vinita is liable for sedition because her speech led to violence, and Section 124A covers acts that excite disaffection
toward the government, regardless of her intent.
(b) Vinita is not liable for sedition because her speech falls under the right to free speech guaranteed by Article 19(1)(a),
and she did not directly incite violence.
(c) Vinita is liable because, even though she did not directly incite violence, her criticism of the government’s policies
amounted to disaffection under Section 124A of the IPC.
(d) Vinita should be acquitted because her speech was limited to peaceful protests, and the subsequent violence was not a
foreseeable consequence of her words.

Q.8) Principle 1: Under Section 149 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC), if an offense is committed by any member of an
unlawful assembly in furtherance of the common object of that assembly, every person who is a member of such assembly
at the time of the offense is guilty of that offense, regardless of their individual participation.

Principle 2: According to Section 141 of the IPC, an unlawful assembly is defined as a group of five or more persons with
the common object of committing a crime or carrying out an action that disturbs public peace, among other objectives listed
under the section.

Factual Situation: Vikas, along with six other individuals, attended a protest against a local factory, which had been
releasing toxic waste into the environment. The protest was supposed to be peaceful, but as the crowd grew larger, some
protesters began throwing stones at the factory gates. During the commotion, one of the protesters set fire to the factory
building. Vikas was present during the entire incident but did not participate in throwing stones or setting the fire. However,
he was arrested along with the group and charged under Section 149 of the IPC. Vikas claims that he did not commit any
violent act and merely wanted to participate in a peaceful protest. Determine his liability.

(a) Vikas is liable under Section 149 because he was part of an unlawful assembly that committed an offense in
furtherance of the common object, regardless of his individual actions.
(b) Vikas should not be held liable under Section 149 because he did not personally engage in any violent act or contribute
to the destruction of the factory.
(c) Vikas is liable because the protest turned into an unlawful assembly, and his mere presence during the violent acts
makes him responsible for the offense.
(d) Vikas should be acquitted because the protest initially had a peaceful intent, and he did not have any knowledge of the
violent acts that would occur.

Q.9) Principle 1: Under Section 300 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC), an act constitutes murder if the act is done with the
intention of causing death, or with the intention of causing such bodily injury as is likely to cause death, or if it is done with
the knowledge that the act is so imminently dangerous that it must, in all probability, cause death.

Principle 2: According to Section 304 of the IPC, culpable homicide not amounting to murder occurs when the act is done
with the knowledge that it is likely to cause death, but without the intention to cause death or cause such bodily injury as is
likely to cause death, or under grave and sudden provocation.

Factual Situation: Vikrant and Mohan, long-time business partners, had a heated argument over financial matters. During
the argument, Vikrant grabbed a metal rod in a fit of anger and hit Mohan on the head. Mohan fell unconscious and later
died in the hospital due to severe brain injuries. At trial, Vikrant argued that he had no intention to kill Mohan and acted

Registered office: 6th Floor, NCL Building, 'E' Block, Bandra Kurla Complex (BKC), (Next to CITY PARK - Garden), Bandra (East), Mumbai - 400051.
impulsively during the argument. The prosecution, however, argued that striking someone on the head with a metal rod
demonstrates intent to cause death or grievous harm. The court must decide whether Vikrant’s act amounts to murder
under Section 300 or culpable homicide not amounting to murder under Section 304.

(a) Vikrant is liable for murder under Section 300 because hitting someone on the head with a metal rod is an act likely to
cause death, which demonstrates intent.
(b) Vikrant is liable for culpable homicide not amounting to murder under Section 304 because his actions were done in the
heat of the moment and there was no premeditated intention to kill.
(c) Vikrant should be acquitted because he had no intention to kill Mohan, and his actions were driven by a sudden
provocation that reduced the gravity of the crime.
(d) Vikrant is not liable for either offense because his act was an accident during a heated argument, and he never had the
knowledge or intention that death could result.

