संSamvidhan

Practice paper — IPC Chapter 4 — General Exceptions

50 questions · answer key at the end · no time limit · 155 more on the site

samvidhan.co.in

1.According to Section 76, 1860, is an act done by a person who is actually bound by law an offence?
- (A) Yes, if it causes harm
- (B) No, it is not an offence
- (C) Yes, only if intentional
- (D) Yes, only if negligent
2.If a person is actually bound by law (not merely believing so), does Section 76 make 'good faith' a prerequisite for the act not to be an offence?
- (A) Yes, good faith is always required
- (B) Only if a mistake of fact is involved
- (C) No, good faith is not required when the person is actually bound by law
- (D) Only if the act is non-violent
3.Which of the following elements are necessary for the protection under Section 77 IPC to apply?
- (A) The act must be done by a judge.
- (B) The judge must be acting judicially.
- (C) The power must actually be given to him by law.
- (D) All of the above: act by judge, acting judicially, and a power which is, or which in good faith he believes to be, given to him by law.
4.If a Judge knowingly acts beyond his lawful power and does not believe in good faith that the power is given to him by law, what does Section 77 imply about criminal liability?
- (A) The act is still not an offence because he was a judge and acting judicially.
- (B) The act is not an offence if a reasonable person would have believed the power existed.
- (C) The act is not an offence provided the judge's motive was to do justice.
- (D) The act may be an offence because Section 77 protects only acts done by a Judge when he believes in good faith that the power is given by law; absence of such good faith removes that protection.
5.A person carries out an order of a Court while the order is in force, but they honestly believe the Court lacked jurisdiction. Under Section 78, is the person protected from criminal liability?
- (A) Yes — acting pursuant to a court order while it is in force always protects the person regardless of their belief about jurisdiction.
- (B) Yes — if the court's order was later held valid by a higher court, protection applies retroactively.
- (C) No — protection requires that the person in good faith believes the Court had jurisdiction, so an honest belief that the Court lacked jurisdiction removes the protection.
- (D) No — Section 78 only protects judicial officers and not private individuals carrying out orders.
6.According to Section 79 IPC, what is the legal status of an act done by a person who is justified by law in doing it?
- (A) It is not an offence.
- (B) It is an offence only if done intentionally.
- (C) It is a lesser offence (misdemeanor).
- (D) It is punishable unless done in good faith.
7.Does Section 79 IPC require that a person act in good faith when he is actually justified by law?
- (A) Yes — good faith is always required under Section 79.
- (B) No — actual legal justification alone makes the act not an offence.
- (C) Yes — unless the mistake is of fact rather than law.
- (D) Only if the act involves bodily harm.
8.Which element is explicitly required by Section 80, IPC, for an act to be not an offence?
- (A) Proof of absence of financial motive.
- (B) Presence of intention to do the act.
- (C) Absence of any criminal intention or knowledge.
- (D) That the act be performed at a recognised public place.
9.Which of the following combinations of conditions is sufficient to make an act not an offence under Section 80, IPC?
- (A) The act was done by accident or misfortune; there was no criminal intention or knowledge; the act was a lawful act done in a lawful manner by lawful means and with proper care and caution.
- (B) The act was done by accident and without criminal intention, even though the act itself was unlawful, provided proper care was taken.
- (C) The act was done lawfully and by lawful means but with negligence; there was no criminal intention.
- (D) The act was done by accident and without criminal intention; lawful means are unnecessary if the manner was lawful.
10.A doctor performs a high-risk operation, knowing it is likely to cause harm, but acts in good faith with the objective of saving the patient's life and has no intention to harm. Under Section 81, is the doctor criminally liable?
- (A) No — it is not an offence because it was done without criminal intention and in good faith to prevent harm to the patient.
- (B) Yes — the doctor is criminally liable because harm was likely.
- (C) No — but only if the operation is to prevent harm to property.
- (D) Yes — only if the patient consents.
11.Which age group is specifically covered by Section 82 IPC's exemption?
- (A) Children under six years of age
- (B) Children up to and including seven years of age
- (C) Children under seven years of age
- (D) Children under thirteen years of age
12.Does Section 82 IPC make an act done against (i.e., upon) a child under seven years of age non-offensive?
