General Exceptions MCQ Quiz - Objective Question with Answer for General Exceptions - Download Free PDF

The correct answer is Option 4

Key Points

• ​Section 23 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 provides that: "Nothing is an offence which is done by a person who, at the time of doing it, is, by reason of intoxication, incapable of knowing the nature of the act, or that it is wrong or contrary to law, provided that the thing which intoxicated him was administered without his knowledge or against his will."
• So, to claim exemption from liability, the following must be proven:
  • The person was incapable of understanding the act due to intoxication,
  • And the intoxication was involuntary (without knowledge or against his will).
• Voluntary intoxication is not a valid defence under this section.

The correct answer is Is not guilty, as he lacked the mental capacity to understand his act

Key Points

• Under Section 22 of the BNS, 2023, a person is not criminally liable if, at the time of the act, due to unsoundness of mind, they:
  • Cannot understand the nature of the act,
  • Or cannot recognize that it is wrong or contrary to law.
• In this case, R meets both conditions.
• Therefore, no offence is committed, even if the act (like killing) is serious, because criminal intent (mens rea) is absent.

The correct answer is Option 3

Key Points

• Section 21 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 states: "Nothing is an offence which is done by a child above seven years of age and under twelve years of age, who has not attained sufficient maturity of understanding to judge of the nature and consequences of his conduct on that occasion."
• This section:
  • Recognizes that children in the 7-12 age group are in a transitional maturity stage.
  • Their criminal liability depends on whether they had the maturity to understand the wrongful nature of the act at the time it was committed.
  • It is a question of fact in each case, to be determined by the court.
• This provision corresponds to Section 83 of the IPC.

The correct answer is Option 2.

Key Points Section 28. Consent known to be given under fear or misconception
A consent is not such a consent as is intended by any section of this Sanhita,--
(a) if the consent is given by a person under fear of injury, or under a misconception of fact, and if the person doing the act knows, or has reason to
believe, that the consent was given in consequence of such fear or misconception; or
(b) if the consent is given by a person who, from unsoundness of mind, or intoxication, is unable to understand the nature and consequence of that to which he gives his consent; or
(c) unless the contrary appears from the context, if the consent is given by a person who is under twelve years of age.

The correct answer is Option 4.

Key Points Section 28. Consent known to be given under fear or misconception

A consent is not such a consent as is intended by any section of this Sanhita,--

(a) if the consent is given by a person under fear of injury, or under a misconception of fact, and if the person doing the act knows, or has reason to

believe, that the consent was given in consequence of such fear or misconception; or

(b) if the consent is given by a person who, from unsoundness of mind, or intoxication, is unable to understand the nature and consequence of that to which he gives his consent; or

(c) unless the contrary appears from the context, if the consent is given by a person who is under twelve years of age.

The correct answer is Option 1

Key Points

• Section 18. Accident in Performing a Lawful Act
• An act is not considered an offense if it occurs accidentally or by misfortune, without criminal intent or knowledge, while performing a lawful act in a lawful manner, with appropriate care and caution.
• Illustration:
  • A is using a hatchet, and the head of the hatchet flies off and kills a bystander. If A exercised proper caution, the incident is excusable and not deemed an offense.

The correct answer is Option 1 

Key Points

• Section 23: Act of a Person Incapable of Judgment Due to Involuntary Intoxication under the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS)
  • An act is not considered an offence if it is committed by a person who, at the time of the act, is incapable of understanding its nature or that it is wrong or illegal due to intoxication. This applies only if the substance causing the intoxication was administered without the person's knowledge or against their will.

The correct answer is Option 4

Key Points

• ​Section 23 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 provides that: "Nothing is an offence which is done by a person who, at the time of doing it, is, by reason of intoxication, incapable of knowing the nature of the act, or that it is wrong or contrary to law, provided that the thing which intoxicated him was administered without his knowledge or against his will."
• So, to claim exemption from liability, the following must be proven:
  • The person was incapable of understanding the act due to intoxication,
  • And the intoxication was involuntary (without knowledge or against his will).
• Voluntary intoxication is not a valid defence under this section.

The correct answer is Is not guilty, as he lacked the mental capacity to understand his act

Key Points

• Under Section 22 of the BNS, 2023, a person is not criminally liable if, at the time of the act, due to unsoundness of mind, they:
  • Cannot understand the nature of the act,
  • Or cannot recognize that it is wrong or contrary to law.
• In this case, R meets both conditions.
• Therefore, no offence is committed, even if the act (like killing) is serious, because criminal intent (mens rea) is absent.

The correct answer is Option 3

Key Points

• Section 21 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 states: "Nothing is an offence which is done by a child above seven years of age and under twelve years of age, who has not attained sufficient maturity of understanding to judge of the nature and consequences of his conduct on that occasion."
• This section:
  • Recognizes that children in the 7-12 age group are in a transitional maturity stage.
  • Their criminal liability depends on whether they had the maturity to understand the wrongful nature of the act at the time it was committed.
  • It is a question of fact in each case, to be determined by the court.
• This provision corresponds to Section 83 of the IPC.