Q.10) Principle 1: Under Section 23 of the Indian Contract Act, 1872, the consideration or object of an agreement is lawful
unless it is forbidden by law, or is of such a nature that, if permitted, it would defeat the provisions of any law, or is
fraudulent, or involves or implies injury to the person or property of another, or the court regards it as immoral or opposed
to public policy.

Principle 2: According to Section 10 of the Indian Contract Act, 1872, all agreements are contracts if they are made by the
free consent of parties competent to contract, for a lawful consideration and with a lawful object, and are not expressly
declared void.

Factual Situation: Brijesh, a real estate developer, entered into an agreement with Nilesh, a local businessman, to build a
commercial complex on land that was under government investigation for illegal acquisition. Nilesh knew about the ongoing
investigation but convinced Brijesh that the project would be approved once the investigation was over. The contract was
executed, and Brijesh paid a large sum as advance. Later, the government seized the land, declaring it illegal for any
commercial use. Brijesh now seeks to recover his money, claiming that the contract was void due to the unlawful nature of
the object.

(a) Brijesh can recover his money because the object of the contract was unlawful under Section 23, and contracts with
illegal objects are void.
(b) Brijesh cannot recover his money because he entered into the contract willingly and should have verified the legality of
the land before agreeing to the terms.
(c) Nilesh can refuse to return the money because the contract was valid at the time of execution, and the subsequent
government action does not affect the agreement.
(d) Brijesh can recover a partial amount of the money based on the fact that he was unaware of the full extent of the
investigation but contributed to the risk by proceeding with the project.

Q.11) Principle 1: Under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, a person is liable for dishonor of a cheque if
the cheque is returned by the bank unpaid due to insufficient funds in the account or because the amount exceeds the
arrangement made with the bank. The person can be prosecuted if the payment is not made within 15 days of receiving
notice regarding the dishonor of the cheque.

Principle 2: According to Section 142 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, no court shall take cognizance of any
offense punishable under Section 138 except upon a complaint in writing made by the payee or holder in due course within
one month of the date on which the cause of action arises (i.e., upon failure to make payment after 15 days of notice).

Factual Situation: Dipesh, a businessman, issued a cheque for ₹10 lakh to his supplier, Gopal, as payment for goods.
However, when Gopal presented the cheque for payment, it was dishonored due to insufficient funds in Dipesh’s account.
Gopal immediately sent a legal notice to Dipesh, demanding payment within 15 days. Dipesh, instead of making the
payment, requested Gopal to delay filing the complaint, promising to make the payment in the future. Gopal waited for 45
days but still did not receive the money, so he filed a complaint after 45 days from the dishonor of the cheque. Dipesh now
argues that Gopal’s complaint is invalid due to late filing.

(a) Gopal’s complaint is valid because Dipesh requested more time, and Gopal waited in good faith, which should be
considered by the court.
(b) Gopal’s complaint is invalid because the law requires that the complaint be filed within one month of the cause of
action, and the court cannot extend the limitation period based on promises.

Registered office: 6th Floor, NCL Building, 'E' Block, Bandra Kurla Complex (BKC), (Next to CITY PARK - Garden), Bandra (East), Mumbai - 400051.
(c) Gopal can still recover the amount through civil proceedings, but the criminal complaint under Section 138 is barred due
to the delay in filing the complaint.
(d) Gopal’s complaint is invalid because he failed to file the complaint within the required time frame under Section 142,
and the law mandates strict adherence to the limitation period, regardless of the circumstances.

Q.12) Principle 1: Under Section 201 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC), causing the disappearance of evidence of an
offense, or giving false information to shield an offender, is punishable if the person knows or has reason to believe that an
offense has been committed.

Principle 2: According to Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC), when a criminal act is done by several persons in
furtherance of a common intention, each of them is liable for that act in the same manner as if it were done by him alone.

