www.gradeup.

co

1. Direction: Each question consists of legal principle(s) (hereinafter referred to as ‘principle‘) and facts. Such
proposition may or may not be true in the real and legal sense, yet you have to conclusively assume them to be true
for the purposes of this section. Principles have to be applied to the given facts to arrive at the most reasonable
conclusion. Only one of the alternatives, i.e., (A), (B), (C), or (D) is the most reasonable conclusion. In other words,
in answering the following questions, you must not rely on any principle except the principles that are given herein
below for every question. Further you must not assume any facts other than those stated in the question. The
objective of this section is to test your ability in legal aptitude, study of law, research aptitude and problem solving
ability even if the ‘most reasonable conclusion’ arrived at may be absurd or unacceptable for any other reason.
Principle: Par in paremnon habit Imperium, meaning one state can’t exercise jurisdiction over another state.

Facts: King of Bhutan visited India and stayed there for one Month. During his stay, he fell in love with an Indian
girl named Chutki. He promised Chutki that he will marry her, but later on breached that promise and went back to
his Country.

Consequently, Chutki sued him for Breach of trust.

Decide:
A. Chutki will succeed, because everyone is equal before B. Chutki will not succeed because he is a Sovereign of
law, whether a king or a beggar. another nation
D. Chutki, can’t succeed because he was not an Indian
C. Chutki will succeed because the king breached her trust
Citizen.
2. Principle: Civil Suit can be filed where defendant resides or carries on business or where cause of action arises.

Facts: X is a trader of Cricket Goods based in Meerut. ABC cricket Academy, New Delhi had placed a large order of
50 Cricket kits to him and also paid him an advance of 10,000 Rupees in a meeting at Ghaziabad. In return X had
promised in writing to deliver the goods by 15th March, 2019 but didn’t deliver the goods till 30th March, 2019, due
to which the Academy incurred huge losses.

In order to recover the amount from X, ABC Cricket academy decided to sue him for breach of contract.

Where the Academy can file the civil suit?

A. Anywhere in India. B. Only in Meerut.
C. Only in Ghaziabad or New Delhi. D. Either in Meerut or Ghaziabad.
3. Principle: The Constitution provides for a High court for each state.
 www.gradeup.co

Fact: The State of Punjab and Haryana have a joint High Court at Chandigarh and not their own independent high
courts within their territory.
A. It is violative of the Principle stated above. B. It is not violative of the principle.
C. Chandigarh comes within the geographical territory of
D. None of the above.
both.
4. Principle: An act of child is not an offence.

Facts: Hitesh, who is a 6 years and 11 months old child and son of a police officer, entered into a quarrel with one of
his classmate at school and threatened him of dire consequences. Next day he took the service Revolver of his father
to school and brutally shot down his classmate in his head and heart like a dreaded criminal without showing any
mercy.
A. Hitesh should be prosecuted for Murder because he has B. Hitesh’s father should be punished for allowing his son
no Human feelings. to take such a lethal weapon in school.
C. The school administration should be liable for not
D. Hitesh has committed no offence and can’t be punished
taking the matter seriously when Hitesh threatened to kill
at all.
his classmate a day before.
5. Principle 1: Obscenity is a Crime Punishable under IPC under Sec. 292.

Principle 2: The right to Freedom of Speech and expression is a Fundamental Right of every citizen, subject to
reasonable restrictions.

Facts: X is a well-known writer of his country. He is recognized all over the world for his literature related to
women. One of his short stories named ‘Thanda-Ghosht’ portrayed a sub-urban place set up in the background of the
Partition days. The Central theme of the whole story was particularly Human lust. The words used in the whole story
were highly adulterous.
B. X has committed no offense because he has just
A. X should be punished for the offense of Obscenity
exercised his Fundamental right given under Article 19(1)
under section 292 of IPC.
(a) of the Constitution of India.
C. X has committed the offense of obscenity because he D. X should not be punished because he never published
has no freedom of speech and expression. his writing.
6. Principle 1: Culpable homicide is genus and Murder is one of its species.