- (A) Yes — any act involving a child under seven as victim is not an offence.
- (B) Yes — it bars prosecution whenever a child under seven is involved in the incident.
- (C) No — the provision applies only to acts done by a child under seven, not acts done against such a child.
- (D) No — it applies equally to both perpetrators and victims under seven.
13.A child who is eleven years old and "has not attained sufficient maturity or understanding to judge the nature and consequences of his conduct on that occasion": under Section 83, the act is —
- (A) Not an offence under this provision
- (B) Always an offence because of the act itself
- (C) An offence only if the act causes physical harm
- (D) Subject to criminal liability only if intent is proven
14.What is the legal effect of Section 84, IPC (Act of a person of unsound mind)?
- (A) It declares that nothing is an offence if done by a person who, by reason of unsoundness of mind at the time, is incapable of knowing the nature of the act or that it is wrong or contrary to law.
- (B) It makes any act done by a person of unsound mind automatically punishable with reduced sentence.
- (C) It creates a civil remedy for victims of acts by persons of unsound mind.
- (D) It requires compulsory institutionalisation of every person of unsound mind who commits an act.
15.Does Section 84 apply where the person was of unsound mind at some earlier time but was sane at the time of doing the act?
- (A) Yes — previous unsoundness is enough to attract the defence.
- (B) Yes — if the earlier unsoundness was diagnosed, it always applies.
- (C) Maybe — only if there was a continuous delusion from the earlier period.
- (D) No — the provision applies only if the person was, at the time of doing it, by reason of unsoundness of mind, incapable of knowing the nature or wrongness/illegality of the act.
16.Which condition does the proviso to Section 85 IPC impose for the intoxication defence to succeed?
- (A) The intoxication must be voluntarily incurred by the accused.
- (B) The thing which intoxicated him must have been administered without his knowledge or against his will.
- (C) The intoxication must have been caused by a prescription from a doctor.
- (D) The intoxication must have occurred at the workplace.
17.Does Section 85 IPC provide a defence when a person voluntarily takes intoxicating liquor and becomes incapable of knowing the nature of his act?
- (A) No; the proviso limits the defence to intoxication administered without knowledge or against his will.
- (B) Yes; voluntariness of taking intoxicants is irrelevant if incapacity results.
- (C) Yes; but only for minor offences.
- (D) No; the section never applies to acts done under intoxication.
18.A person voluntarily becomes intoxicated and then commits an act that requires a particular intent under the law. Under Section 86 IPC, what is the legal consequence regarding his knowledge or intent?
- (A) He is not criminally liable because intoxication negates the required intent.
- (B) He is liable and is to be dealt with as if he had the same knowledge as if he had not been intoxicated.
- (C) He is liable only if the prosecution separately proves the specific intent aside from intoxication.
- (D) The court must treat intoxication as a complete defence in such cases.
19.Under Section 87 IPC, when is an act causing harm to a consenting adult not considered an offence?
- (A) When the doer neither intended to cause death or grievous hurt nor knew it was likely to cause death or grievous hurt
- (B) When the consent is given in writing by any person above sixteen years
- (C) When the harm caused is non-fatal regardless of the doer’s intention or knowledge
- (D) When the doer acted in self-defence even without the person’s consent
20.If the doer knows an act is likely to cause grievous hurt but the person above eighteen has expressly consented to take the risk of that harm, how does Section 87 IPC apply?
- (A) It is still an offence because knowledge of likely grievous hurt always makes it an offence
- (B) It is not an offence because the person has consented to take the risk of that harm
- (C) It is not an offence only if the consent was given in writing and witnessed
- (D) It is an offence unless the harm actually occurs
21.If the doer knows the act is likely to cause harm, can Section 88 still exempt the act from being an offence?
- (A) No — knowledge that harm is likely removes the exemption.
- (B) Yes — but only when consent is express, not implied.
- (C) Yes — knowledge that harm is likely does not prevent exemption provided the act is not intended to cause death, is done in good faith for the person's benefit, and consent (express or implied) is given.
- (D) Only if the likely harm does not materialize.
22.Section 89 states protection applies to acts done in good faith for the benefit of which persons?