The correct answer is Option 2

Key Points According to Section 44 of Bhartiya Nyaya Sanhita, if a person is under reasonable apprehension of death and cannot defend himself without risking harm to an innocent person, his right of private defence remains valid. This ensures that a person can protect themselves even in complex situations.

The correct answer is Option 3

Key Points

• Section 20 of the BNS states that a child under 12 years is not criminally liable if they lack sufficient maturity to understand their conduct.
• This embodies the doctrine of Doli Incapax, recognizing that criminal intention cannot be presumed in young children unless maturity is clearly established.
• This section merges and modernizes the principles earlier found in Sections 82 and 83 of the IPC. 

The correct answer is Option 3.

Key PointsSection 30. Act done in good faith for benefit of a person without consent

Nothing is an offence by reason of any harm which it may cause to a person for whose benefit it is done in good faith, even without that person’s consent, if the circumstances are such that it is impossible for that person to signify consent, or if that person is incapable of giving consent, and has no guardian or other person in lawful charge of him from whom it is possible to obtain consent in time for the thing to be done with benefit:

Provided that this exception shall not extend to--

(a) the intentional causing of death, or the attempting to cause death;

(b) the doing of anything which the person doing it knows to be likely to cause death, for any purpose other than the preventing of death or grievous hurt, or the curing of any grievous disease or infirmity;

(c) the voluntary causing of hurt, or to the attempting to cause hurt, for any purpose other than the preventing of death or hurt;

(d) the abetment of any offence, to the committing of which offence it would not extend.

Illustrations

(1) Z is thrown from his horse, and is insensible. A, a surgeon, finds that Z requires to be trepanned. A, not intending Z’s death, but in good faith, for Z’s benefit, performs the trepan before Z recovers his power of judging for himself. A has committed no offence.

(2) Z is carried off by a tiger. A fires at the tiger knowing it to be likely that the shot may kill Z, but not intending to kill Z, and in good faith intending Z’s benefit. A’s bullet gives Z a mortal wound. A has committed no offence.

(3) A, a surgeon, sees a child suffer an accident which is likely to prove fatal unless an operation be immediately performed. There is no time to apply to the child’s guardian. A performs the operation in spite of the entreaties of the child, intending, in good faith, the child’s benefit. A has committed no offence.

(4) A is in a house which is on fire, with Z, a child. People below hold out a blanket. A drops the child from the house top, knowing it to be likely that the fall may kill the child, but not intending to kill the child, and intending, in good faith, the child’s benefit. Here, even if the child is killed by the fall, A has committed no offence.

Explanation.--Mere pecuniary benefit is not benefit within the meaning of sections 26, 27 and this section.

The correct answer is Option 1.

Key Points Section 31. Communication made in good faith
No communication made in good faith is an offence by reason of any harm to the person to whom it is made, if it is made for the benefit of that person.
Illustration
A, a surgeon, in good faith, communicates to a patient his opinion that he cannot live. The patient dies in consequence of the shock. A has committed no offence, though he knew it to be likely that the communication might cause the patient’s death.

The correct answer is Option 4.

Key Points Section 30. Act done in good faith for benefit of a person without consent

Nothing is an offence by reason of any harm which it may cause to a person for whose benefit it is done in good faith, even without that person’s consent, if the circumstances are such that it is impossible for that person to signify consent, or if that person is incapable of giving consent, and has no guardian or other person in lawful charge of him from whom it is possible to obtain consent in time for the thing to be done with benefit:

Provided that this exception shall not extend to--

(a) the intentional causing of death, or the attempting to cause death;

(b) the doing of anything which the person doing it knows to be likely to cause death, for any purpose other than the preventing of death or grievous hurt, or the curing of any grievous disease or infirmity;

(c) the voluntary causing of hurt, or to the attempting to cause hurt, for any purpose other than the preventing of death or hurt;

(d) the abetment of any offence, to the committing of which offence it would not extend.

Illustrations

(1) Z is thrown from his horse, and is insensible. A, a surgeon, finds that Z requires to be trepanned. A, not intending Z’s death, but in good faith, for Z’s benefit, performs the trepan before Z recovers his power of judging for himself. A has committed no offence.

(2) Z is carried off by a tiger. A fires at the tiger knowing it to be likely that the shot may kill Z, but not intending to kill Z, and in good faith intending Z’s benefit. A’s bullet gives Z a mortal wound. A has committed no offence.

(3) A, a surgeon, sees a child suffer an accident which is likely to prove fatal unless an operation be immediately performed. There is no time to apply to the child’s guardian. A performs the operation in spite of the entreaties of the child, intending, in good faith, the child’s benefit. A has committed no offence.

(4) A is in a house which is on fire, with Z, a child. People below hold out a blanket. A drops the child from the house top, knowing it to be likely that the fall may kill the child, but not intending to kill the child, and intending, in good faith, the child’s benefit. Here, even if the child is killed by the fall, A has committed no offence.

Explanation.--Mere pecuniary benefit is not benefit within the meaning of sections 26, 27 and this section.