Principle 2: Whoever Commits Murder should be punished with death or Imprisonment for life.
 www.gradeup.co

Facts: Raj was travelling to his hometown by his car. The Highway was clear and in order to reach home soon he
speeded up his car to 150kmph, while the prescribed speed limit on that highway was 120kmph as indicated at
various boards and hoarding on that highway. Suddenly, a Man named Shyam who was heavily drunk came in front
of Raj’s car and the car due to such a high speed got out of control and hit Shyam, who died on the spot.
B. Raj should be prosecuted for culpable homicide not
A. Raj should be prosecuted for Murdering Shyam.
amounting to murder.
C. Raj should be prosecuted for causing death by D. Raj should not be prosecuted as the victim was himself
negligence. at fault.
7. Principle: Oral Evidence must always be direct and not hearsay.

Facts: Suresh was a Prosecution witness in a Kidnapping case against Mahesh, who was his good friend. Suresh told
the court that 6 months ago Mahesh told him, his intention to kidnap the Victim.
A. Statement of Suresh is Admissible because the accused B. Statement of Suresh is not admissible because it was a
himself told it to him Hearsay statement and Suresh didn’t saw the Crime.
C. Suresh is an eye-witness and his statement is
D. Suresh is not entitled to say what he has not seen.
admissible.
8. Principle: Husband and wife are deemed in law to be a single economic unit.

Fact: A is the spouse of B, and both are married for more than a decade. A’s wife B borrowed some money from one
of A’s friend without his prior knowledge and gave that money to her brother. Later on his friend demanded that
money back from A but he refused to pay citing the reason that he was not the one to whom he had granted the credit
and should demand it back from B only.
A. A is liable to pay back the amount borrowed by his B. A and his wife are separate legal entities and he is not
wife. liable to pay back her personal loans
C. It is the duty of a Husband to pay off all his wife’s
D. None of the above.
liabilities.
9. Principle: Abetment refers to aid, to assist or to give aid, to command, to procure, or to counsel, to countenance, to
encourage, or encourage or to set another one to commit an offence.

Facts: Vishal is a pro-claimed gangster, holding a bounty of 20 lakh rupees. He is absconding since 10 years.The
Police have received ‘Shoot at sight’ orders against him. One day, Rohit, who was an informer of Mumbai Police
called a Police team and intentionally represented Vivek as Vishal, who was standing around 100 meters away, with
the aim to getVivek killed. Rohit and Vivek had a long-term personal enmity. Due to winter evening, there was
 www.gradeup.co

excessive fog and the visibility was very less, however, the police officer had full faith over Rohit and on his
instigation, he shot dead Vivek under a misbelief that he was Vishal.
B. The Police officer and Rohit both should be jointly
A. The police officer should be liable for Murder.
liable for Murder.
C. Rohit is liable for culpable homicide not amounting to
murder, while the Police officer had committed no D. Rohit had abetted Murder of Vivek.
offence.
10. Principle: Wherever there is a right, there is a Remedy under law for breach of that Right.

Facts: Jeevan, Mrityu, Vishal and Sonam were kindergarten kids residing in the same colony and were good friends.
One day,in school, when teacher was checking for home work, Vishal remembered that he had not done it. When,
teacher approached him and asked for the homework, he lied that, he had forgotten it at home. However, Jeevan told
the teacher that he was lying and the notebook was in his bag. Angered by this, the teacher slapped Vishal on his
face.
B. The teacher was justified in her act, and Vishal has no
A. Vishal has a remedy available in law.
remedy.
C. The law doesn’t adhere to such trivial issues. D. Vishal is a liar and deserves such slaps.
11. Principle: The occupier of a premise owes a duty of care to all his invitees and visitors.

Facts: Mohan, a child of around 13 years was playing hide and seek along with his friends. When it was his turn to
hide, he chose the lawn of Arun’s Bungalow and went there to hide. While climbing the wall of Arun’s premises in
order to enter the lawn, ‘Bruno’ who was the pet dog of Arun bit Mohan and injured him.

Decide:
A. Arun is liable because he owed a duty of care towards
B. Arun is liable because Mohan was a visitor
Mohan.
C. Arun is not liable because he didn’t owe any duty of
D. Arun is not liable because Mohan was himself at fault.
care towards Mohan.
12. Principle 1: An attempt or a threat to do corporeal hurt to another is assault.

