JGU Id. No.

_____________

O.P. Jindal Global University

Jindal Global Law School
End-term Examination – Semester A

Course Name : Law of Crimes

Course Code : L-CT-0004
Programme : B.A., LL.B. 2017, B.B.A., LL.B. 2017 & LL.B. 2018
Session : 2018 - 2019
Time Allowed : 3 Hours
Maximum Marks : 50

This question paper has four (4) printed pages (including this page).

Instructions to students:

1. Students are required to attempt a total of four questions two from each part.
2. PART I (Hypotheticals): Students are required to attempt any two of the four given hypotheticals.
Each hypothetical question carries 15 marks.
3. PART II (Theory questions): Students are required to attempt any two of the given questions. Each
question carries 10 marks.
4. Please do not repeat the facts of the hypotheticals in the answer script. You should directly respond to
the question.
5. DO NOT write your Name and Student Id. No. anywhere on the answer book except on the space
provided.
6. DO NOT write anything on the question paper except Student Id. No. on the space provided.
7. Start each question on a new page.
8. Use of mobile phone or any electronic storage and access system is prohibited.
9. Students undertaking the examination are requested to adhere to the University norms related to
examinations.

__________________________________________________________________________________________
This is a Closed Book examination. Students are not allowed to bring any material in the Examination Hall.
Warning: Plagiarism in any form is prohibited. Anyone found using unfair means will be penalized
severely.
JGLS [End-term Examination – Semester A, 2018 - 2019] Page 1
 PART I

Question 1. Lotus apartments was a posh and respectable housing society. Richie, a boy of about 10 years used
live in Lotus apartments with his parents and grandparents. Richie’s mother was an over worked housewife and
his father had not been promoted for the last three years. Due to their personal and professional frustrations both
parents would frequently hit Richie. One day Mr. Cadbury, who was also a resident of Lotus apartments, saw the
father beat Richie mercilessly because Richie was not holding his father’s hand while walking. Mr. Cadbury felt
very bad and wanted to do something. Later that evening, Mr. Cadbury wanted to strike a friendship with Richie
and hence went to talk to him in the society park while he was playing. Slowly Richie and Cadbury became
friends. Cadbury used to tell Richie “You should come to my house. I have a wonderful puppy there named Dollar.
You can play with him.” On another occasion Mr. Cadbury told Richie “You know you can always come stay with
me and my puppy, Dollar. We will play video games.” On another occasion he said “I have just bought a new play
station. One day you should come to my house to play the game with me.”

On September 24, 2018, Richie was again slapped by his mother because he had got a diary note for not finishing
his homework. Richie was very upset. That night, after everybody was asleep, Richie quietly left his house and
went to Mr. Cadbury’s house. Mr. Cadbury made a bed for him and he slept comfortably. Next morning he spent
his time playing with Dollar and some games on the playstation. Richie was very happy there. His parents,
however, were distraught with grief. They made a police complaint and soon the news spread all over the colony
that Richie was missing.

On September 26, 2018, at around 11 am, Mr. Leo, who was the next door neighbor of Mr. Cadbury saw Richie
in Mr. Cadbury’s house as Mr. Cadbury opened the door to take Dollar out for a walk. Wanting to liberate Richie,
Mr. Leo waited for Mr. Cadbury to take the lift and then immediately broke the front door, entered into Mr.
Cadbury’s house. Richie started crying on seeing him. Mr. Leo forcefully picked Richie, who was crying and
screaming continuously, and took Richie to his own house. Mr. Leo kept Richie locked in his house all of that
after noon.

Since the police had been informed, they had been conducting a search of the entire society. At about 2 pm the
police came to Mr. Leo’s house and upon hearing a child’s screams from inside they broke into the house and
found Richie. Richie narrated the entire incident (as mentioned in the above stated paras) to the police.

(a) Decide upon Mr. Cadbury’s liability (if any) under IPC. (6 Marks)
(b) Decide upon Mr. Leo’s liability (if any) under IPC. (5 Marks)
(c) Can Mr. Leo claim any of the general exceptions? (4 Marks)

Question 2. The district of Palwar is largely rural, with most of its occupants dependent upon either animal
husbandry or agriculture for a living. Makbar, a member of a minority community in the district, is a dairy farmer.
One day, while he was transporting his cattle, a crowd stopped his truck. The crowd consisted of members of a
majoritarian organization, the THP, and they had heard rumors that he was transporting the cattle for slaughter
outside the district. After stopping the truck, the crowd attacked him. After being kicked, hit with sticks and
brutally beaten for over 20 minutes, Makbar succumbs to his injuries and dies. There were several persons
involved in the incident:

JGLS [End-term Examination – Semester A, 2018 - 2019] Page 2

Kishore: he is a leader of the THP. He is the person who had started the rumors that the cattle were being
transported for slaughter, and had told members of the organization the details of the vehicle they were being
transported in. He, and a few other leaders of the THP, had planned the lynching. He was not present at the scene
of the lynching. (4 Marks)

Pratap: he was a part of the crowd of over 20 persons who committed the lynching. However, he did not want to
kill Makbar, and only wanted to teach him a lesson by grievously injuring him. (4 Marks)

Amar: he is the owner of a tea-stall near the incident. He did not join the crowd, but he personally agreed with
what they were doing. (4 Marks)

Raja: a police officer. He was alerted about the incident and arrived at the scene while the lynching was in
progress. However, he did not do anything to stop the incident from occurring. He did not even alert other
policepersons about the incident. (3 Marks)

Determine the liability of the persons above under various provisions of the IPC.

