KSLU Solved Question Papers
Criminal Law I
Previous Year Question Paper with Solution
B.A. LL.B. (Five Years) · Sem 4
2018 Dec (100 marks) Examination
munotes.in
Mumbai
B.A. LL.B. (Five Years) Sem 4 Criminal Law I 2018 Dec (100 marks) 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 2018 Dec (100 marks) examination.
Contents
The questions below are the paper as Karnataka State Law University set it at the 2018 Dec (100 marks) examination, in the order it was set.
MarksPage
The Paper as Set
The questions in this volume are the questions asked at the 2018 Dec (100 marks) 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.
Q1Explain the elements of crime.[16]
Answer
For full marks, cover: the three ways writers have tried to define crime, and why none is complete; the statutory answer, "offence" in section 40 of the Indian Penal Code (now section 2(24) of the Sanhita); the maxim actus non facit reum nisi mens sit rea; the essentials one by one: (1) a person capable of guilt (section 11); (2) a guilty mind, presumed into every offence (Nathulal) unless the statute shuts it out (Mayer Hans George); (3) a guilty act that goes far enough (sections 32 and 39, Abhayanand Mishra); (4) the two joined at the same moment; (5) injury (section 44); (6) a law that made the act punishable when it was done (Article 20(1), Rao Shiv Bahadur Singh); the essentials tested on one example; the Sanhita; a conclusion.
Three attempts at a definition
No single sentence captures every crime. Writers have looked at it from three angles.
- By its victim. On this view a crime harms society, not merely the person who suffers it. A murder frightens a whole town, so the town, through the State, takes up the case.
- By the law's command. On this view a crime is conduct the law forbids, or a duty the law imposes and the person fails to perform. The test is formal: has the legislature forbidden it under a penalty?
- By who controls the case. On this view the mark of a crime is that the State prosecutes it and the victim cannot settle it away. Many offences may be compounded, so this test is not exact either.
Each angle is useful, but each leaves something out. Some crimes, like possessing a forbidden article, hurt no identifiable person. Some immoral acts are not crimes at all. So lawyers rely on the definition the statute gives.
The statutory answer
The Code never used "crime" as a defined term. Section 40 said instead that "the word 'offence' denotes a thing made punishable by this Code". For certain chapters and sections it also covered a thing punishable under a special or local law. Section 2(24) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 is the same rule.
The definition is circular on purpose. It tells us where to look, which is the statute book, but not what makes conduct criminal. For that we turn to the essentials.
The governing maxim
The essentials are summed up in a Latin maxim, actus non facit reum nisi mens sit rea. The act does not make a man guilty unless his mind is also guilty. The Code does not state the maxim in words. It builds it into each definition, through words like "intentionally", "knowingly", "dishonestly" and "voluntarily".
Essential 1: a person capable of guilt
Only a person can commit a crime. Section 11 of the Code says "person" includes "any Company or Association or body of persons, whether incorporated or not". So a firm that sells adulterated food may be prosecuted, and fined. Section 2(26) of the Sanhita keeps this.
The person must also be capable of guilt in law. A child under seven is a person. So is a man too insane to know what he is doing. But the Code treats both as incapable of a guilty mind.
Essential 2: a guilty mind
The mental element takes several forms in the Code. They are intention, knowledge, reason to believe, rashness, negligence, dishonesty and fraud. Each offence names the state of mind it needs. Theft needs dishonesty, murder needs intention or knowledge, and causing death by negligence needs only negligence.
Facts. A foodgrain dealer at Dhar stored 885 maunds of wheat for sale without a licence. He had applied for one, paid the fee and filed his returns, and was never told of any refusal. The case is Nathulal v. State of Madhya Pradesh, AIR 1966 SC 43, decided on 22 March 1965.
Held. The majority acquitted him. Mens rea is an essential ingredient of every offence. A penal provision is read as needing a guilty mind unless the statute excludes it, expressly or by necessary implication. That implication arises only where the statute's object would otherwise be defeated.
The limit. A German passenger flying from Zurich to Manila wore a jacket holding about thirty four kilos of gold. His aircraft landed at Bombay, and the gold was not declared. A notice requiring such a declaration had been issued a few weeks earlier, and he said he did not know of it. The appeal is State of Maharashtra v. Mayer Hans George, AIR 1965 SC 722, decided on 24 August 1964.