Principle 2: Intentional and direct application of physical force to the person of another is battery.

Facts: Guddu and Tima are classmates and usually pull each other's leg or crack practical jokes to make fun of one-
another. One day as Guddu was about to sit on a chair, Tima pulled away that chair, due to which, Guddu fell down.
 www.gradeup.co

Resultantly, Guddu filed a suit for damages against Tima.

A. Tima is liable for assault. B. Tima is liable for committing battery.
C. Tima is not liable for either assault or battery. D. It is a trivial issue.
13. Principle: He, who goes to the court of law to seek justice, must come with clean hands.

Facts: Puneet entered into a contract with Santosh for purchase of some furnitureitems. The terms of the contract
clearly mentioned that delay in delivery will confer right to Puneet to terminate the contract, provided that he pay
half of the amount in advance, either in cash or kind.

The promised date of delivery by Santosh was 6th August but the furniture was delivered to Puneet on 7th August. In
the meantime, Puneet searched for better deals in the market and got a much cheaper, value for money deal from an
another trader.

When he received the delivery, one day late, he refused to accept and terminated the contract. However, he had not
paid any amount to Santosh till date.

Decide:
A. Puneet can terminate the contract, because Santosh had B. Puneet can’t succeed, and his termination amounts to
obtained his consent by fraud. breach of a valid contract.
C. Puneet can succeed because he had the right to D. Puneet can’t succeed because a slight delay of just 1
terminate the contract in case of delay in delivery. day is excusable.
14. Principle 1: Any man who watches, or captures the image of a woman engaging in a private act or disseminates such
image shall be liable for the offence of voyeurism.

Principle 2: Where the victim consents to the capture of the images or any act, but not to their dissemination, such
dissemination shall be an offence of voyeurism.

Facts: X a boy aged 17 years and Y a girl also aged 17 years, fell in love with each other. Hormones were running
wild and one day when Y's parents were out of town, she called X and both of them explored their sexuality. Y
believed that X is in serious love with her which was not true. X asked Y to videotape their sexual intimacy to which
Y refused. However, X promises to keep it to himself and that he would marry Y when they become major, believing
which Y gave her consent. Later X showed the video to his friends A and B with whom he had a bet to get Y laid and
videotaped. A and B put up that video on a porn site and also shared it on their WhatsApp groups. Y felt sorry and
 www.gradeup.co

confesses all that happened to her parents. Her parents being prudent console her and ask her to be careful henceforth
while lodging a criminal complaint against X in the police station.

Decide.
A. Only X is liable for voyeurism. B. X, A and B all are liable for voyeurism.
C. X, Y, A and B all are liable for voyeurism. D. Only A and B are liable for voyeurism.
15. Principle: A person is said to "counterfeit" who causes one thing to resemble another thing, intending by means of
that resemblance to practice deception, or knowing it to be likely that deception will thereby be practiced.

Facts: Sanju, owns a photo-copy shop, he copies an Indian currency note for a student’s Project work. When he
observed that the copy was looking too similar to the original note, greed developed in him. He further started
printing fake currency notes on a large scale so that those printed notes bear the same value and deception could be
practiced in the market.

Is Sanju guilty of counterfeiting?

A. No, because anyone can easily distinguish between a B. Yes, because he printed notes with intent to practice
fake and original currency note. deception.
C. Yes, because Sanju had the knowledge that by copying
D. None of the above.
similar notes deception could be practiced, hence liable.
16. Principle 1: Intention is not same as Motive.

Principle 2: Motive is irrelevant in determining Criminal liability.

Facts: Raju is a poor youth in his early 20s. He is so poor that he is unable to manage even one full-stomach meal a
day. He was extremely hungry, and had not ate anything since 2 days, while roaming around the street in search of
food he saw a rich lady wearing lot of gold ornaments. Raju thought it to be the perfect opportunity to gather money
and eradicate his extreme poverty, and snatched the gold chain of the lady.