Factual Situation: Varun and Ajay were involved in a heated argument with another person, Sameer, at a party. During the
argument, Ajay, in a fit of anger, struck Sameer with a heavy object, leading to Sameer’s death. Panicking, Varun helped
Ajay move Sameer's body and disposed of it in a nearby river to conceal the crime. Varun claims he had no role in
Sameer’s death and only acted under pressure from Ajay. Both Varun and Ajay are now being prosecuted, and Varun is
being charged under Section 201 for causing the disappearance of evidence and under Section 34 for acting in furtherance
of the common intention to conceal the crime.

(a) Varun is liable under Section 34 because his act of helping Ajay dispose of the body shows that they acted with a
common intention to conceal the crime.
(b) Varun is not liable under Section 201 because he did not participate in the actual killing, and merely disposing of the
body does not link him to the offense of murder.
(c) Varun can be held liable under Section 201 but not under Section 34, as he did not share the common intention to
commit the murder, though he acted to conceal the crime afterward.
(d) Varun is liable under both Section 201 and Section 34 because helping Ajay dispose of the body shows that he acted in
furtherance of a common intention to cover up the offense.

Q.13) Principle 1: Under Section 76 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC), nothing is an offense which is done by a person who
is bound by law or believes in good faith that he is bound by law to do it.

Principle 2: According to Section 79 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC), nothing is an offense which is done by a person in
good faith, believing himself to be justified by law in doing it.

Factual Situation: Vikash, a police officer, was ordered by his superior to arrest Ramesh, a local businessman, for alleged
involvement in illegal activities. Vikash arrested Ramesh without verifying the evidence against him, believing that his
superior’s orders were valid. Later, it was revealed that Ramesh had no involvement in any illegal activities, and the arrest
was made based on false information. Ramesh sued Vikash for wrongful arrest, claiming that Vikash acted without proper
verification of facts. Vikash argues that he was acting under his superior's orders and in good faith, believing that he was
bound by law to make the arrest.

(a) Vikash is liable for wrongful arrest because he failed to verify the facts before arresting Ramesh, and simply following
orders is not a valid defense.
(b) Vikash is not liable because Section 76 of the IPC protects him, as he was bound by law to follow the orders of his
superior officer and acted in good faith.
(c) Vikash is liable because Section 76 does not apply in cases where the officer does not verify the evidence
independently before making an arrest.
(d) Vikash is not liable because Section 79 protects him, as he genuinely believed in good faith that his actions were
justified by law and was unaware that the information provided was false.

Q.14) Principle 1: According to Section 96 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC), nothing is an offense which is done in the
exercise of the right of private defense.

Principle 2: Under Section 100 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC), the right of private defense of the body extends to causing
death if the assailant causes reasonable apprehension of death, grievous hurt, or commits an assault with the intention of
committing rape, kidnapping, or wrongful confinement.

Registered office: 6th Floor, NCL Building, 'E' Block, Bandra Kurla Complex (BKC), (Next to CITY PARK - Garden), Bandra (East), Mumbai - 400051.
Factual Situation: Vandana was walking home late at night when she was confronted by a man, Mukesh, who tried to
grab her, threatening to kill her if she didn’t comply with his demands. In a moment of panic, Vandana picked up a sharp
object from the ground and stabbed Mukesh, causing his death. It was later revealed that Mukesh had no weapon, and his
threats were verbal. Vandana is now being prosecuted for Mukesh’s death. She claims the right of private defense, arguing
that Mukesh’s actions caused her to fear for her life.

(a) Vandana is liable for Mukesh’s death because he was unarmed and posed no actual threat of causing grievous hurt or
death, so the right of private defense does not apply.
(b) Vandana is not liable for Mukesh’s death because Section 96 of the IPC protects her actions, as they were done in the
exercise of the right of private defense, regardless of whether Mukesh was armed.
(c) Vandana is liable because the right of private defense under Section 100 only applies when there is a real threat of
grievous hurt or death, and Mukesh did not possess a weapon to make his threat credible.
(d) Vandana is not liable because the right of private defense under Section 100 allows the use of deadly force if there is a
reasonable apprehension of death or grievous hurt, even if Mukesh was unarmed, as his threats were sufficient to cause
such apprehension.

