19.The accused was with the intention of killing X, gave him some poisoned Poha. A ate a portion of it and threw the rest away and this was picked up by the accused’s sister in law’s daughter (a girl of 8 years) who ate it and also gave some to another child. The two children died, but X eventually recovered. It was found as a fact that two children ate Poha without the knowledge of the accused, who did not intend to cause their death. The accused wanted to kill X on whose life he had effected large insurance. Whether the accused committed the offence of murder or culpable homicide ? A. The accused has committed neither the murder nor culpable homicide. Because the facts of the case show that he has no relation with the children who died of consuming poisonous poha. B. It is murder because he had intended to kill X. Although X, couldn’t be killed but the indirect death of children amounts to killing with intention. C. No clear cut offence because the facts and circumstances do not give the clear picture. D. No of the above options are accurate
11Direction:Read the givencarefully and answer the questions given below: Section 360: Kidnapping from India Whoever conveys any person beyond the limits of India without the consent of that person, or of some person legally authorized to consent on behalf of that person, is said to kidnap that person from India.For an offence under this section, it does not matter that the victim is a major or minor. Section 361: Kidnapping from Lawful Guardianship Whoever takes or entices any minor under sixteen years of age if a male, or under eighteen years of age if a female, or any person of unsound mind, out of the keeping of the lawful guardian of such minor or person of unsound mind, without the consent of such guardian, is said to kidnap such minor or person from lawful guardianship. The word “lawful guardian”in this section includes any person lawfully entrusted with the care or custody of such minor or other person. Exception: This section does not extend to the act of any person who in good faith believes
20.About a year before the date of occurrence,Baldev Singh, son of the deceased, had caused a severe injury on the leg of one Suresh Singh resulting in the amputation of leg of one appellant. Father of Suresh Singh harboured a grudge against Baldev Singh and his father. On one day, the appellant and his associate caught hold of the deceased (father of Baldev Singh) and inflicted as many as 18 injuries on the arms and legs of the deceased with a gandasa. So, in this case the accused are guilty of Murder or Culpable Homicide ?
