Legal Reasoning Questions for CLAT | QB Set 33

Iintention and motive are two critical concepts that help determine an individual’s guilt or innocence. While both relate to the mental state of the accused, they serve different purposes in legal analysis. Intention refers to the conscious decision to engage in a particular action, demonstrating a clear purpose or resolve to achieve a specific outcome. It is crucial in establishing culpability since criminal liability depends on whether the accused deliberately committed the act. For example, planning and executing a theft with the aim of taking someone else’s property is a clear display of intention.

On the other hand, motive refers to the underlying reason or incentive that drives a person’s behavior. While it provides insight into why a person may have committed a crime, motive is not essential in proving guilt under the law. Instead, it offers context to the individual’s actions. For instance, a person may steal due to financial desperation, which explains their motive, but their liability still hinges on their intent to commit the crime, not their reason for doing so. Motive is often used to build a narrative in legal cases, helping to paint a broader picture of the crime.

The difference between intention and motive lies in their role in criminal law. Intention is directly linked to establishing criminal liability, as it focuses on the individual’s deliberate mental state and actions. Motive, while offering context and understanding, does not determine guilt. Understanding the distinction ensures that the legal system remains fair, holding individuals accountable for their intentional actions while considering the circumstances that may have influenced their decisions.

Questions

Question 1:
Rahul, facing severe financial hardship, plans to rob a local store to pay for his family’s medical bills. He meticulously prepares for the robbery, disguises himself, and threatens the store cashier at gunpoint to steal money from the register. During the trial, Rahul’s lawyer argues that his motive was to save his family, and therefore, his actions should be seen with leniency. Based on the distinction between intention and motive, what should the court focus on in determining Rahul’s criminal liability?
(a) The motive behind the act, as it provides context for why he committed the crime.
(b) Both motive and intention equally, as both are crucial in determining guilt.
(c) The intention, because it demonstrates his deliberate actions to commit the crime, regardless of motive.
(d) The motive, since it justifies his actions and mitigates his guilt.

Question 2:
Suresh, a factory worker, intentionally sabotages the factory’s machinery to prevent it from running, hoping that the factory owner will take action to improve working conditions. His motive is to help his fellow workers, who have long suffered from poor workplace safety. Suresh is later charged with criminal damage. Which factor is most important in determining his guilt under criminal law?
(a) His motive to improve working conditions for his colleagues.
(b) His intention to deliberately damage the machinery, regardless of his motive.
(c) His motive, because it shows that he acted for the benefit of others and not personal gain.
(d) His intention and motive, because both must be considered together to determine his guilt.

Question 3:
Ravi, in a fit of anger, throws a brick through his neighbor’s window after an argument. His motive was to express frustration, and he claims that he didn’t mean for anyone to get hurt. However, the broken glass injures a child inside the house. How should the court view Ravi’s criminal liability in terms of intention and motive?
(a) Ravi’s motive should be considered, as it shows he didn’t want to harm anyone.
(b) Ravi’s intention to break the window is crucial, as he deliberately performed an unlawful act, regardless of his motive.
(c) His motive is more important, since the harm caused was not part of his plan.
(d) His intention and motive should be equally considered to determine the level of his guilt.

Question 4:
Anita, a nurse, administers a higher dose of medication to a patient, knowing it might result in harm but hoping that the patient will recover more quickly. Unfortunately, the patient suffers a severe reaction. During the investigation, Anita argues that her motive was to help the patient recover. What is the role of motive and intention in assessing Anita’s liability?
(a).Both her intention and motive should mitigate her guilt, as her actions were meant to help.
(b) Her intention to administer the medication despite knowing the risks establishes her liability, regardless of her positive motive.
(c) Anita’s motive should absolve her, as she did not intend to cause harm
(d) Her liability depends solely on whether the patient recovers, as her motive was not malicious.

Question 5:
Ajay sets fire to his rival’s warehouse to destroy important business documents, hoping to gain a competitive advantage. His motive was purely financial, but he claims that he did not intend to cause any further damage beyond the documents. However, the fire spreads, destroying the entire warehouse. Based on the concepts of intention and motive, how should Ajay’s criminal liability be evaluated?
(a) His motive for financial gain mitigates his responsibility for the damage.
(b) His motive plays a larger role, since he did not intend to cause widespread damage.
(c) Both his motive and intention should reduce his liability, as his actions were aimed only at specific documents.
(d) His intention to destroy the documents is sufficient to hold him liable for the entire damage caused by the fire.

Question 6:
Priya steals her employer’s confidential files with the intention of exposing unethical practices to the authorities. Her motive is to serve justice and bring attention to illegal activities in the company. During the trial, she argues that her motive should be taken into account to reduce her criminal liability. In light of criminal law principles, how should the court treat her intention and motive?
(a) Priya’s motive should reduce her liability, as she acted in the public interest.
(b) Priya’s intention to steal the files establishes her criminal liability, irrespective of her motive.
(c) Both her intention and motive must be equally weighed, as her actions were morally justified.
(d) Her motive should absolve her of all liability, as she was acting in good faith.


Calling all law aspirants!

Are you exhausted from constantly searching for study materials and question banks? Worry not!

With over 15,000 students already engaged, you definitely don't want to be left out.

Become a member of the most vibrant law aspirants community out there!

It’s FREE! Hurry!

Join our WhatsApp Groups (Click Here) and Telegram Channel (Click Here) today, and receive instant notifications.

CLAT Buddy
CLAT Buddy
JOIN OUR WHATSAPP COMMUNITY