Q.15) Principle 1: Under Section 403 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC), whoever dishonestly misappropriates or converts to
their own use any movable property, knowing that it belongs to another, commits the offense of criminal misappropriation.

Principle 2: According to Section 405 of the IPC, criminal breach of trust occurs when a person, who is entrusted with
property or has control over it, dishonestly misappropriates or converts that property for their own use.

Factual Situation: Vikas, an accountant in a small business, was entrusted with a sum of ₹5 lakh to pay a supplier on
behalf of his employer. Instead of making the payment, Vikas used the money to invest in stocks, believing he would return
the amount once the stocks yielded a profit. However, the investment failed, and Vikas lost the entire amount. His employer
discovered the situation, and Vikas was charged under Section 403 and Section 405 of the IPC. Vikas argues that he
always intended to return the money and that his actions were not dishonest since he was trying to benefit the business.

(a) Vikas is liable under Section 403 because he dishonestly misappropriated the money by using it for personal
investment, even though he intended to return it later.
(b) Vikas is liable under Section 405 because he was entrusted with the money, and using it for personal purposes,
regardless of his intentions, constitutes criminal breach of trust.
(c) Vikas is liable under both Section 403 and Section 405 because he misappropriated the funds and breached the trust
placed in him by his employer.
(d) Vikas is liable under both Section 403 and Section 405 because, even if he intended to return the money, his act of
using the funds for personal gain without permission amounts to dishonest misappropriation and breach of trust.

Q.16) Principle 1: According to Section 141 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC), an unlawful assembly is a group of five or
more persons with the common object of committing an offense, or engaging in actions that breach public peace or commit
any offense listed under the section.

Principle 2: Under Section 149 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC), if an offense is committed by any member of an unlawful
assembly in furtherance of the common object, every person who is a part of the assembly at the time of the offense is
liable for that offense.

Principle 3: Under Section 144 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC), the government can issue prohibitory orders
preventing unlawful assemblies in public places if it believes that such assemblies could lead to unrest or danger to public
safety.

Facts:
(a) A group of six people gathered in a public park to protest a new government law without obtaining prior permission. The
protest turned violent, and the police arrested all members under Section 149 for their involvement in the violence.
(b) A group of four people met peacefully in a market to discuss environmental policies. No violence or disruption occurred,
but the police dispersed the group under Section 141 for unlawful assembly.
(c) A group of eight people, after obtaining permission, organized a peaceful demonstration on climate change in a public
park. The police arrested the organizers under Section 144 for violating prohibitory orders, despite there being no violence
or public unrest.
(d) A group of five people attended a public lecture about tax policies in a hotel conference room. After the event, the police
charged them under Section 141 for unlawful assembly, even though there was no public disturbance.

Registered office: 6th Floor, NCL Building, 'E' Block, Bandra Kurla Complex (BKC), (Next to CITY PARK - Garden), Bandra (East), Mumbai - 400051.
Q.17) Principle 1: Under Article 19(1)(a) of the Indian Constitution, all citizens have the right to freedom of speech and
expression, which includes the right to express one’s opinions freely by words, writing, pictures, or any other
communicative means.

Principle 2: According to Article 19(2) of the Indian Constitution, reasonable restrictions can be imposed on the freedom of
speech and expression in the interests of the sovereignty, integrity of India, the security of the State, public order, decency,
morality, or in relation to contempt of court, defamation, or incitement to an offense.

Principle 3: As per the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971, publishing anything that scandalizes or lowers the authority of the
court, or interferes with the administration of justice, may amount to contempt of court unless it is a fair and accurate
criticism of judicial acts.