Decide:
A. Raju will be prosecuted for theft because his intention B. Raju will be prosecuted for theft, despite the fact that
as well as motive is malafide. his motive was not malafide
D. Raju was a needy poor fellow and had committed no
C. Raju may be prosecuted for extortion but not theft.
offence, because there was absence of Mens Rea.
17. Principle: A crime requires Human involvement in one or the other way.
 www.gradeup.co

Facts: Birbal baba is a self-acclaimed godman. Almost the whole nation, including the Prime Minister and the
President are his devotees. People believe that he is not a human, but an embodiment of the almighty.

One day, a man named Heera Chand visited his Darbaar. At that timeBirbal baba, was lost in a deep meditation,
suddenly he picked up a sword and beheaded him. People present in his Darbar got traumatized by the sudden act of
extreme violence by their God-figure, Birbal Baba.

When asked for the reason before killing Heera Chand, Birbal Baba replied that he was not a human but a demon,
and was sent to earth to eradicate mankind. He further said that he killed him because he was God and it was his duty
to kill demons and safeguard Human and other creatures on Earth.

Choose the correct conclusion.

B. Birbal baba was not a human, and human involvement
A. Birbal baba has committed culpable homicide.
is an essential ingredient of crime.
C. Birbal baba is not a human, but Heerachand was, so
D. Birbal baba has committed the offence of Murder.
human involvement is present in one or the other way.
18. Principle 1: Freedom of conscience and free profession, practice and propagation of religion has been provided to all
citizens of India subject to public order, morality and health.

Principle 2: No person shall be compelled to pay any taxes, the proceeds of which are specifically appropriated in
payment of expenses for the promotion or maintenance of any particular religion or religious denomination.

Facts: Ajit, who is a Hindu and husband of Sweety, coverts himself into Islam which allows multiple marriages, and
marries with Jyoti without divorcing Sweety.

Select the Correct option.

A. Ajit is not liable because conversion is his right to B. Ajit is not liable because Muslim Law allows multiple
religion. marriages.
C. Ajit is liable of bigamy. D. None of the above.
19. Principle: All agreements are contracts if they are made by the free consent of parties competent to contract, for a
lawful consideration and with a lawful object, and are not hereby expressly declared to be void.

Facts: ABC ltd. is a food beverages company and it enters into a contract with B to appoint B as its distributor. B has
been barred by court from performing business of distributorship. Which of the following derivations are correct?
A. The contract is void because consideration is illegal B. The contract is void because it‘s expressly prohibited
 www.gradeup.co

by law
C. The contract is void because its object is illegal D. The contract is void because of lack of capacity
20. Principle: Whosoever causes the death of any person by doing any rash or negligent act not amounting to culpable
homicide, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to two years or
with fine or both.

Facts: A lets his 4 year old drive his car. The car crashes and two of A‘s servant die. Which of the derivations is
correct?
A. A is not liable for the deaths as he was driving on his
B. A is liable as he did a negligent act
private property
C. A is not liable as a minor was driving D. A and his child both are jointly liable
 www.gradeup.co

Solutions
1. B
Sol. • The Principles of International law states that a state/nation can’t exercise any jurisdiction over the sovereign of
another State/Nation.

• The above Principle also reflects the same thing and means that one Sovereign can’t exercise any jurisdiction of its
laws over a Sovereign of another nation (neither civil nor Criminal).

• The idea behind this Principle is that a Person who is a Sovereign, i.e. Source of law in his nation can’t be
adjudicated by any laws of other country.

• The king of Bhutan is a Sovereign and hence, Indian Judiciary can’t exercise any Jurisdiction over him, therefore,
Chutki can’t succeed.

• It is to be noted that in a democracy like India no person is a sovereign and the Sovereignty lies in the Written
Constitution.

(Note:

• Option A is a principle of natural justice, but incorrect in accordance to the Principle stated above.

• Option C is incorrect due to the immunity given to the king under the above Principle.

• Option D is absurd, because even a Foreigner can be prosecuted for committing a crime in India or against an
Indian citizen.)
2. D
Sol. • According to the Principle a civil suit can be filed at any of the three places, namely:

i. Where Defendant Resides;

ii. Where the defendant carries on his business; or

iii. Where cause of action arises.

• In the above facts X is the defendant, so ABC ltd. can file civil suit against him either in Meerut (where the
defendant resides and carries on Business) or in Ghaziabad (where cause of action, i.e. the Contract between the two
 www.gradeup.co

arose).

