Principle: When a person willfully interferes in the chattel of another person without lawful justification, by which the latter is deprived of use possession thereof, the former is said to have committed the tort of conversion.

Facts: A patient suffering from leukemia sought medical treatment in a teaching hospital. The doctor in charge of the treatment found the spleen diseased and removed it as part of the treatment. The patient thereafter recovered. The doctor thereafter found that the spleen contained unique cells and he developed cell lines out of those cells. Using these cell lines, the hospital developed pharmaceutical products of enormous commercial value. When the patient came to know about it, he filed a suit against the hospital alleging the conversion and claimed damages.

OPTION 1: The patient is entitled to damages since the spleen was his property and by using it, the hospital made enormous money.

OPTION 2: The patient is not entitled to damages, since the cells were found in the abandoned spleen.

OPTION 3: The hospital enriched itself by using the patient’s cells and hence it is under a legal obligation to share a part of the profits made.


Principle: A person is guilty of culpable homicide amounting to murder if the act by which the death is caused is done with in an intention of causing death.

Facts: A and B are playing hide and seck. A hides behind a bush. C, who is on a prowl to hunt for rabbits observing some movement near the bush and assuming a rabbit was hiding there fires and kills A. C does not know that A was hiding behind the bush. The police prosecute C for murder.

OPTION 1: C would not be liable for murder, as he did not have the intention to kill A.

OPTION 2: C would be liable for murder because he should have taken care to find out the target before shooting.

OPTION 3: C would bot be liable for murder because it would be too much to expect him to identify the target before shooting.


Principle – : To held guilty of an offence, one should have done the act that causes the intended.

Fact: Dr. Banner with the intention to murder Loki stabs him repeatedly with a knife. Loki is taken to hospital and is found out danger. There after, due to the negligence of the doctor, Loki’s wounds are infected and he requires surgical intervention. During the time of operation requiring to remove his injured infected leg, Loki died on account of the administration of general anaesthesia.

OPTION 1: Dr. Banner is guilty of murder of Loki.

OPTION 2: Dr. Banner is not guilty of murder of Loki but may be guilty of the attempt of murder.

OPTION 3: Dr. Banner is not guilty of murder of Loki but may be guilty of causing hurt.



  1. Mischief is an injury to property with the intention of causing wrongful loss to any person or public.
  2. The person to whom the loss is wrongfully caused by mischief need not be the owner of the property himself.

Facts: KK has leased his house to Vipull for 5 years. After one year KK feels the need for the house and requests Vipull to vacate the house, but Vipull refuse. KK in order to get Vipull vacate the house, causes fire to it, but Vipull with the help of the neighbours quickly extinguishes the fire before it could really damage the property.

OPTION 1:KK is guilty of mischief.

OPTION 2: KK cannot be guilty of causing mischief.

OPTION 3: KK is not guilty of mischief as there was no damage.


Principles –

  1. A person defames another if he states anything which exposes the other to hatred or ridicule or results in him beings shunned by others or injures him in his trade business or profession.
  2. To commit the offence of defamation, there must be communication of defamatory statement to a third party.

Facts: Lala, a patient of  H.M. Mehta, is dissatisfied with the treatment. He discontinues the treatment and after sometime leaves the city. Sometime after his illness was automatically cured by lapse of time. Lala was upset because H.M. Mehta had made him spend a lot of money on his illness which was cured on its own. He writes a letter accusing H.M. Mehta of cheating. He alleges that H.M. Mehta magnified the effects of the illness, deliberately treated him in a manner so that it persisted and also caused deterioration of his health. The letter is shown by H.M. Mehta to his lawyer. In consultation with the lawyer H.M. Mehta files a suit for damages against Lala for defamation.

OPTION 1: Lala has defamed H.M. Mehta and is liable to pay compensation.

OPTION 2: Lala has defamed H.M. Mehta when the letter was seen by the lawyer and therefore the compensation has to be paid.

OPTION 3: Lala has not defamed H.M. Mehta.



(I) Under Indian Constitution, If a person is convicted of an offence, he cannot be prosecuted again.