- (A) A person under twelve years of age, or of unsound mind
- (B) A person under eighteen years of age only
- (C) Any person irrespective of age if mentally competent
- (D) Only persons of unsound mind (regardless of age)
23.The phrase ‘either express or implied’ in Section 89 refers to which of the following about guardian consent?
- (A) Guardian consent must always be written (express only)
- (B) Consent may be either expressly given or may be inferred from conduct (implied)
- (C) Consent of the child/beneficiary suffices instead of guardian consent
- (D) It refers to implied consent of the doer rather than the guardian
24.According to the 'Consent of child' limb in the provision of Section 90, up to what age is a person's consent treated as not consent unless the contrary appears from the context?
- (A) 10 years
- (B) 12 years
- (C) 16 years
- (D) 18 years
25.Which statement correctly describes the applicability of the requirement that the 'person doing the act' knows (or has reason to believe) the consent was given under fear or misconception across the three limbs of Section 90?
- (A) The 'actor must know' requirement applies to the fear/misconception limb but not to the child limb.
- (B) The 'actor must know' requirement applies to all three limbs (fear, unsoundness/intoxication, and child).
- (C) The 'actor must know' requirement applies only to the unsoundness of mind/intoxication limb.
- (D) There is no 'actor must know' requirement in any limb of Section 90.
26.If an act is an offence regardless of whether it causes harm, and the affected person has given consent, can the exceptions in Sections 87–89 be relied upon under Section 91?
- (A) Yes — consent always validates the act under Sections 87–89.
- (B) Yes — but only if the act was not intended to cause harm.
- (C) No — Section 91 prevents the exceptions in Sections 87–89 from extending to such offences.
- (D) Only if a court finds the consent to be voluntary.
27.According to Section 92, when is an act that causes harm to a person not an offence?
- (A) When it is done in good faith for the benefit of that person even without their consent if it is impossible for them to signify consent or they are incapable and there is no guardian from whom consent can be obtained in time.
- (B) When it is done in good faith for the benefit of the public, regardless of the individual's consent.
- (C) When the harm caused is accidental and not intended, regardless of consent.
- (D) When the person harmed later forgives the actor.
28.If a person is incapable of giving consent but has a guardian who exists yet cannot be reached in time to give consent, does Section 92 protect an act done in good faith for that person's benefit?
- (A) No — the mere existence of a guardian always removes protection under Section 92.
- (B) Only if the guardian gives retrospective written approval.
- (C) Yes — protection applies only when a guardian exists and actively refuses consent.
- (D) Yes — Section 92 applies where there is no guardian or other person 'from whom it is possible to obtain consent in time', so an unreachable guardian is effectively equivalent to no such person.
29.Which two conditions are expressly required by Section 93 for the protection to apply?
- (A) That the communication is true and causes no public alarm.
- (B) That the communication is made in good faith and is made for the benefit of the person to whom it is made.
- (C) That the communication is made with the recipient's written consent and is harmless.
- (D) That the communication is made for the benefit of the public and is published.
30.A communicator, acting in good faith for the recipient's benefit, causes harm to both the recipient and other people. Read literally, what does Section 93 protect the communicator from?
- (A) Protection from any offence arising from harm to anyone caused by the communication.
- (B) Protection only from being treated as an offence by reason of any harm to the person to whom the communication is made.
- (C) Protection only from offences arising from harm to others but not from harm to the recipient.
- (D) Absolute immunity for all communications made in good faith regardless of beneficiary or harm.
31.If a person is threatened that his child will be killed unless he commits an offence, does Section 94 excuse the act?
- (A) Yes — any threat of death to anyone compels and excuses the act
- (B) Yes — but only if the threat is from a government agent
- (C) No — Section 94 requires apprehension of instant death to that person himself
- (D) Yes — provided the threat is immediate and certain
32.Which of the following mental states does Section 95 expressly cover when assessing whether an act is not an offence due to slight harm?
- (A) Only when the harm is actually caused.
- (B) Only when the harm was intended by the actor.
- (C) When the harm is caused, when it is intended to be caused, or when it is known to be likely to be caused.
- (D) Only when the actor knew the harm was likely to be caused and intended it.