Held. By a majority, he was guilty. The anti-smuggling law would be frustrated if the prosecution had to prove that a carrier knew he was breaking it. So the statute had shut out mens rea by necessary implication.
Why they bear. Read together, the two cases give the rule and its exception. A guilty mind is always presumed to be an essential. Only a clear statutory purpose can displace it.
Essential 3: a guilty act that goes far enough
The mind alone is never punished. There must be conduct.
- Act or omission. Under section 32, words that refer to acts extend to illegal omissions. A railway gateman who leaves the gate open, so that a train strikes a cart, may be liable for what follows.
- Voluntary conduct. Section 39 says a person causes an effect "voluntarily" when he causes it by means he intended to cause it. It is enough too if he knew or had reason to believe the means likely to cause it.
- Beyond bare preparation. Buying a weapon or drafting a forged letter is usually not yet a crime. The conduct must move into attempt or completion.
Facts. A man applied to Patna University to sit the M.A. examination as a private candidate. He claimed to be a graduate and a teacher, attaching forged certificates. The University granted permission, and an admission card was sent. The truth then came out. The case is Abhayanand Mishra v. State of Bihar, AIR 1961 SC 1698, decided on 24 April 1961.
Held. His conviction for attempting to cheat was upheld. A crime passes through intention, preparation, attempt and completion. He had gone past preparation once he sent the false application, even though he never sat the examination.
Essential 4: the mind and the act together
The guilty mind and the guilty act must meet at the same time. A driver who knocks a man down by pure accident commits no murder. That stays true even if he later learns the man was an enemy and is glad. His later pleasure did not cause the death. Equally, a man who plans a killing but abandons the plan, and then kills by an unrelated accident, is not a murderer.
Essential 5: injury
Section 44 defined "injury" as "any harm whatever illegally caused to any person, in body, mind, reputation or property". Section 2(14) of the Sanhita repeats it. The harm need not fall on one person. A public nuisance or a forged currency note harms the public at large. In an attempt, the injury is the danger the act creates.
Essential 6: a law in force when the act was done
Conduct is criminal only if a law made it punishable at the time. Article 20(1) of the Constitution forbids conviction "except for violation of a law in force at the time of the commission of the act". It also forbids a heavier penalty than that law allowed.
Facts. A former Minister and a Secretary of Vindhya Pradesh were tried for conspiracy, bribery and forgery. The bribe was received in April 1949. The case is Rao Shiv Bahadur Singh v. State of Vindhya Pradesh, AIR 1953 SC 394, decided on 22 May 1953.
Held. A Constitution Bench held that Article 20(1) bars conviction or sentence under an ex post facto law. It does not bar trial under a changed procedure. The acts were offences under the law actually in force when they were done, so the convictions stood.
Why it bears. No act becomes a crime by a later law. This is why the legality of the offence is itself an essential.
The essentials on one example
A, a shopkeeper, takes B's bicycle from outside a temple and sells it.
- A person. A is an adult of sound mind, capable of guilt.
- A guilty mind. He moves the bicycle dishonestly, meaning to cause B wrongful loss.
- A guilty act. He moves it out of B's possession, without B's consent.
- Together. The dishonest intention exists when he moves it.
- Injury. B loses his property.
- A law in force. Theft was punishable under section 379 when he acted.
All six are present, so A is guilty of theft. If he took it believing in good faith that it was his own, the second essential would fail.
Under the Sanhita
Section 2(24) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 defines "offence", section 2(26) "person", section 2(14) "injury" and section 2(33) "voluntarily". Section 3(7) carries over the rule on effects caused partly by an act and partly by an omission. The essentials themselves are unchanged.
Conclusion. Crime resists a single definition, so the Code defined "offence" as a thing it made punishable, now section 2(24) of the Sanhita. The essentials rest on the maxim that an act does not make a man guilty unless his mind is guilty too. There must be a person capable of guilt, with a guilty mind. Nathulal presumes that mind, and only a clear statute displaces it, as in Mayer Hans George. There must be a guilty act that passes beyond preparation, as in Abhayanand Mishra. The mind and act must coincide, and cause injury. The act must break a law in force when it was done, as Article 20(1) and Rao Shiv Bahadur Singh require.
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.