(II) Under Criminal Procedure Code, if a person is prosecuted for an offence and if the prosecution results either in an acquittal or in conviction, then he cannot be the prosecuted for the same offence.

FACTS: Hitler was prosecuted for an offence of murder and he was acquitted. Thereafter additional evidence came to light pointing to Hitler’s complicity in the same offence. So the police want to prosecute him again.

OPTION 1: Hitler cannot be prosecuted as he enjoys the right under our Constitution not to be prosecuted twice for the same offence.

OPTION 2: Hitler cannot be prosecuted as he enjoys the right under Criminal Procedure Code not to be prosecuted twice for the same offence.

OPTION 3: Hitler cannot be prosecuted as he is protected both by the Constitution and Criminal Procedure Code.

OPTION 4: None of the above answers is correct.


Principle: Nothing is an offence, which is done by accident or misfortune, and without any criminal intention or knowledge in the doing of a lawful act in a lawful manner by lawful means and with proper care and caution.

Facts: Akshat takes up a gun, not knowing whether it is loaded or not, points it playfully at Ojaswa and pulls the trigger. Consequently, Ojaswa falls dead.

OPTION 1: Ojaswa’s death is accidental, as Akshat did not have the knowledge that the gun is loaded.

OPTION 2: Ojaswa’s death is accidental, as Akshat had no intention to kill Ojaswa.

OPTION 3: Ojaswa’s death is accidental, as Akshat was just pointing the gun playfully at Ojaswa.

OPTION 4: Ojaswa’s death is not accidental, as there was want of proper care and caution on the part of Akshat.


In a criminal case, an accused person, who in consideration of his non-prosecution offers to give evidence against other accused, is called

OPTION 1Accomplice

OPTION 2: Hostile witness

OPTION 3: Approver

OPTION 4: Hostile accomplice


Cat woman wanted to get a railway ticket but finding a crowd at the ticket counter, asked Batman, who was near the window, to get a ticket. She handed him the required money for the same. Batman, instead of getting the ticket, ran away with the money. What offence has been committed by Batman?

OPTION 1: Criminal Breach of trust

OPTION 2: Criminal misappropriation

OPTION  3: Theft

OPTION  4: Both criminal breach of trust and theft.


Criminal morte extinguutur means

OPTION 1:Criminals must be extinguished

OPTION 2:the extinghish the crime not the criminal

OPTION 3: The acts of a criminal die with his/her death

OPTION 4:None of the above.


PRINCIPLE: Nothing is an offence which is done by a child under seven years of age.

FACTS: A, a child born on January 1, 2005 killed another child ‘B’ on December 30, 2011.

OPTION 1: A has committed no offence.

OPTION 2: A has committed the offence as it is heinous crime.

OPTION 3:Killing of one child by another child is not an offence.

OPTION 4:A has not committed the offence for on the date of killing of B, A was a child.


PRINCIPLE: Whoever by words either spoken or intended to be read, or by signs or by visible representations, makes or publishes any imputation concerning any person intending to harm, or knowing or having reason to believe that such imputation will harm, the reputation of such person, is said to defame that person.

FACTS: In a community there is a custom of stealing shoes of bridegroom during the marriage ceremony. The shoes of the bridegroom were stolen by V. ‘A’ announced that Z has stolen the shoes. Everyone present in the marriage party started staring at Z with great surprise. Z felt very ashamed.

OPTION 1:A defamed Z

OPTION 2: A did not defame Z

OPTION 3: A defamed Z for Z felt very ashamed

OPTION 4: A defamed the whole marriage party

DISCLAIMER: Although we try to ensure that the information provided, whether in relation to the products, services, or offering or otherwise provided (hereinafter mentioned as “INFORMATION”) on the website is correct at the time of publishing, we or any third parties do not provide any warranty or guarantee as to the accuracy, timeliness, performance, completeness or suitability of the information and materials found or offered on this website for any particular purpose. It shall be your own responsibility to ensure that any products, services or information available through this website meet your specific requirements. Neither the website nor any person/organization acting on its behalf may accept any legal liability/responsibility.


terms-and-conditions/(Click here)

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s