Question 3. a) X and Y are classmates and are known to consume drugs together occasionally. X belongs to a
wealthy family and largely funds both his and Y’s drug habits. One night, Y asks X to fix a dose so that he can
sleep better. X puts the dose of heroin in a syringe and hands it to Y. After a few unsuccessful attempts to push
the syringe in, Y asks X to hold his arm while he inserts the syringe. X does as requested. The next morning, Y
dies and the medical report indicated that the death is caused due to drug overdose.

What is the liability of X, if any, under IPC for causing death of Y? (7.5 Marks)

b) Vincent secretly buys some heroin from a drug dealer before picking up his girlfriend Mia. They go out to eat
and dance at Jackrabbit Slim’s, a 1950 style diner. As Vincent is using the bathroom when dropping her off later
at her residence, Mia rummages through the pockets of his overcoat, discovers the heroin, and snorts a large batch,
presuming it to be cocaine. Vincent finds her in a state of coma on the living room floor and, concerned that she
might be dying, carries her out to his car and rushes to the hospital. However, Mia dies on the way to the hospital
in Vincent’s car. Vincent is charged for causing her death. During trial, Vincent pleads Novus actus interveniens
"new intervening act” as the victim acted in an unpredictable manner as he never could imagine that she would
snorting the heroin which was not meant to be for her. The prosecution argued that the defence of Novus actus
interveniens is untenable in this case as his act of procuring heroin was unlawful in the first place.

Discuss the plea of Vincent by referring to the relevant law relating to causation. The issue before you is only of
causation and you are not required to ascertain the liability of Vincent under IPC. (7.5 Marks)

Question 4. a) A enters B’s cabin and shoots him with 6 bullets. The post mortem report, however, clarifies that
B died two hours before the being shot and A inadvertently shot a dead body. What is the liability of A under
IPC?

b) A asks B to keep her laptop for a week in safe custody. When A comes back after a week she realizes that B
has sold the laptop in order to pay the bills of house party organized by B. What is the liability of B under IPC?

JGLS [End-term Examination – Semester A, 2018 - 2019] Page 3

c) A happens to chances upon B, who is A’s classmate, while B is stealing Rs. 1000 from C’s purse. A tells B
that if B doesn’t give A Rs. 500, A will complain to the authorities of B’s theft. B is scared of the repercussions
of such complaint and hands over Rs. 500 to A. Discuss A’s liability under IPC.

PART II

Question 1. “Section 497 of IPC (Adultery) may, at first blush, appear as if it is a beneficial legislation intended
to serve the interests of women but, on closer examination, it would be found that the provision contained in the
section is a kind of 'Romantic Paternalism', which stems from the assumption that women, like chattels, are the
property of men.”

Do you agree with the assessment of adultery in the above passage? In what way can the section be seen as
“beneficial” to women and what are its “paternalistic” aspects? Comment critically referring to relevant cases and
all the relevant legal provisions.

Question 2. Is it correct to say that the standard of ‘obscenity’ in India is not determined by the Hicklin test but
community standard test? How far do you think that ‘community standard test’ is an improvement over the Hickin
test? Discuss using relevant case laws.

Question 3. Write short critical comments on any two of the following:

a) Inchoate offences
b) Trifles as defence under IPC
c) Cumulative provocation
d) Marital Rape

Question 4. "Instances of woman behavior are not unknown that a feeble…no may mean a…yes. If the parties
are strangers, the same theory may not be applied. If the parties are in some kind of prohibited relationship, then
also it would be difficult to lay down a general principle that an emphatic 'no' would only communicate the
intention of the other party. If one of the parties to the act is a conservative person and is not exposed to the
various ways and systems of the world, mere reluctance would also amount to negation of any consent. But same
would not be the situation when parties are known to each other, are persons of letters and are
intellectually/academically proficient, and if, in the past, there have been physical contacts. In such cases, it would
be really difficult to decipher whether little or no resistance and a feeble 'no', was actually a denial of consent."

Do you agree with the assessment of consent by high court of Delhi in light of the new definition of ‘consent’
inserted by way of 2013 amendment act? How would you read the distinction between “intellectually/
academically proficient” as opposed to “conservative” women. Critically analyse the above quote briefly
outlining the trajectory of judicial interpretation of ‘consent’ in rape cases in India.

Question 5. Compare and contrast the interpretation of the expression “sufficient in the ordinary course of nature
to cause death” under section 300 (3) by Supreme Court of India in Virsa Singh (1958) and Gudar Dusadh (1972)
case. Which interpretation, in your view, is correct and desirable interpretation and why?

JGLS [End-term Examination – Semester A, 2018 - 2019] Page 4