Facts:
(a) Veena published a critical article on social media accusing the judiciary of corruption and incompetence, leading to
public outrage and undermining the reputation of the courts. She was charged with contempt of court.
(b) Ramesh participated in a peaceful protest against a government policy in a public park, using placards and slogans to
express his dissatisfaction. He was charged with defamation for his actions.
(c) Priya delivered a speech at a university questioning the government’s recent agricultural laws, but no specific law or
institution was attacked. She was charged under Article 19(2) for jeopardizing public order.
(d) Manoj, a filmmaker, released a documentary critically analyzing a historical court decision. The film did not attack the
judges personally but provided an in-depth analysis of the judgment. He was charged with contempt of court.

Q.18) Principle 1: Under Section 299 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC), culpable homicide is the act of causing death with
the intention of causing death, or with the knowledge that the act is likely to cause death.

Principle 2: As per Section 300 of the IPC, murder is a culpable homicide but with greater intent, such as committing an
act with the intention of causing death or causing such bodily injury that is sufficient in the ordinary course of nature to
cause death.

Principle 3: According to Section 304 of the IPC, culpable homicide not amounting to murder applies when the accused
causes death with the knowledge that death may result, but without the intention or premeditation to kill, or if there is
sudden provocation or an absence of cruelty.

Facts:
(a) Raghav, after planning for days, poisoned his business partner to take control of the business. The partner died, and
Raghav was charged under Section 304 for culpable homicide not amounting to murder.
(b) Vimal, in a heated argument with his neighbor, struck him with a cricket bat on the head, knowing it could cause serious
harm, and the neighbor died as a result. Vimal is charged under Section 299 for culpable homicide.
(c) Ritesh, while driving carelessly, ran over a pedestrian, killing him instantly. Ritesh was charged under Section 300 for
murder.
(d) Rajan, out of sudden anger, slapped his friend, who fell and hit his head on a sharp object, leading to his death. Rajan
was charged under Section 300 for murder.

Q.19) Principle 1: Under Section 10 of the Indian Contract Act, 1872, all agreements are contracts if they are made by the
free consent of parties competent to contract, for a lawful consideration and with a lawful object, and are not expressly
declared void.

Principle 2: According to Section 13 of the Indian Contract Act, 1872, consent is said to be free when it is not caused by
coercion, undue influence, fraud, misrepresentation, or mistake.

Principle 3: As per Section 16 of the Indian Contract Act, 1872, a contract is said to be induced by undue influence when
one party, in a position of power over the other, obtains an unfair advantage by exploiting that position to influence the
other party’s consent.

Facts:
(a) Vishal, under pressure from his employer, agreed to sign a contract giving up a portion of his bonus. He later realized
that his consent was obtained through undue influence.

Registered office: 6th Floor, NCL Building, 'E' Block, Bandra Kurla Complex (BKC), (Next to CITY PARK - Garden), Bandra (East), Mumbai - 400051.
(b) Priya signed a contract to purchase a car from her friend without reading the fine print, which included unfair terms, but
she later claimed her consent was not free.
(c) Kunal signed a business deal under normal conditions but later regretted it due to financial loss. He claimed his consent
was invalid due to mistake.
(d) Suresh was tricked into signing a contract by his partner, who misrepresented the nature of the document. Suresh now
claims that the contract is void due to coercion.

Q.20) Principle 1: Under Section 84 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC), nothing is an offense if it is committed by a person
who, at the time of doing the act, was of unsound mind and incapable of knowing the nature of the act or that it was wrong
or contrary to law.

Principle 2: As per Section 85 of the IPC, an act is not an offense if the person committing the act was incapable of
knowing the nature of the act due to intoxication caused against his will.

Principle 3: According to Section 86 of the IPC, in cases of voluntary intoxication, the person shall be presumed to have
the same knowledge as he would have had if he had not been intoxicated. However, the intention to commit an offense
may not be inferred automatically.

