Document Fragment View

Matching Fragments

Question No.78 of C-series (Question No.5 of A-series):-

Q. In which of the following offences the benefit of Section 85 of the Indian Penal Code 1860 will not be given to the accused person, namely, offences under?
(1) Section 323, 325, 340 and 355 (2) Section 272, 279, 292 and 294 (3) Section 312, 300, 376, 497, 498 & 361 (4) Section 295, 296, 297 and 298 As per the objections of the petitioners this question has been framed contrary to Section 85 of the IPC, whereas, according to the respondents, option no.2 is correct answer because of the offences mentioned therein requires theory of strict liability applicable to each one of those offences and there is no requirement of 'mens rea'. Section 85 IPC is a general exception providing that nothing is an offence, which is done by a person who, at the time of doing it, is, by reason of intoxication, incapable of knowing the nature of the act, or that he is doing what is either wrong, or contrary to law. This is subject to providing that the thing which intoxicated him was administered to him without his knowledge or against his will. But there are certain offences in which the theory of strict liability applies. Office under Section 272 IPC refers to adulteration of food or drink intended for sale. Section 279 makes rash driving or riding on a public way, as offence. Section 292 IPC makes sales of obscene books, pamphlet, paper, writing, drawing, paining, representation, figure or any other object, as offence. Section 293 IPC makes sale, distribution, exhibition, circulation etc. of obscene objects to young person under the age of twenty years, an offence. The respondents have relied on a book on IPC by Prof. Surya Narayan Misra, according to whom, in common law there are three recognized exceptions to the general principle of mens rea, which are (i) public nuisance, (ii) criminal libel, and (iii) contempt of court. Offences enumerated in second option which is chosen as correct by RPSC would clearly fall first within two exceptions, thus making the theory of strict liability applicable. Objection in this regard to this question is therefore rejected.