KSLU Solved Question Papers
Criminal Law I
Previous Year Question Paper with Solution
B.A. LL.B. (Five Years) · Sem 4
2013 Jun Examination
munotes.in
Mumbai
B.A. LL.B. (Five Years) Sem 4 Criminal Law I 2013 Jun Question Paper with Solutions
First published on munotes.in on 21 October 2026.
Published by munotes.in, Mumbai.
Model answers written and edited by the munotes.in editorial desk.
Passages from this volume may be quoted, in print, online or by an AI system, with credit: name munotes.in and link to this volume's page. The volume may not be reproduced as a whole. Full terms at munotes.in/content-license.
munotes.in is an independent study resource for students of Karnataka State Law University. It is not affiliated with Karnataka State Law University, and is not endorsed by it.
The University does not publish an official answer key for this paper. The answers in this volume are model answers, written to show how a full-mark answer is built. They are a study aid, not an authority on what an examiner marked.
The question paper reproduced here is the paper as set by Karnataka State Law University at the 2013 Jun examination.
Contents
The questions below are the paper as Karnataka State Law University set it at the 2013 Jun examination, in the order it was set.
MarksPage
MarksPage
The Paper as Set
The questions in this volume are the questions asked at the 2013 Jun examination, reproduced as Karnataka State Law University set them, in the order it set them. Long reading passages are shortened to their first and last lines and our summary; the original paper prints them in full. Only the answers are ours. See the original question paper.
Duration 3 hours · Total marks 100 · 20 questions answered
How to use this volume
Solve the paper first, under exam conditions and against the clock. Then read the answers here and mark your own. Reading a solution before attempting the question feels productive and teaches very little, because recognising an answer is not the same as being able to write one.
Q1
Unit I
(a)Who are legally abnormal persons ? Discuss M'Naghten answers.[15]
Answer
For full marks, cover: Part A, who is legally abnormal: why the law excuses certain persons, the three classes in sections 82 to 86 of the Indian Penal Code (now sections 20 to 24 of the Sanhita) in a table, each class explained with a case: children (Hiralal Mallick), persons of unsound mind, and the intoxicated (Basdev); and who is not legally abnormal; Part B, the M'Naghten answers: the case of 1843 and why the judges were questioned; all five questions and answers, each with what it means in India today (Dahyabhai Chhaganbhai Thakker, Ratan Lal, Shrikant Anandrao Bhosale); how section 84 adopts and alters the answers; their weak points; the Sanhita; a conclusion.
Part A: who is legally abnormal
Why the law excuses some persons
Criminal liability rests on a guilty mind. A person is punished because he chose to do wrong when he could have chosen otherwise. Some people lack that capacity, for reasons of age or of mental condition. Punishing them would neither deter them nor serve justice. The Code calls them by no special name, but textbooks call them legally abnormal persons. Their defences sit among the General Exceptions.
The three classes
| Class | Section of the Code | Test | Proof |
|---|---|---|---|
| child under seven | 82 | age alone | proof of age is enough |
| child of seven to twelve | 83 | not mature enough to judge the nature and consequences of his conduct | immaturity must be shown on the facts |
| person of unsound mind | 84 | at the time of the act, unable to know its nature, or that it is wrong or contrary to law | the accused, on a preponderance of probability |
| Class | Section of the Code | Test | Proof |
|---|---|---|---|
| person intoxicated against his will | 85 | the same incapacity, caused by something given without his knowledge or against his will | the accused |
| person who chose to drink | 86 | no excuse; he is taken to have a sober man's knowledge | not a defence |
Children
Below seven, the Code treats a child as wholly incapable of crime. Between seven and twelve, the question is the child's actual understanding.
Facts. In Hiralal Mallick v. State of Bihar, AIR 1977 SC 2236, decided on 16 August 1977, a boy of twelve joined his two elder brothers in attacking a man. The brothers gave the fatal stabs. The boy cut the victim's neck with a sword, but his blow was not fatal. The High Court gave him four years for grievous hurt.
Held. The appeal failed. Section 83 gives only partial absolution, and capacity is measured by the strength of the child's understanding rather than by years. No evidence of immaturity had been led. The Court gave directions on reformatory treatment.
Persons of unsound mind
Section 84 excuses a person only if unsoundness of mind left him unable to know what he was doing. It is also enough if he could not know that it was wrong or contrary to law. This is the M'Naghten test, explained in Part B.
The intoxicated
Section 85 treats involuntary intoxication like unsoundness of mind. Section 86 refuses the excuse to one who drank by choice. For offences needing a particular knowledge, he is treated as if he had the knowledge of a sober man.
Facts. In Basdev v. State of Pepsu, AIR 1956 SC 488, decided on 17 April 1956, a retired jamadar was heavily drunk at a wedding. He shot a boy of about fifteen who would not move aside to let him sit.
Held. His conviction for murder was upheld. He was still able to know what he was doing. So he was presumed to intend the natural consequences of his act.
Who is not legally abnormal
A quick temper, low intelligence, odd conduct, or an overpowering urge do not make a person legally abnormal. The law asks only about capacity to know, not about character or self-control.
