Each question consists of legal propositions/ principles (hereinafter referred to as 'principle') and facts. These principles have to be applied to the given facts to arrive at the most reasonable conclusion. Such principles may or may not be true in the real sense, yet you have to conclusively assume them to be true for the purposes of this section. In other words, in answering the following questions, you must not rely on any principles except the principles that are given herein below for every question. Further, you must not assume any facts other than those stated in the question. The objective of this section is to test your interest towards study of law, research aptitude and problem solving ability even if the 'most reasonable conclusion' arrived at may be unacceptable for any other reason. It is not the object of this section to test your knowledge of law.
PRINCIPLE: When an act which would otherwise be a certain offence, is not that offence, by reason of the youth, the want of maturity of understanding, the unsoundness of mind or the intoxication of the person doing that act, or by reason of any miconception on the part of that person, every person has the same right of private defence against that act which he would have if the act were that offence.
FACTS: 'X', under the influence of madness, attempts to kill 'Y'.
Correct Answer :
'Y' has the right of private defence against 'X'
Solution :
Correct Answer: 'Y' has the right of private defence against 'X'
Step-by-Step Explanation:
1. Understanding the Principle: The given principle clearly lays down that if an act would normally be an offence, but is exempted from being an offence due to the offender's unsoundness of mind, youth, intoxication, or misconception, every person still retains the exact same right of private defence against that act as they would if the act were a punishable offence.
2. Applying Principle to Facts: In the given case, 'X' is under the influence of madness (unsoundness of mind) and attempts to kill 'Y'. Even though 'X' may not be held criminally responsible for the attempt to murder due to madness, 'Y' is not deprived of his right to defend himself.
3. Conclusion: 'Y' exercises the full right of private defence against 'X''s life-threatening act. Therefore, the correct conclusion is that 'Y' has the right of private defence against 'X'.
Access expert-curated educational resources and study materials—completely free.
Create, conduct, and manage professional online assessments with Mindyard. Perfect for teachers and institutes.
Copyright © 2026 Mindyard. All Rights Reserved.