GENERAL GUIDELINES

- This is a take home and open book Examination.

- You are required to attempt one question from Part I and two questions from Part II as
indicated in the paper. In total you are required to attempt three questions.
- Please adhere to the word limit which excludes any references or footnotes.
- Please read the question carefully and answer to everything which is asked in the
question. We will presume that you know the rest. Please avoid writing to fill space or
word limit.
- Avoid reproducing legal provisions at length. Instead, use keywords. You will be marked
for the analysis and not for reproduction of legal provisions.

Duration : 24 Hours
LAW OF CRIMES (PAPER I)

______________________________________________________________________________
PART I

Attempt any one question from this part. (20 Marks) [Maximum 1000 words]

Question 1. Anuj, Bhaumik, Chaitanya, Rahul and Ashu got into an argument with Prem. They
decided to go together and teach him lesson. The next day, all of them together attacked Prem
while he was going to the office. They punched him all over the body for around 5 minutes. And,
unknown to most of them, Prem suffered from osteoporosis. This made his bones very weak and
brittle. They could break with even a small impact. Due to this condition, when they beat him up,
he suffered 15 compound fractures and fell unconscious to the ground. Only Bhaumik knew that
Prem suffered from osteoporosis, but he didn’t tell anyone else about this. Prem was taken to the
hospital, after he fell unconscious. However, despite efforts to revive him, he died within 1 hours
of the incident. The post-mortem report stated that the cause of death was internal hemorrhaging
and shock due to the combined effects of the 10 compound fractures Prem had sustained. After
finding out that Prem had died, his brother, Shubh, was driven to rage and lost his self-control.
Shubh knew where one of the accused, Ashu, lived. Shubh went to his own house, picked up a
knife, and then drove down to Ashu’s house, which was around 30 minutes away. On reaching
there, he confronted Ashu and stabbed him. He died immediately due to the stab wounds.
Based on the above scenario, decide the liability of all Anuj, Chaitanya, Bhaumik, Rahul and
Shubh for causing death.

Question 2. Baiju and Omar went for an evening out with the complainant Candy. All of them
consumed considerable alcohol and got into a minor brawl with the bartender. They all were
asked to leave the bar. They returned to the place where Baiju was staying after apologizing to
the Bartender. Whilst Candy’s memory from this point is poor, she recalls taking Baiju in her
arms and consoling him as he was crying for being thrown out of the Bar. Her next memory is of
Baiju pinning her down to have sex. Candy contended that, despite not having resisted, or
forcefully saying ‘no’ to intercourse, she had still not consented. She contends that due to her
intoxicated state, she did not have the capacity to consent. Baiju contends that he reasonably
believed she was consenting from her actions, and that she was conscious.
a. In light of the 2013 amendment to Section 375, and the case law, comment on the issue
of consent in this case.
b. During the brawl with the Bartender, Omar punched him in the face twice. You are only
asked to advice if Omar can use the defense of intoxication?
c. Had Bartender called Omar a ‘junkie’ and Omar caused his death because he hated that
word from his childhood? Can Omar claim the defence of grave and sudden provocation
in such a scenario?
OR

A had been travelling for months because of an official trip and paid a surprise visit to his wife
(W) only to find her in bed in a compromising position with her best friend B. Without reacting
in the moment, A left the house and spent the entire night in a hotel room without having food
and binge watching a popular sitcom series. Next day he went back to his house to find his
mother-in-law (M) there and on seeing her he started cussing and yelling “I will kill her”. On
witnessing this M took W inside a room and locked her and started pleading with folded hands to
spare her daughter. By that time B had entered the house and A on seeing him started moving
towards B with rage in his eyes because of which B panicked and started running towards an
open field next to the house. A took out a gun to shoot B and started running after him. B jumped
into the well in panic and hit his head on the walls of the well, lost consciousness and died of
asphyxiation.

Discuss for what offence would A be liable under the Homicide provisions of IPC? Can he plead
the defence of provocation successfully?
Question 3. (a) A is a book seller dealing in fictional books in several regional languages. His
shop is in a city and caters to the population which comprises to largely Christian and Muslims
with minority Hindus. He speaks and reads only in Hindi. One-day, A is charged under Section
292 [2][a] for the sale of a Tamil version of novel alleged to contain obscene material. The book
itself is a retelling of the stories of Shiv and Parvati from Vigyan Bhairav Tantra, with a
description of sexuality to attain enlightenment in the writing. It has been established that the
stories are liberal interpretations and are far from the stories as described in the mythological
texts. What would be the liability of A?
b) V was wearing a costly necklace on the occasion of his farewell party. A drove past V on
a bike and tried to snatch the necklace away. However, A only managed to break open the knot
of the necklace and it fell down but A couldn’t take the necklace away. The necklace, in broken
form, remained in V’s clothes and in his possession. The only issue before the court is whether A
has committed the offence of theft? Decide.

PART II
Attempt any two questions from this part
(15+15 = 30 Marks) [Maximum 750 words for each answer.]

Question 4. “…If the totality of the circumstances justify an inference, that the prisoner only
intended a superficial scratch and that by accident this victim stumbled and fell on the sword or
spear that was used, then of course the offence is not murder. But that is not because the prisoner
did not intend the injury that he intended to inflict to be as serious as it turned out to be but
because he did not intend to inflict the injury in question at all. The difference is not one of law
but one of fact.” (Virsa Singh v State of Punjab, 1958)

In light of the above quote, critically analyse the court’s interpretation of Section 300–thirdly of
IPC in this case. Compare the court’s reasoning of S.300 thirdly in Virsa Singh case with that of
the case of Gudar Dusadh v State of Bihar (1972). Explain with cogent reasoning whether you
agree with the judgement of the latter or not.

Question 5. “The framers of the Indian Penal Code did consider prescribing general rules of
causation but eventually decided against it.” Do you think that Courts in India have developed a
sound law with respect to causation under IPC? Respond to the question referring to the relevant
cases that you have studied during the semester.
Question 6. “She willingly accompanied him and the law did not cast upon him the duty of
taking her back to her father's house or even of telling her not to accompany him. She was not a
child of tender years who was unable to think for herself but, as already stated, was on the verge
if attaining majority and was capable of knowing what was bad for her. She was no uneducated
or unsophisticated village girl but a senior college student who had probably all her life lived in a
modern city and was thus far more capable of thinking for herself and acting on her own than
perhaps an unlettered girl hailing form a rural area.”
Critically comment on the given quote from Varadharajan v. State and explain the complexities
that the Supreme Court worked through with respect to section 361 of IPC (Kidnapping from
lawful guardianship). Do you think that the Supreme Court has resolved the issue in a
satisfactory manner?
Question 7. “For fixing criminal liability on a doctor or surgeon, the standard of negligence
required to be proved should be so high as can be described as ‘gross negligence’ or
recklessness. It is not merely a lack of necessary care, attention and skill.” (J. Dharmadhikari)
i) Is it correct for the Indian courts to treat “recklessness” and “negligence” as interchangeable
terms?
ii) Why should the standard of negligence be kept so high in cases of medical negligence?
Question 8. Evaluate any two of the following referring to the class discussion or relevant cases:
1) Distinction between preparation and attempt in Mhd. Yakub’s case
2) Necessity as a defence under section 81.
3) Community Standard Test for adjudicating obscenity under IPC