33.An actor intended to inflict severe injury but, in fact, only caused a very slight harm which no person of ordinary sense and temper would complain of. Does Section 95 make the actor's conduct non‑offensive?
- (A) Yes — because the actual harm caused was so slight that no ordinary person would complain.
- (B) Yes — intention is immaterial once the harm is slight.
- (C) No — the protection applies only when the harm caused, intended, or known to be likely is itself so slight; an intention to inflict severe harm is not covered.
- (D) No — Section 95 never applies where there was any intention to harm.
34.If an act would ordinarily be a criminal offence but is performed in the exercise of the right of private defence, then under Section 96 the act is:
- (A) Still a criminal offence regardless of private defence.
- (B) Converted into a civil wrong only.
- (C) Not an offence.
- (D) Automatically subject to enhanced punishment.
35.Who is granted the right of private defence under Section 97 of the IPC?
- (A) Only the victim of an offence
- (B) Every person
- (C) Only the owner of property
- (D) A police officer or magistrate only
36.What types of property are protected by the right of private defence in Section 97?
- (A) Only movable property
- (B) Only immovable property
- (C) Only property in the possession of the defender
- (D) Both movable and immovable property
37.Which of the following is NOT listed in Section 98 as a reason that may make an act 'not that offence'?
- (A) Youth
- (B) Want of maturity of understanding
- (C) Political motive
- (D) Intoxication
38.Which of the following correctly captures the legal focus of Section 98?
- (A) It applies when the act is legally not an offence because of the actor's youth, want of maturity, unsoundness of mind, intoxication or misconception, giving others the same right of private defence as if it were an offence.
- (B) It requires a medical certificate of unsoundness of mind before private defence can be used.
- (C) It applies only when the act remains an offence despite the actor's intoxication or unsoundness.
- (D) It allows private defence only when the victim induced the actor's intoxication or unsoundness.
39.Does Section 99 bar the right of private defence when a public servant did the act in bad faith?
- (A) No — Section 99 applies only when the public servant is acting in good faith
- (B) Yes — Section 99 excludes private defence regardless of the servant’s good faith
- (C) Yes — but only if the act does not cause grievous hurt
- (D) No — Section 99 applies only to acts by private persons
40.Under Section 100 IPC, to what does the right of private defence of the body extend?
- (A) To the voluntary causing of death or of any other harm to the assailant
- (B) Only to causing non-lethal harm to the assailant
- (C) Only to preventing property damage
- (D) Only to causing death of the assailant
41.According to Section 100, the condition that allows the right to cause death depends primarily on which of the following?
- (A) The offence which occasions the exercise of the right
- (B) How violent the defensive act is
- (C) The consent of the assailant
- (D) Whether a police officer is present
42.If the offence is of any of the descriptions enumerated in the last preceding section, then under Section 101 the right of private defence of the body:
- (A) Still does not extend to causing death in all cases
- (B) Only extends to causing non-fatal harm
- (C) May extend to the voluntary causing of death to the assailant
- (D) Is abolished entirely
43.According to Section 102 IPC, when does the right of private defence of the body commence?
- (A) As soon as a reasonable apprehension of danger to the body arises from an attempt or threat to commit the offence
- (B) Only after the offence has actually been committed
- (C) Only when the attacker makes physical contact with the victim
- (D) When a police officer declares the situation dangerous
44.Does Section 102 IPC require that the offence must already have been committed before the right of private defence of the body can arise?
- (A) Yes — the offence must be completed before the right arises
- (B) Yes — but only for certain offences
- (C) No — the right arises only after the offender is identified
- (D) No — the right can commence even though "the offence may not have been committed"
45.Does Section 103 apply when the person is attempting to commit the offence that occasions the exercise of the right of private defence of property?
- (A) No — it applies only when the offence has been completed
- (B) Yes — it applies if the offence is being committed or is being attempted
- (C) Only if the attempt is successful
- (D) Only if the wrong-doer is unarmed
46.Is the right under Section 103 available in every situation where some offence has occurred, regardless of whether that offence occasioned the exercise of the right?
