KSLU Solved Question Papers
Criminal Law I
Previous Year Question Paper with Solution
B.A. LL.B. (Five Years) · Sem 4
2024 Aug Examination
munotes.in
Mumbai
B.A. LL.B. (Five Years) Sem 4 Criminal Law I 2024 Aug 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 2024 Aug examination.
Contents
The questions below are the paper as Karnataka State Law University set it at the 2024 Aug examination, in the order it was set.
MarksPage
MarksPage
The Paper as Set
The questions in this volume are the questions asked at the 2024 Aug 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 80 · 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)Define crime and explain the important ingredients of crime.[10]
Answer
For full marks, cover: why "crime" has no single definition, and how the Indian Penal Code defined "offence" instead (section 40, now section 2(24) of the Sanhita); the four ingredients, each tied to the Code's own definitions: a human being or legal person (section 11, Standard Chartered Bank), mens rea (sections 24, 25, 26 and 39, Basdev), actus reus including omissions (sections 32, 33 and 36), and injury (section 44); the stages from intention to completion (Mohd. Yakub); where an ingredient is missing, the General Exceptions; a conclusion.
What a crime is
Writers have defined crime in many ways. Some stress that it is a public wrong, harming the whole community and not only the victim. Others stress the legal test, an act the law forbids under threat of punishment. Others stress the remedy, a wrong pursued by the State, which a private person cannot simply forgive. Each view is partly true.
The Indian Penal Code, 1860 avoided the word "crime". Section 40 defined "offence" as "a thing made punishable by this Code". For some chapters it also covered things punishable under a special or local law. Section 2(24) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 does the same. So in Indian law, a crime is an act or omission that a statute makes punishable.
The four ingredients
A crime has four ingredients. If any one is missing, there is usually no crime.
1. A human being, or a person the law can punish
The wrongdoer must be a person under a legal duty and capable of being punished. Under section 11 of the Code, "person" includes "any Company or Association or body of persons, whether incorporated or not". Section 2(26) of the Sanhita repeats it.
Facts. In Standard Chartered Bank v. Directorate of Enforcement, (2005) 4 SCC 530, a company was prosecuted for an offence that carried a mandatory sentence of imprisonment and fine. A company cannot be sent to prison.
Held. A Constitution Bench held that a company may still be prosecuted and punished. The court imposes the fine alone.
Why it bears. The first ingredient is not limited to human beings. A company, which acts through people, can commit a crime.
2. Mens rea: a guilty mind
The Code wrote the mental element into each offence. It defined some of the words it used: "dishonestly" (section 24), "fraudulently" (section 25), "reason to believe" (section 26) and "voluntarily" (section 39). Other offences use "intentionally", "knowingly", "rashly" or "negligently".
Facts. In Basdev v. State of Pepsu, AIR 1956 SC 488, decided on 17 April 1956, a retired soldier, very drunk at a wedding, asked a boy of about fifteen to move from a seat. When the boy did not, he shot him dead.
Held. The Court separated motive, which prompts a man to act, from intention and knowledge. Under section 86, a drunk man is treated as having the knowledge of a sober man. Intention is judged from all the facts, including how drunk he was. He had not lost his mind entirely, so he was presumed to intend the natural result. His conviction for murder stood.
Why it bears. Mens rea is a state of mind proved from conduct and circumstances. Motive alone is not mens rea.
3. Actus reus: the act or omission
The guilty mind must be joined to a forbidden act.
- Under section 32, words referring to acts include illegal omissions. A mother who lets her baby starve commits a crime by omission.
- Under section 33, an "act" includes a series of acts, and an "omission" a series of omissions.
- Under section 36, an effect caused partly by an act and partly by an omission is the same offence. In its illustration, A kills Z partly by beating him and partly by withholding food.
These are now section 2(1) and (25) and section 3(4) and (7) of the Sanhita.
4. Injury
Section 44 defined "injury" as "any harm whatever illegally caused to any person, in body, mind, reputation or property". It is now section 2(14). The harm may fall on one person, or on the public, as in a public nuisance.
From intention to completion
A crime passes through four stages: intention, preparation, attempt and completion. The law does not punish a bare intention. Preparation is generally not punished, though some kinds are, such as preparing to wage war or to commit dacoity.
Facts. In State of Maharashtra v. Mohd. Yakub, AIR 1980 SC 1111, decided on 4 March 1980, the accused drove silver ingots to a creek at night. They began unloading them, and customs officers heard a sea-craft's engine.
Held. They were guilty of attempting to export the silver unlawfully. An attempt need not be the last act. It is enough that the acts clearly show the intent and come reasonably close to completing the offence.
When an ingredient is missing
The General Exceptions, sections 76 to 106 of the Code, describe cases where the mental element or the wrong is absent. A child under seven (section 82) commits no offence. Nor does a person of unsound mind (section 84), or one who acts in good faith under a mistake of fact (section 79). These are now sections 14 to 44 of the Sanhita.
Conclusion. The Code did not define "crime", but section 40 defined "offence" as a thing made punishable by it, now section 2(24) of the Sanhita. A crime has four ingredients: a person capable of punishment, a guilty mind, a forbidden act or omission, and injury. Standard Chartered Bank shows that a company is such a person. Basdev shows how intention is proved. The act may be an omission. The offence grows from intention through preparation and attempt, as Mohd. Yakub shows.
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.