(Note:

• Option A is irrelevant with the Principle.

• Option B is not completely right as Meerut is not the only option.

• Option C is false because at New Delhi, neither cause of action arose, nor the defendant resides or carries on
business.)
3. B
Sol. • Article 214 of the Constitution of India lays down that ‘there should be a high court for each state’. It doesn’t
necessarily mean that there should be a high court in each state.

• For instance, states of Assam, Nagaland, Arunachal Pradesh and Mizoram shares a Common high Court (Guwahati
High Court).

• So, it means that a state should come under the Jurisdiction of a high court but it is not compulsory that it (high
court) should be situated within the geographical limits of that State.
4. D
Sol. • Section 82 of the IPC, 1860lays down that ‘nothing is an offence which is done by a child under seven years of
age’.

• Therefore, Hitesh, who is below 7 years of age can’t be held culpable for any offence, irrespective of the fact that,
whatever is the manner of commission of crime or whether he understood the consequences of his act or not. In case
of a Child below 7 years of age such measures are irrelevant.

(Note:

• Option A is in violation of the Principle stated.

• Option B is true but can’t be connected with the Principle stated above.

• Option C may also be true but not correct in context of the Principle.)
5. A
Sol. • Section 292 of IPC, 1860 defines and lays down punishment for the offence of Obscenity. As per the facts of this
 www.gradeup.co

question all the requirements in order to constitute the offence of Obscenity are fulfilled.

• ‘Obscenity’ refers to sexual words, either spoken or written and acts which shock People and society at large.
Therefore, the basic requirement for this offence is that the literature should be published, i.e. should come in the
knowledge of any third person from the public.

• The Second Principle lays down the fundamental right given to the Indian Citizens by our Constitution under
Article 19(1) (a), but this fundamental right can’t safeguard Manto from being Prosecuted and Punished under
Section 292 of IPC because this Right is subject to reasonable restrictions (including Public Order and Morality).

• Since, ‘Thanda-Ghosht’ was against morality it came within the purview of reasonable restrictions to Article 19(1)
(a). Therefore, Manto should be punished for the offence of Obscenity.

(Note:

• Option B is false because the right is not absolute and had to be exercised subject to reasonable restrictions.

• Option C can’t be said to be absolutely true because no further information is provided regarding his citizenship.

• Option D is wrong because the facts stated above are inadequate to prove it absolutely right that he never
published his writing. Moreover, from the facts it can be inferred impliedly that he used to publish his writings (that’s
why he was a well-known writer).)
6. C
Sol. • Raj was driving negligently as he didn’t obey the prescribed speed limit that was indicated on various boards at the
Highway itself.

• ‘Negligence’ means lack of proper care, but it is to be noted that Mens Rea (Guilty Intention) is absent in cases of
Negligence, that’s the reason why crimes related to negligence have lower degree punishment.

• In the present case Raj didn’t had any intention to kill Shyam and everything that happened was due to his ‘lack of
proper care’ (Negligence).

• Hence, he should be prosecuted under section 304A of IPC which is related to causing death due to rash and
negligent act.

• The Actus Reus (Criminal act) is same in both, murder (Section 300) and Death caused by Negligence (Section
304A) as both are culpable homicide but the former is punished with death or imprisonment for life while the
 www.gradeup.co

punishment prescribed for the latter is just a maximum imprisonment of 2 years. The difference between the two is
due to Mens Rea, which is present in former but not in the latter.

(Note:

• Option A is wrong because Murder is an intentional act according to its definition under Section 300 of IPC but
Raj’s act was unintentional.

• Option B is also wrong on the same footing.

• Option D is not correct because an accused can’t take the defence of Victim’s fault to escape from Criminal liability
if he was also at fault.)
7. B
Sol. • The Principle stated in the question says that an Oral (Spoken) evidence must be direct and not hearsay.

• ‘Direct’ means that the person making a statement had seen it by his own eyes. On the other hand ‘hearsay’ means
what a person had heard and is not witnessed by his own eyes.