Facts:
(a) Priya, while under the influence of alcohol at a party, attacked a fellow guest without provocation. She claimed she was
not responsible because she was drunk.
(b) Arjun, intoxicated after drinking at a bar, accidentally hit a pedestrian while driving his car and claimed that he was
unaware of his actions due to his intoxication.
(c) Veer, suffering from a severe mental illness, stabbed his neighbor under a delusion that the neighbor was trying to harm
him. He was charged with murder.
(d) Surya was forced to drink alcohol by his friends. While under its influence, he unknowingly broke a glass window, and
he was charged with property damage.

Q.21) Principle 1: Under Section 146 of the Indian Contract Act, 1872, a contract of indemnity is one where one party
promises to save the other from loss caused by the conduct of the promisor or another person.

Principle 2: According to Section 124 of the Indian Contract Act, 1872, the person providing indemnity (the indemnifier) is
liable to compensate the indemnified party for all damages or costs arising out of actions covered under the indemnity
contract.

Principle 3: As per Section 125 of the Indian Contract Act, 1872, the indemnified party has the right to recover all
damages, legal costs, and other expenses that are incurred in defending a claim, provided such expenses are covered by
the indemnity contract.

Facts:
(a) Priya, a supplier, entered into an indemnity contract with Meena, her buyer. Priya failed to deliver the goods on time,
causing Meena to suffer business losses. Meena demanded compensation from Priya under the indemnity clause.
(b) Arjun was involved in a car accident and, as per an indemnity agreement with his insurance company, sought
reimbursement for the damage he caused to another car due to his careless driving. The insurance company denied the
claim.
(c) Rohit entered into a contract to indemnify Riya for any third-party claims related to a project. When a third-party filed a
lawsuit, Riya incurred heavy legal costs defending it and sought compensation from Rohit under the indemnity contract.
(d) Vijay, an event organizer, entered into a contract with Aman to indemnify Aman for any damages resulting from
negligence during an event. Aman was later sued by a third party for damages caused by his own negligence, and he
sought indemnity from Vijay.

Q.22) Principle 1: According to Section 6 of the Transfer of Property Act, 1882, property of any kind may be transferred,
except for certain kinds of properties explicitly excluded by law, such as the right to future maintenance, a mere right to
sue, or public office.

Principle 2: As per Section 8 of the Transfer of Property Act, 1882, a transfer of property passes to the transferee all the
interest which the transferor had in the property, unless a different intention is expressed or implied in the terms of the
transfer.

Registered office: 6th Floor, NCL Building, 'E' Block, Bandra Kurla Complex (BKC), (Next to CITY PARK - Garden), Bandra (East), Mumbai - 400051.
Principle 3: Under Section 53A of the Transfer of Property Act, 1882, when a person has been put in possession of a
property under a contract to transfer for consideration, and the transferee has performed or is willing to perform their part of
the contract, the transferor is debarred from enforcing any rights other than those expressly provided in the contract.

Facts:
(a) Ramesh agreed to sell his house to Suresh and accepted part of the payment. Ramesh then tried to sell the same
property to someone else, but Suresh claimed possession under Section 53A.
(b) Gita transferred her right to future maintenance payments to her son as a gift, believing she could no longer use the
funds. Her son claimed ownership of the right to maintenance.
(c) Pooja transferred a lawsuit she had filed against a construction company to her friend, Meera, so that Meera could
pursue compensation on her behalf. Meera claimed the right to sue the company under the transfer.
(d) Vijay transferred his public office as the village head to his brother, Ravi, since he was retiring. Ravi claimed the right to
the office based on the transfer.

Q.23) Principle 1: According to Section 73 of the Indian Contract Act, 1872, a party that suffers from a breach of contract is
entitled to compensation for any loss or damage caused, which arose naturally from the breach, or which the parties knew
to be likely to result from the breach when the contract was made.