Part B: the M'Naghten answers
The case
On 20 January 1843, Daniel M'Naghten shot Edward Drummond, private secretary to the Prime Minister, Sir Robert Peel. He was trying to kill Peel himself. Drummond died. M'Naghten suffered from delusions of persecution, and the jury acquitted him as insane. The verdict caused public alarm. The House of Lords, using a procedure then open to it, put abstract questions to the judges on the law of insanity. Tindal, Chief Justice, delivered the answers of the judges. Justice Maule gave his own answers separately. The report is (1843) 10 Cl & F 200.
Question 1: a deluded person who knows the law
The question. What is the law where a person under an insane delusion about particular subjects or persons commits a crime? He knows that the act is against the law. But he acts to redress or revenge some supposed grievance, or to produce some supposed public benefit.
The answer. The judges confined it to a person with a partial delusion only, not otherwise insane. Such a person "is nevertheless punishable" if he knew at the time "that he was acting contrary to law".
In India. Section 84 likewise asks whether the accused knew his act was "wrong or contrary to law". A motive born of delusion is no excuse if that knowledge remained.
Questions 2 and 3: what the jury must be told
These two were answered together. They yield the core rules.
- Sanity is presumed. Every man is presumed sane and responsible "until the contrary be proved".
- The test. To succeed, it must be clearly proved that, at the time of the act, a "defect of reason, from disease of the mind" left him unable to know "the nature and quality of the act". Or, if he knew that, he did not know "he was doing what was wrong".
- Wrong in respect of the very act. The question is not whether he knew right from wrong in general. It is whether he knew this act was wrong. Everyone is taken to know the law.
In India: the presumption and the burden.
Facts. In Dahyabhai Chhaganbhai Thakker v. State of Gujarat, AIR 1964 SC 1563, decided on 19 March 1964, the appellant killed his wife in a closed room in April 1959. He had disliked her and had asked her father to take her away. He pleaded insanity.
Held. The prosecution's burden to prove guilt never shifts. But the accused is presumed not to have been insane, and he must rebut that presumption. His burden is no higher than that of a party in a civil case. Even if he fails, his evidence may raise a reasonable doubt about intention, and then he must be acquitted. On the facts, the plea failed.
In India: the time of the act.
Facts. In Ratan Lal v. State of Madhya Pradesh, AIR 1971 SC 778, decided on 17 December 1970, the appellant set fire to grass in a neighbour's threshing floor at sunset. He stood silently by the fire and said he had burnt it. Doctors later found him of unsound mind.
Held. His acquittal was restored. The crucial time is when the act was done. His state of mind then is judged from his conduct before, during and after it.
Question 4: the partial delusion
The question. Is a person excused who commits an offence because of an insane delusion as to existing facts?
The answer. It depends on the delusion. A person under a partial delusion only, and not otherwise insane, is judged as if the imagined facts were real. If he believes a man is about to kill him and kills him in supposed self-defence, he is exempt. If he believes the man has ruined his character and fortune and kills him in revenge, he is punishable.
In India. The courts look at whether a delusion actually controlled the act.
Facts. In Shrikant Anandrao Bhosale v. State of Maharashtra, AIR 2002 SC 3399, decided on 26 September 2002, a police constable struck his wife on the head with a grinding stone in April 1994. He had been treated for paranoid schizophrenia since 1992 and had persecutory delusions. He neither hid nor fled, and the motive was weak.
Held. He was acquitted. On the whole evidence, he was under a delusion when he acted, and his burden needs only a preponderance of probability.
Question 5: the medical witness
The question. A doctor may never have seen the prisoner before the trial, but may have heard all the evidence. May he be asked his opinion of the prisoner's state of mind at the time of the act?
The answer. Not "in strictness" in those terms, because that would make him decide the truth of the facts, which is the jury's task. But where the facts are admitted or not disputed, and the question becomes one of science, it may be put generally. That is a matter of convenience, not a right.
In India. A doctor's opinion is expert evidence under section 45 of the Evidence Act, now section 39 of the Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam, 2023. The final decision on unsoundness of mind remains the court's.
How section 84 adopts and alters the answers
- It says "unsoundness of mind", not "disease of the mind".
- It adds "contrary to law" beside "wrong".
- It fixes the moment as "at the time of doing it".
- It speaks of incapacity to know, not proof that he did not know.
Their weak points
The answers test knowledge only. A person who knows his act is wrong, but cannot control himself, gets no defence. Psychiatry also doubts that a mind can be deluded on one point and sound on all others. Even so, section 84 keeps the answers as the Indian law.
Under the Sanhita
Sections 20 to 24 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 repeat sections 82 to 86. Section 22, which replaces section 84, keeps the M'Naghten test unchanged.
Conclusion. Legally abnormal persons are children under twelve who lack understanding, persons of unsound mind and persons intoxicated against their will. The law excuses them under sections 82 to 85, now sections 20 to 23 of the Sanhita, but not the voluntary drinker (Basdev). The M'Naghten answers of 1843 shaped section 84. A deluded person who knows the law is punishable. Sanity is presumed, and the test is knowledge of the nature of the act or its wrongness. A partial delusion is judged as if true, and a doctor's opinion does not displace the jury. Indian courts apply these answers through Dahyabhai, Ratan Lal and Shrikant Anandrao Bhosale.
The rest of the answers
The first answer is free. The rest come with the KSLU B.A. LL.B. Semester 4 solved papers.
You have read the question paper and its first answer in full. Buy the solved papers once and you can read every answer of every solved paper in this semester.
Solved papers: ₹499 Already bought it? Sign in
The question paper itself stays free.
Found an error in this volume? Report it and we will check it against the paper.