KSLU Solved Question Papers
Criminal Law I
Previous Year Question Paper with Solution
B.A. LL.B. (Five Years) · Sem 4
2017 Dec Examination
munotes.in
Mumbai
B.A. LL.B. (Five Years) Sem 4 Criminal Law I 2017 Dec 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 2017 Dec examination.
Contents
The questions below are the paper as Karnataka State Law University set it at the 2017 Dec examination, in the order it was set.
MarksPage
The Paper as Set
The questions in this volume are the questions asked at the 2017 Dec 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 · 13 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.
Q1What is crime ? Explain the difference between crime and tort.[16]
Answer
For full marks, cover: Part A, crime: why no one definition works, and the three ways of looking at it (the harm, the law, the procedure); the Indian Penal Code's own answer, "offence" in section 40 (now section 2(24) of the Sanhita); the features that mark a crime; crime as the State's choice at a given time (Joseph Shine, where an act passed from crime to civil wrong). Part B, tort, in brief. Part C, crime and tort compared: one road accident followed through both courts; a table of twelve differences, with the less obvious ones explained (standard of proof, the guilty mind, compromise); where the two meet: public nuisance (Municipal Council, Ratlam), negligence and its two standards (Jacob Mathew), and compensation inside a criminal case and against the State (Rudul Sah); the Sanhita; a conclusion.
Part A: what is crime?
No single definition
Writers have long tried to define crime in one sentence, and none has fully succeeded. Each definition looks at crime from one side.
- By the harm. A crime is a wrong against society as a whole, not just against the person hurt. Murder harms the victim, but it also threatens everyone's safety.
- By the law. A crime is an act or omission that the law forbids on pain of punishment. This is the most precise test, but it is circular: a crime is whatever the law punishes.
- By the procedure. A crime is a wrong for which the State prosecutes and the court punishes. The case is "State versus accused", and the victim cannot simply drop it.
The Code's own answer
The Indian Penal Code, 1860 did not define "crime". It defined "offence". Section 40 says that, in general, "the word 'offence' denotes a thing made punishable by this Code". In some chapters and sections, it extends to things punishable under a special or local law. Indian law therefore takes the legal view. An act is a crime when a law in force makes it punishable. Article 20(1) of the Constitution adds that no one can be convicted except for breaking a law in force when he acted.
The features of a crime
- A human act or omission, which the law forbids or commands.
- A guilty mind, in the form the definition requires, unless the law creates strict liability.
- Harm to society, whether or not one person is also harmed.
- Punishment, such as imprisonment or fine, imposed by the State.
- Prosecution by the State, with the victim as a witness rather than the master of the case.
Crime is the State's choice at a given time
What counts as a crime changes with the law. In Joseph Shine v. Union of India, AIR 2018 SC 4898, decided on 27 September 2018, the Supreme Court struck down section 497, which had made adultery a crime. The Court said adultery can still be "a ground for any kind of civil wrong including dissolution of marriage". The same act moved from the criminal law to the civil law. That shows that the line between crime and civil wrong is drawn by the law, not by nature.
Part B: what is a tort?
A tort is a civil wrong, other than a mere breach of contract or of trust. Its remedy is an action for unliquidated damages. Trespass to land, negligence, nuisance, defamation and false imprisonment are examples. The injured person sues the wrongdoer and asks to be compensated. Most of the law of torts in India is judge-made and not codified.
Part C: crime and tort compared
One accident, two cases
A driver, drunk and speeding, hits a pedestrian and breaks his leg.
- The criminal case. The police register a case. The State prosecutes the driver for rash driving and for causing grievous hurt by a rash act. If convicted, he may be imprisoned or fined.
- The civil case. The pedestrian claims compensation from the driver, and usually his insurer, for medical costs, lost wages and pain. The court awards damages.
The same act is both a crime and a tort. The two cases run side by side, in different courts, for different ends.
The differences
| Point | Crime | Tort |
|---|---|---|
| nature of the wrong | a public wrong, against society | a private wrong, against an individual |
| who brings the case | the State, through the prosecution | the injured person |
| title of the case | State versus accused | plaintiff versus defendant |
| purpose | to punish, deter and reform | to compensate the injured |
| result | imprisonment, fine or death | damages, an injunction |
| who receives the money | a fine goes to the State | damages go to the injured |
| mental element | usually a guilty mind | often none; negligence or strict liability suffices |
| standard of proof | beyond reasonable doubt | balance of probabilities |
| compromise | only where the law allows compounding | the parties may settle freely |
| source of law | statutes such as the Code | largely judge-made |
| Point | Crime | Tort |
|---|---|---|
| court | criminal courts | civil courts and tribunals |
| effect of the victim's consent | usually no defence, except where the law says | often a full defence |
Three differences explained
Standard of proof. Because liberty is at stake, the prosecution must prove guilt beyond reasonable doubt. A civil claimant need only show that his case is more probable than not. So a driver acquitted in the criminal case may still have to pay damages.
The guilty mind. Most crimes need intention, knowledge or at least gross negligence. Many torts need only a failure of reasonable care, and some none at all.
Compromise. A tort claim belongs to the injured person, who may settle it on any terms. A crime is against the State. Only offences the law lists as compoundable may be settled by the parties. That list was in section 320 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973. It is now in section 359 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023.
Where the two meet
Public nuisance. A public nuisance is both a crime (section 268 of the Code) and a tort. In Municipal Council, Ratlam v. Vardhichand, (1980) 4 SCC 162, decided on 29 July 1980, residents complained of open drains and foul fluid from an alcohol plant flowing into their street. The Supreme Court upheld a magistrate's order, made under the criminal procedure code, directing the municipality to build drains. It held that lack of funds did not excuse a statutory duty. A wrong to the public was remedied through criminal procedure.
Negligence, with two standards. In Jacob Mathew v. State of Punjab, AIR 2005 SC 3180, decided on 5 August 2005, a patient died when the oxygen cylinder connected to him was found empty. The doctor was prosecuted for causing death by negligence. The Supreme Court held that negligence in civil law is not necessarily negligence in criminal law. For a crime, it must be gross, of a very high degree. The same carelessness may be enough for damages but not for a conviction.
Compensation inside a criminal case. A criminal court that fines an accused may order the fine to be paid as compensation to the victim. This applies where the victim could recover it in a civil court. That power was in section 357 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, and is now in section 395 of the Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita. Section 396 adds a State scheme for victim compensation.
Compensation from the State. In Rudul Sah v. State of Bihar, AIR 1983 SC 1086, decided on 1 August 1983, a man acquitted in 1968 stayed in jail for over fourteen years. The Supreme Court ordered the State to pay compensation under Article 32, without barring a suit for damages. A wrong by State officers was answered in money, the remedy of tort.
Under the Sanhita
The Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 keeps the Code's approach. Section 2(24) defines "offence" as a thing made punishable by the Sanhita, with the same extension to special and local laws in named provisions. Public nuisance is now section 270. Tort law is untouched, since it lies outside the penal code.
Conclusion. A crime is a wrong the law makes punishable, prosecuted by the State and punished in the interest of society. The Code captured this as "offence" in section 40, now section 2(24) of the Sanhita. A tort is a private wrong remedied by damages. They differ in who sues, why, how much must be proved and what follows. One act may be both, as a road accident or a public nuisance (Municipal Council, Ratlam) shows. Jacob Mathew shows that a crime needs graver fault, and Rudul Sah that compensation now also reaches criminal and public law. Joseph Shine shows that the line between them is drawn by the law of the day.
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.