Principle 2: Under Section 74 of the Indian Contract Act, 1872, when a contract specifies a sum to be paid in case of
breach, the aggrieved party is entitled to receive reasonable compensation, even if actual damage or loss is not proved,
provided it does not exceed the stipulated sum.

Principle 3: As per Section 75 of the Indian Contract Act, 1872, a party who rightfully rescinds a contract is entitled to
compensation for any damage they have sustained through the non-fulfillment of the contract.

Facts:
(a) Kavita entered into a contract with Manish to supply custom-made furniture, but she canceled the contract before
Manish started working on it. Kavita demanded compensation for her expected profits.
(b) Aditya agreed to deliver 500 bags of cement to Bhavesh by a fixed date, but he failed to do so. Bhavesh was forced to
purchase the cement at a higher price and sought compensation for the extra cost.
(c) Rakesh rented his warehouse to Suraj under a contract that included a penalty for early termination. Suraj ended the
contract early, but Rakesh could not prove any financial loss. Rakesh claimed the full penalty amount.
(d) Meena, after discovering fraud by a contractor in constructing her house, rightfully rescinded the contract and
demanded compensation for the damage caused by the contractor's poor-quality work.

Q.24) Principle 1: Under Section 375 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC), rape is defined as sexual intercourse with a woman
against her will, without her consent, by coercion, misrepresentation, or fraud, or when she is incapable of giving consent
due to unsoundness of mind or intoxication.

Principle 2: According to Section 376 of the IPC, the punishment for rape is imprisonment of not less than seven years,
and it can extend to life imprisonment or even death in certain aggravated circumstances such as rape by a police officer
or gang rape.

Principle 3: As per Section 90 of the IPC, consent given under fear of injury, under misconception of fact, or without free
will is not considered valid consent.

Facts:
(a) Raj forced his wife, Deepa, into sexual intercourse by threatening to hurt their children if she refused. Deepa did not
physically resist but later reported Raj for rape.
(b) Kiran, during a party, engaged in sexual activity with Nita, who was heavily intoxicated and unable to give coherent
consent. Kiran was charged with rape.
(c) Tarun, a police officer, threatened to falsely implicate a woman in a criminal case unless she agreed to have sexual
intercourse with him. The woman complied out of fear.
(d) Ankit and Rhea, who were in a relationship, had consensual intercourse. After their breakup, Rhea filed a complaint of
rape, stating she felt emotionally manipulated during the relationship.

Q.25) Principle 1: Under Section 81 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC), an act that is likely to cause harm is not an offense if
it is done without criminal intent and to prevent or avoid greater harm to a person or property.

Registered office: 6th Floor, NCL Building, 'E' Block, Bandra Kurla Complex (BKC), (Next to CITY PARK - Garden), Bandra (East), Mumbai - 400051.
Principle 2: As per Section 88 of the IPC, an act done in good faith for the benefit of a person, with their consent (if the
person is capable of giving consent), does not constitute an offense, even if it causes harm.

Principle 3: According to Section 92 of the IPC, an act done in good faith for the benefit of a person without consent is not
an offense if the person is unable to give consent, provided it does not cause death or grievous harm.

Facts:
(a) Anil, in an attempt to save his house from being engulfed by fire, broke into his neighbor’s house to retrieve a water
hose, causing damage to the neighbor’s property.
(b) Deepak pushed Suresh out of the way of a speeding vehicle, causing Suresh to fall and fracture his arm. Deepak acted
in good faith to save Suresh from being hit by the car.
(c) Rohan, a doctor, performed emergency surgery on Suman, who was unconscious and unable to give consent. The
surgery saved Suman's life but caused some permanent scarring.
(d) Vikram broke a car window to rescue a dog trapped inside the vehicle on a hot day. The car’s owner later sued Vikram
for property damage.

Registered office: 6th Floor, NCL Building, 'E' Block, Bandra Kurla Complex (BKC), (Next to CITY PARK - Garden), Bandra (East), Mumbai - 400051.