Frequently asked Questions on Murder and Culpable Homicide

A. The accused, a shopkeeper, in sudden quarrel hit his wife on head with an iron weight of 200 gm which resulted in her death. The accused is liable for which one of the following offence?

i Grievous hurt

ii Attempt to murder

iii Simple hurt

iv Culpable homicide

Ans. iv

B. The mens rea required under Section 299 of the Indian Penal Code is

i Intention or knowledge

ii Intention or negligence

iii Intention or recklessness

iv Negligence or malice

Ans. i

C. ‘J’, a priest, beats a boy for cursing him from evil spirit. The boy dies ‘J’ is:

i Not liable for any offence

ii Liable for culpable homicide

iii Entitled to the defense of good faith

iv Liable for attempt to murder

Ans. ii

D. A was attempting to kill a deer in a sanctuary. While doing so, the gunshot hit a man who died instantly. A is guilty of

i Culpable Homicide

ii Murder

iii Grievous Hurt

iv None of the above

Ans. iv

E. ‘S’ while in the state of voluntary intoxication kills ‘Z’. Prosecution fails to establish that ‘X’ could form an intention of a sober man, ‘X’ is guilty of

i Murder

ii Culpable Homicide

iii Death by rash and negligent act

iv No offence

Ans. ii

F. The distinction between Sections 299 and 300 IPC was made clear by

i Marshall, J in R v. Govinda

ii Melvill, J in R v. Govinda

iii Marshall, J in Govinda v. R

iv Melvill, J in Govinda v. R

Ans. ii

G. The plea of ‘sudden and grave provocation’ under Section 300 Exception (1) of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 is a

i Question of law

ii Question of fact

iii Mixed question of law and fact

iv Presumption under law

Ans. ii

H. Culpable homicide is not murder if it is committed under:

i Grave and sudden provocation

ii Self intoxication

iii Irresistible impulse

iv All the above

Ans. i

I. The distinction between culpable homicide and murder is based on:

i Exception given in Section 300 of IPC

ii Availability of direct evidence of culpable homicide

iii Intention or knowledge with respect to death

iv Availability of direct evidence of murder

Ans. i

J. X intended to kill A but instead killed B, whom he had no intention to kill. Under which doctrine X is liable for the murder of B

i Doctrine of mens rea

ii Doctrine of transfer of malice

iii Doctrine of extended malice

iv Doctrine of agency

Ans. ii