• Whatever, Suresh told the court was not seen or witnessed by him and he just narrated what he heard from another
person (Mahesh). Therefore, it can be clearly concluded that the oral statement made by Suresh was ‘Hearsay’ and
not ‘Direct’, and hence not admissible in a court of law according to the Principle.

Note:

• Option A seems to be true but can’t be the Ans when the Principle is applied to the fact.

• Option C is a false statement.

• Option D is a correct opinion, but doesn’t leads to any conclusion.)

8. A
Sol. • On a simple application of the above principle to the facts it can be concluded that A(Husband) is liable to pay back
the amount borrowed by B (Wife) because in law both are deemed to be single economic unit.

• It means that the liabilities of A are liability of B too and vice-versa is also true. The fact that the borrowed funds
were used by a third person (B’s brother) and not by the couple doesn’t make any difference to the answer.

(Note:
 www.gradeup.co

• Option B is part true and part false as it is undoubtedly true that they are separate legal entity but economically,
i.e. in matters of money they are one entity, making both of them jointly liable for each other’s borrowings.

• Option C is an ethical statement with no relation to the principle.)

9. D
Sol. • The following definition of abetment was given by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Sanju vs State of Madhya
Pradesh (2002).

• According to the definition, if a person assists, aids, commands or helps in any other way, an another person in
furtherance of commission of an offence by that person, then the person who helped him is said to have abetted the
crime, and he should be punishable for Abetment under IPC.

• Section 107 of IPC, 1860 defines Abetment and it includes instigation as well.

• In the present facts, Rohit, despite knowing the actual facts had falsely represented Vivek to be Vishal in order to
get him killed. Hence, he willfully instigated the police officer to commit the crime and should be punished for
abetment.

(Note:

• Option A is true but not relatable to the definition.

• Option B is false because Rohit didn’t conspired with the police officer to kill.

• Option C is wrong and also not contrary to the definition given in the question.)
10. A
Sol. • The Principle stated in the question is the meaning of the Latin maxim ‘Ubi Jus ibi Remedium’.

• In other words, the principle means that ‘Every right has a corresponding remedy in law in case of breach of that
right’. Hence, if a right of any person is breached, then the remedy must follow.

• When applying the above Principle to the facts of this case Option (D) seems to be the only correct conclusion,
because every person has a legal right to bodily safety and the teacher has violated that right when she slapped
Vishal.

• Due to breach/violation of his legal right, Vishal has an available remedy in law against the teacher.
 www.gradeup.co

• The teacher can be sued for the tort of ‘Battery’ by Vishal through his legal guardian (since Vishal is a minor).

(Note:

• Option B is false, because an act can be justified only on legal grounds, i.e. if it is committed in pursuance of a
lawful duty, but the slap was not a part of teacher’s lawful duty.

• Option C is incorrect statement because the law of torts is specifically made to deal with trivial issues, and that’s
why it is uncodified set of law.

• Option D is an absurd statement, because it gives a more moral conclusion rather than a lawful one.)
11. C
Sol. • According to the Principle, an Occupier of a premise (land) has duty of care towards his ‘invitees’, i.e. the persons
whom he invites to his land, and ‘visitors’, i.e. those who lawfully visit his land.

• However, in the present case Mohan was neither an invitee nor a visitor, but a trespasser. Therefore, Arun can’t be
held liable for the injury caused to Mohan because he didn’t owe any duty of care towards him.

(Note:

• Option A is wrong, because principle provides for duty of care only towards visitors and invitees and Mohan was
none out of the two.

• Option B is false because Mohan was not lawfully entitled to enter Arun’s premise, thus the primary requirement to
be a visitor is not fulfilled.

• Option D might be true but, it is an independent conclusion not relatable to the Principle.)
12. B
Sol. • Principle 1 defines ‘assault’, and it can be inferred from it that ‘Assault’ is a mental apprehension of physical harm
(battery).

• While according to Principle 2 ‘Battery’ means a tortious wrong in which a person (wrongdoer) uses intentional
physical force over another.

• In simple words, Assault is mental while battery is physical in tort law. Generally, in most of the cases ‘Assault’
precedes ‘battery’.
 www.gradeup.co

• In the above facts, Tima is liable for the tort of ‘Battery’ because she directly applied physical force (by pulling the
chair) with the intention to harm Guddu. Thus, her act constituted all the necessary elements of battery.