- (A) No — the right extends only if the offence, or the attempt to commit it, occasions the exercise of the right
- (B) Yes — any offence automatically permits causing death in defence of property
- (C) Yes — but only if the offender resists arrest
- (D) No — it is available only when the offender is committing a violent crime
47.Does Section 104 apply when the offence that occasions the exercise of the right of private defence is an attempt to commit theft, mischief, or criminal trespass?
- (A) Yes — it applies to both the committing of and the attempting to commit such offences.
- (B) No — it applies only to completed offences, not attempts.
- (C) Yes — but only if the attempt caused bodily harm.
- (D) No — attempts are governed by a different provision entirely.
48.When does the right of private defence of property commence according to Section 105 of the IPC?
- (A) When a reasonable apprehension of danger to the property commences
- (B) Only after the property has been actually damaged
- (C) When the owner merely suspects someone might be interested in the property
- (D) When the police are unavailable to protect the property
49.Which of the following best describes the trigger for the right of private defence of property under Section 105?
- (A) When danger to the property becomes certain and actual
- (B) When the owner merely suspects someone without reasonable grounds
- (C) When the property has already been taken or damaged
- (D) When a reasonable apprehension of danger to the property commences
50.What does Section 106 IPC permit when the defender cannot effectually exercise private defence without risking harm to an innocent person?
- (A) It prohibits any action that could harm an innocent person.
- (B) It extends his right of private defence to the running of that risk to the innocent person.
- (C) It requires him to abstain until the innocent person is out of danger.
- (D) It limits the defender to using only non-deadly force.

Answer key

1. B2. C3. D4. D5. C6. A7. B8. C9. A10. A11. C12. C13. A14. A15. D16. B17. A18. B19. A20. B21. C22. A23. B24. B25. A26. C27. A28. D29. B30. B31. C32. C33. C34. C35. B36. D37. C38. A39. A40. A41. A42. C43. A44. D45. B46. A47. A48. A49. D50. B

Explanations

1. (B) The provision states: 'Nothing is an offence which is done by a person who is ... bound by law to do it.' Therefore an act done by a person who is actually bound by law is not an offence under this section.
2. (C) Section 76 begins by excusing acts done by a person 'who is ... bound by law to do it' without attaching 'in good faith' to that clause; the 'in good faith' qualification appears in the alternative dealing with mistake of fact. Hence good faith is not a prerequisite when the person is actually bound by law.
3. (D) Section 77 requires that the act be done by a Judge while "acting judicially" and in the exercise of a power "which is, or which in good faith he believes to be, given to him by law." All these elements are therefore necessary.
4. (D) Section 77 limits protection to acts done "in the exercise of any power which is, or which in good faith he believes to be, given to him by law." If the judge does not hold that good faith belief (e.g., knowingly exceeds power), the statutory protection does not apply and criminal liability may follow.
5. (C) Section 78 conditions the immunity on the person doing the act in good faith believing that the Court had jurisdiction. If the person honestly believes the Court lacked jurisdiction, the required good faith belief is absent and the protection does not apply.
6. (A) The provision begins, "Nothing is an offence which is done by any person who is justified by law," which means such an act is not an offence. There is no condition of intent or good faith where the act is actually justified by law.
7. (B) The provision separates two grounds: first, acts done by a person "who is justified by law" are not offences, and second, acts done by one who, "by reason of a mistake of fact ... in good faith, believes himself to be justified." Good faith is required only for the mistake-of-fact ground, not for actual legal justification.
8. (C) Section 80 requires that the act be done "without any criminal intention or knowledge." The text explicitly lists absence of criminal intention or knowledge as a necessary element.
9. (A) Section 80 requires all those elements: "done by accident or misfortune," "without any criminal intention or knowledge," "in the doing of a lawful act in a lawful manner by lawful means and with proper care and caution." Only the first option contains the full set of conditions listed in the provision.
10. (A) Section 81 exempts acts done with knowledge that they are likely to cause harm if done without any criminal intention and in good faith for the purpose of preventing or avoiding other harm to person or property. A surgery done in good faith to save life, without intent to harm, falls within this protection.
11. (C) The provision uses the phrase 'child under seven years of age,' which precisely covers children who are younger than seven years. It does not state 'up to and including seven.'
