Legal Reasoning Questions for CLAT | QB Set 83 [Offences Related to Harm to Body]

Under Indian criminal law, a person who causes another person’s death may be liable for culpable homicide or murder depending on the intention, knowledge and circumstances surrounding the act. Murder is generally treated as the more serious form of culpable homicide. However, the law recognises certain exceptions where an act causing death may amount to culpable homicide not amounting to murder. One such exception is grave and sudden provocation. If a person loses self-control because of serious and immediate provocation and causes death before there is sufficient time for the passion to cool, the offence may be reduced from murder. The defence does not apply where the provocation is deliberately sought or where sufficient time has passed for the accused to regain self-control.

The nature of the injury is also important. Where an accused intentionally inflicts a particular bodily injury and that injury is sufficient in the ordinary course of nature to cause death, the act may ordinarily amount to murder. At the same time, the right of private defence may protect a person who uses necessary and proportionate force to prevent an unlawful attack. The extent of liability therefore depends on intention, knowledge, provocation, proportionality and the surrounding facts.

Facts

Mohan and his elder brother Suresh had a bitter, unresolved dispute over ancestral property. One evening, during a heated family argument at the ancestral home, Suresh slapped Mohan twice in front of all the other family members. Deeply humiliated and in a fit of sudden rage, Mohan grabbed a kitchen knife lying on the nearby counter and stabbed Suresh once in the abdomen.

Suresh collapsed and was rushed to hospital, where he died three hours later. The post-mortem confirmed that the stab wound to the abdomen was ordinarily sufficient in the natural course to cause death.

Mohan told the police that he never intended to kill his brother and only wanted to stop him from slapping. There had been no prior plan of any kind; the act occurred within seconds of the second slap.

Questions

Q1. Based on the given facts, which is the most appropriate charge against Mohan?

(A) No offence, since Mohan acted purely in private defence to prevent further assault by Suresh.

(B) Culpable homicide not amounting to murder, since the act was committed under grave and sudden provocation without any premeditation.

(C) Murder, because Mohan stabbed Suresh and the wound was ordinarily sufficient in the natural course to cause death.

(D) Causing grievous hurt, since Mohan’s declared intention was only to stop the assault.

Q2. Mohan’s lawyer argues that since he had no plan to kill Suresh, he cannot be guilty of any homicide offence. Is this argument legally sound?

(A) Yes, because the absence of premeditation negates all criminal liability in homicide.

(B) Yes, because any spontaneous act of anger is treated as self-defence in Indian law.

(C) No, culpable homicide does not require premeditation; it requires only intention to cause death or knowledge that the act is likely to cause death, and stabbing in the abdomen with a knife satisfies this knowledge element.

(D) No, because once death results from a voluntary act, the charge is always murder regardless of intent.

Q3. The prosecution relies on the finding that the stab wound was “ordinarily sufficient in the natural course to cause death.” Which established legal principle does this invoke?

(A) The third clause of murder under the BNS, as authoritatively interpreted in Virsa Singh v. State of Punjab (1958), which requires that the accused intentionally caused a specific bodily injury that is sufficient in the ordinary course of nature to cause death.

(B) The doctrine of transferred malice, which applies where the wrong person is accidentally harmed.

(C) The principle of strict liability, under which intention is irrelevant once death has been caused.

(D) The doctrine of common intention, which makes all co-participants equally liable for acts in furtherance of a common plan.

Q4. Suppose Mohan had walked away after being slapped, gone to his room, waited 30 minutes while brooding over the insult, and then returned and stabbed Suresh. How would this change the legal analysis?

(A) It would have no effect since the original provocation still causally connects to the act.

(B) It would reduce the charge to causing grievous hurt since only emotional injury was intended during the waiting period.

(C) It would entitle Mohan to an insanity defence since brooding for 30 minutes may indicate mental disorder.

(D) The 30-minute gap would constitute a cooling period, eliminating the grave and sudden provocation exception and converting the offence to murder, since the required immediacy would be absent.

Q5. Mohan produces a character witness who testifies that he was always a gentle, non-violent person before this incident. What legal weight should this evidence receive at trial?

(A) It conclusively proves Mohan lacked intent to kill and requires the court to acquit him.

(B) Good character evidence is admissible and relevant but functions as mitigating evidence primarily useful at sentencing; it is not a substantive defence that negates the criminal charge or the established mens rea.

(C) Character evidence of the accused is completely inadmissible in any criminal trial.

(D) It proves that the provocation must have been extreme, since such a gentle person would never otherwise react with violence, and must lead to acquittal.

This practice set is from: CLAT Legal Reasoning Course & Question Bank → Criminal Law → Set 1