(Note:

Option A is wrong because ‘Assault’ means threatening someone to cause physical harm (battery), and it doesn’t
involves application of physical force.

Option C is wrong because ingredients of battery as given in principle 2 are fulfilled by Tima’s act.

Option D is an absurd statement.)

13. B
Sol. • In simple words the Principle means that if a person comes to a court to seek relief, than he/she should not be
wrong in his/her place.

• According to the above facts, the terms of the Contract between Puneet and Santosh explicitly mentioned that ‘right
to terminate’ the contract could be enjoyed by Santosh in case of delayed delivery only if he pays half of the deal’s
amount to Santosh in advance.

• But, the facts clearly narrates that Puneet didn’t paid any amount to Santosh till the date of delivery. Thus, he
himself waived the ‘right to terminate’ the contract by not fulfilling its pre-requisite condition, and hence, he can’t
lawfully terminate the contract, as he didn’t come with clean hands.

• Therefore, the contract is not a voidable contract at the option of Puneet, but a Valid one, and its termination by
Puneet amounts to breach of contract, against which action can be initiated by Santosh in appropriate court.

(Note:

• Option A is a false statement because nowhere from the facts, it can be inferred that Puneet was fraudulently
induced by Santosh to enter in the Contract. The mere fact, that there was availability of better deals in the market
than the one offered by Santosh, doesn’t amounts to fraud.

• Option C is false because his right could only be exercised subject to a condition that he pay half the amount in
advance, which he failed to perform.

• Option D is an absurd statement because law doesn’t acknowledge such flexibilities. A delay is delay in law
whether it is of one day or one year.)
 www.gradeup.co

14. B
Sol. • Voyeurism is an offence under Section 354 C of Indian Penal Code, 1860. According to Principle 2 if a Man
disseminates (spread) the images or video of a woman’s private act without her consent than also the offence of
‘Voyeurism’ is constituted.

• In the Present facts, X had disseminated Y’s intimate videotape without her consent when he showed it to A and B.
Moreover, A and B also disseminated the videotape when they uploaded it over the web and shared on social media.

• Therefore, the acts of all three of them have fulfilled the requirement to constitute the offence of Voyeurism.

(Note:

• Option A is wrong because, A and B were also involved with X to disseminate the video.

• Option C is false and impractical statement because Y, being the Victim of the Crime can’t be the offender.
Moreover, Voyeurism is a gender specific offence that can be committed only by a male human (Man).

• Option D is wrong because, dissemination of the video was also done by X when he showed it to his friends, A and
B.)
15. B
Sol. • Section 489E of IPC, 1860 penalizesthe offence of counterfeiting of currency notes. Sanju is guilty for the offence
of counterfeiting because his intention was to cause deception in the Market, by misrepresenting the fake notes as
Real currency notes.

• For the first time when he copied the note, the offence of ‘Counterfeiting’ was not constituted because his intention
was not to cause deception, but later on when greed developed in his mind, he printed the fake currency notes with
intention to deceive the public in the market. Thereby, fulfilling the essentials of the offence and committing it.

(Note:

• Option A is a wrong statement because the fact itself lay down that the original and fake currency looked identical.

• Option (C) is not a correct option despite being a close choice because Sanju, not only had knowledge but also
detention to deceive the public, and he copied with the intention to deceive.)
16. B
Sol. • The Principles in the present question simply implies that Motive and Intention are different and Motive is
 www.gradeup.co

immaterial in order to determine culpability of an accused.

• Intention means ‘awareness of the consequences of one’s act’.

• On the other hand Motive means the ‘reason/object behind committing an act charged as crime’.

• Guilty Intention, i.e. Mens Rea is an essential element of crime but Motive is not essential. Motive may only
determine the extent of criminal liability.

• In the above facts, Raju committed theft out of the fundamental human necessity to survive, hence, it was his
motive (reason or objective) behind committing theft, which was nevertheless not a bad one (malafide), but he knew
the consequences of his act, therefore the act was an intentional one.

• Therefore, Raju will be charged for theft, and a good motive can’t help him escape criminal liability, due to the fact
that Motive is irrelevant in determining guilt or innocence as stated in the Principle.