12. (C) Section 82 states specifically: 'Nothing is an offence which is done by a child under seven years of age.' It addresses acts done by the child, not acts done against a child; therefore it does not render acts against such children non-offensive.
13. (A) Section 83 states that "Nothing is an offence which is done by a child above seven years of age and under twelve, who has not attained sufficient maturity..." Therefore if both the age and lack of maturity conditions are met (as in an eleven-year-old who lacks sufficient understanding), the act is not an offence under this provision.
14. (A) Section 84 states that nothing is an offence if done by a person who, at the time of doing it, by reason of unsoundness of mind, is incapable of knowing the nature of the act or that he is doing what is wrong or contrary to law. The provision therefore negates criminal liability in those circumstances.
15. (D) Section 84 specifies the condition 'at the time of doing it' that the person, by reason of unsoundness of mind, is incapable of knowing the nature of the act or that it is wrong or contrary to law. Earlier unsoundness alone is not what the text prescribes.
16. (B) The proviso specifies: 'Provided that the thing which intoxicated him was administered to him without his knowledge or against his will.' Thus the defence requires that the intoxication was involuntary (administered without knowledge or against the person's will).
17. (A) The proviso to Section 85 makes the defence conditional: the intoxicating thing must have been administered without his knowledge or against his will. Voluntary intoxication is therefore excluded even if it renders the person incapable of knowing the nature of the act.
18. (B) Section 86 states that a person who does the act in a state of intoxication "shall be liable to be dealt with as if he had the same knowledge as he would have had if he had not been intoxicated," so voluntary intoxication does not negate liability for offences requiring particular intent.
19. (A) Section 87 states that nothing which is not intended to cause death or grievous hurt, and which is not known by the doer to be likely to cause death or grievous hurt, is an offence where the person above eighteen has given consent. The provision requires both lack of intent to cause death/grievous hurt and lack of knowledge that such result is likely.
20. (B) The second limb of Section 87 states that nothing is an offence 'by reason of any harm which it may be known by the doer to be likely to cause to any such person who has consented to take the risk of that harm.' Thus, where the person has consented to take the risk, the act is not an offence despite the doer’s knowledge.
21. (C) The provision expressly includes acts which "be known by the doer to be likely to cause" harm. Thus, even if the doer knows harm is likely, Section 88 can apply so long as the act is not intended to cause death, is done in good faith for the person's benefit, and the person has given consent.
22. (A) The provision begins by saying ‘Nothing which is done in good faith for the benefit of a person under twelve years of age, or of unsound mind…’ so it expressly covers persons under twelve and persons of unsound mind.
23. (B) Section 89 explicitly states ‘by or by consent, either express or implied, of the guardian or other person having lawful charge,’ which shows that the guardian’s consent can be express or may be implied from conduct.
24. (B) The provision states that, unless the contrary appears from the context, if the consent is given by a person who is under twelve years of age it is not such a consent. Thus the age specified is twelve years.
25. (A) Section 90 expressly adds the condition that the person doing the act must know, or have reason to believe, that the consent was given because of fear or misconception. That knowledge condition is stated for the fear/misconception limb but is not included in the child limb (which speaks only of age) or in the unsoundness/intoxication limb (which focuses on inability to understand).
26. (C) Section 91 provides that the exceptions in Sections 87–89 do not extend to acts which are offences independently of any harm; therefore, even with consent, those exceptions cannot be relied on for such offences.
27. (A) Section 92 states that nothing is an offence by reason of harm caused if it is done in good faith for the benefit of the person even without that person's consent, where it is impossible for the person to signify consent or the person is incapable and has no guardian from whom consent can be obtained in time. Thus protection requires good faith, benefit to the person, and the specified impossibility or incapacity conditions.
28. (D) The provision protects acts done in good faith for the benefit of a person when it is impossible for the person to signify consent, or when the person is incapable and has no guardian 'from whom it is possible to obtain consent in time'. If a guardian cannot be reached in time, the condition in the text is satisfied and protection applies.
29. (B) The provision requires the communication to be 'made in good faith' and 'made for the benefit of that person.' Both conditions are explicitly stated in Section 93.
30. (B) Section 93 states protection against being an offence 'by reason of any harm to the person to whom it is made, if it is made for the benefit of that person.' It therefore, read literally, protects only with respect to harm to the recipient, not harms to others or absolute immunity.
31. (C) Section 94 specifies the apprehension must be that ‘instant death to that person will otherwise be the consequence’. Threats to others (for example family members) are not covered by the text, so such compulsion does not attract the provision’s protection.
32. (C) The provision covers three situations: that the act 'causes', 'is intended to cause', or 'is known to be likely to cause' any harm. If that harm is so slight that no person of ordinary sense and temper would complain, the act is not an offence.
33. (C) Section 95 protects where the harm 'causes, or ... is intended to cause, or ... is known to be likely to cause' is so slight that no person of ordinary sense and temper would complain. If the actor intended severe harm, that intended harm was not 'so slight', so the provision's protection would not cover an intention to inflict serious injury.
34. (C) Section 96 declares: "Nothing is an offence which is done in the exercise of the right of private defence." Therefore, an act done in exercise of that right is not an offence; the provision does not say it remains an offence, becomes only a civil wrong, or attracts punishment.
35. (B) The provision begins with the words 'Every person has a right... to defend', making clear that the right of private defence is given to every person. It is not limited to victims, owners, or officials alone.
36. (D) Section 97 refers to 'The property, whether movable or immovable, of himself or of any other person,' so the right to defend applies to both movable and immovable property.
37. (C) Section 98 lists youth, want of maturity of understanding, unsoundness of mind, intoxication and misconception as reasons why an act which would otherwise be an offence may not be that offence. 'Political motive' is not mentioned in the provision.
38. (A) Section 98 is concerned with situations where an act which would otherwise be an offence is not that offence by reason of youth, want of maturity, unsoundness of mind, intoxication or misconception, and it grants every person the same right of private defence as if the act were that offence. The provision does not mention requirements like medical certificates or inducement by the victim.
39. (A) The provision conditions the bar on private defence on the public servant "acting in good faith under colour of his office." If the public servant is not acting in good faith, the specific bar in Section 99 does not apply as stated in the text.
40. (A) Section 100 states that the right of private defence of the body extends to the voluntary causing of death or of any other harm to the assailant. The provision explicitly includes both death and other harm.
41. (A) Section 100 explicitly makes the extension to causing death contingent on "the offence which occasions the exercise of the right" being of the descriptions that are hereinafter enumerated, so the nature of the offence is the primary condition.
42. (C) Section 101's prohibition on voluntarily causing death applies when the offence is not of the descriptions in the last preceding section; thus if the offence is of those descriptions, that prohibition does not apply and the right may extend to causing death. This follows from the conditional wording of the provision.
43. (A) Section 102 states that the right of private defence of the body "commences as soon as a reasonable apprehension of danger to the body arises from an attempt or threat to commit the offence." Thus it begins on reasonable apprehension from an attempt or threat.
44. (D) The provision states the right commences "as soon as a reasonable apprehension of danger ... arises from an attempt or threat ... though the offence may not have been committed." This shows the right can arise even before the offence is committed.
45. (B) The provision explicitly covers situations where 'the committing of which, or the attempting to commit which, occasions the exercise of the right,' so it applies to both committing and attempting to commit the offence.
46. (A) Section 103 conditions the right on the offence 'occasion[ing] the exercise of the right,' so the right to cause death or harm applies only when the offence (or its attempt) occasions the exercise of private defence.
47. (A) The provision begins by including "the committing of which, or the attempting to commit which occasions the exercise of the right of private defence," therefore Section 104 applies equally to attempts as to completed offences of the listed types.
48. (A) Section 105 states that the right of private defence of property commences when a reasonable apprehension of danger to the property commences. It ties the start of the right specifically to a reasonable apprehension, not to actual damage, mere suspicion, or police availability.
49. (D) Section 105 expressly states the right commences when a reasonable apprehension of danger to the property commences. It does not require certainty, prior damage, or mere ungrounded suspicion.
50. (B) The provision states that 'his right of private defence extends to the running of that risk.' Therefore, where the defender cannot effectually exercise the right without risking harm to an innocent person, his right is extended to running that risk.