(Note:

• Option A is not completely true because his motive was not malafide.

• Option C is an absurd statement because the facts fulfill the ingredients to constitute theft as given in Section 378 of
IPC, 1860 and not of Extortion as given in section 383.

• Option D is a false statement because Mens Rea (Guilty mind/intention) was present.)
17. D
Sol. • Law doesn’t entertain any supernatural thing. The principle given in the question says that ‘human involvement’ is
necessary to constitute or commit an offence/Crime.

• Section 10 of Indian Penal Code, 1860 defines human being by breaking it down into ‘Man’ and ‘Woman’.

• In generic terms too, anyone who is born in the body of a human is a Human being. The fact that people regard
Birbal baba as God is absurd and can’t help him to escape Criminal liability in law, by pleading that he is a God and
not a Human.

• Therefore, Birbal baba is a human being in the eyes of law, and the fact that people of the nation, including high
authorities like Prime Minister or President believe him as God will not make him a non-human in law.
 www.gradeup.co

• Hence, Birbal baba has committed Murder of Heera Chand.

(Note:

Option A is not correct because there is a thin life of difference between Culpable homicide not amounting to Murder
(section 299 of IPC defines it) and Murder (section 300 of IPC defines it). The facts of the present case come under
the latter category.

Option B is a false statement, not contrary to the law.

Option C is an absurd and an illogical statement.)

18. C
Sol. • Ajit should be prosecuted for Bigamy under section 494 of IPC, 1860.

• Principle 1 lays down the fundamental right of ‘Right to Religion’ given in Article 25 of the Constitution, while
Principle 2 is the fundamental right enshrined in Article 27 of the constitution.

• Principle 1 clearly states that Freedom to practice any religion is subject to Public order, Morality and health. The
motive for Ajit’s conversion to Islam was immoral (2nd marriage) and hence, he can’t legitimize his second marriage.
Thus, Ajit should be prosecuted for bigamy and can’t claim protection of Right to religion enshrined under Article
25, which is not absolute and is subject to morality, public order and health.

• The above facts relates to the landmark Supreme Court case of Sarla Mudgal vs Union of India (1995). In this case,
the Supreme Courtof India clarified this controversial issue and held that second marriage can’t be solemnized by
converting into Islam, if first marriage was not dissolved.

• The judgement held that, if a Hindu man converts to Islam, and marries second time (which is permissible in
Islam), then he would be punished for the offence of Bigamy under section 494 of IPC. In order to marry again the
person has to get its first marriage dissolved under the Hindu Marriage act, 1955.

• Therefore, Ajit is laible for committing bigamy.

(Note:

• Option A is false because despite the fact that Conversion is every citizen’s right to religion, it is not absolute and
subject to Morality, Public order and health.
 www.gradeup.co

• Option (B) is not correct choice because Ajit’s first marriage was under Hindu law.)
19. D
Sol. • The contract entered between ABC ltd. and B is void because B lacks capacity to become a distributor. B is
incompetent to enter into contracts of distributorship because he has been debarred from performing such functions
by the court of law.

• Thus, the contract is void because of incompetency or lack of capacity of B to become a distributor, which is the
prime condition of the Contract between the two parties.

(Note:

• Option A is false, because there is nothing illegal in the consideration.

• Option B is wrong because contracts of distributorship are legal and not prohibited by law. Only B is prohibited by
law from entering into contracts of distributorship.

• Option C is incorrect because the object of contract is to distribute food items which is nonetheless legal.)
20. B
Sol. • The principle in the question is the definition of the offence of causing Death by negligence given in Section 304A
of IPC.

• On applying the given principle to the above facts, it can be concluded that A was negligent when he let his 4 year
old child drive the car and his negligence led to death of his servants.

• Hence, he is liable under section 304A of IPC for causing death by negligence.

• Negligence refers to breach of duty to take care from one person leading to loss to other person.

(Note:

• Option A is an absurd statement as a person is not lawfully allowed to be negligent even on his personal property.

• Option C is false, because the fact that Minor was driving at A’s permission makes him liable.

• Option D is wrong because a child below 7 years of age can’t be charged for any offence, and she was just 4 years
old.)