MCQ 21 Dec 2023

Daily practice questions for CLAT - (21 December 2023)



The famous case of K.M Nanavati v. State of Maharashtra AIR 1962 SC (605) describes the time gap between the provocation and retaliatory action. If the sufficient period of time has elapsed after the provocation then the accused cannot take the plea that the death caused due to sudden anger or provocation. In this case, a naval officer named K.M. Nanavati was accused of the murder of a businessman named Prem Ahuja who had illicit relations with his wife. The wife revealed about the illicit relationship with the businessman that caused extreme rage and anger to the naval officer. The officer went to the ship and took a semi-automatic revolver to kill the businessman. He went directly to the bedroom of Prem Ahuja and shot him with gun after some hot conversation. The naval officer then asked for partial exemption from criminal liability on the ground that he acted in such a manner due to sudden provocation. The Court held that a significant amount of time had elapsed between the provocation and the retaliatory action done by the officer. The time elapsed was quite enough to cool down for a reasonable person. Hence, the court held the naval officer liable for the murder of the businessman Prem Ahuja.

Question1:- Anmol witnesses his spouse Rashmi engaging in an act of infidelity in their own home. Overwhelmed by a sudden and intense emotional response, Anmol, in a fit of rage and without premeditation, fatally assaults his wife Rashmi. Anmol is guilty of:
  • a) Murder
  • (b) Culpable homicide
  • (c) Culpable homicide not amounting to murder
  • (d) Accident
Answer is C is correct. In this scenario, the grave provocation would be the act of witnessing the spouse's infidelity, and the sudden provocation would be the immediate emotional response. In this case Anmol acted in the heat of passion caused by this grave and sudden provocation, so, he is guilty of culpable homicide not amounting to murder. Hence c is the correct option. Hence, c is the correct option.
Question2:- Angad is repeatedly subjected to severe and prolonged physical abuse by his neighbour. One day, after enduring months of abuse, Angad is pushed to his breaking point and, without any premeditation, retaliates with a deadly assault on their neighbour. Angad is guilty of:
  • a) Abetment to murder
  • (b) Murder
  • (c) Culpable homicide
  • (d) Culpable homicide not amounting to murder
Answer is D is correct. Here, the repeated physical abuse on Angad can be considered grave provocation, and the sudden provocation arises when the person, overwhelmed by the on-going abuse, reacts impulsively in the heat of the moment. So, in this case Angad’s actions were a result of grave and sudden provocation, and he is guilty of culpable homicide not amounting to murder. Hence, d is the correct option.
Question3:- The accused, a shopkeeper, in sudden quarrel hit his wife on head with an iron rod which weighs of 200 gm, and resulted in her death. The accused is liable for which one of the following offence?
  • a) Grievous hurt
  • (b) Attempt to murder
  • (c) Simple hurt
  • (d) Culpable homicide
Answer is D is correct. In the above case the accused have lost control of his emotions during the quarrel with their wife. Emotions like anger, rage, or frustration can impair one's judgment and lead to impulsive actions. So, in this case accused’s action was the result of loss of self- control over his emotions and he is guilty of culpable homicide. Hence, d is the correct option.
Question4:- Death caused by grave and sudden provocation is:
  • a) Culpable homicide
  • (b) Culpable homicide amounting to murder
  • (c) Culpable homicide not amounting to murder
  • (d) Murder
Answer is C is correct. The law on homicide due to “grave and sudden” provocation is governed by Exception 1 to section 300. It states that the offender that causes death while being “deprived of the power of self-control” by a “grave and sudden” provocation, commits culpable homicide not amounting to murder. Hence, c is the correct option.
Question5 :- Two individuals Jay and Vijay got engaged in a heated argument that escalates to the point where Vijay strikes the Jay with a deadly weapon in a moment of intense anger and without premeditation. Vijay is guilty of:
  • a) Murder
  • (b) Culpable homicide amounting to murder
  • (c) Culpable homicide not amounting to murder
  • (d) No offence
Answer is B is correct. In this scenario the act of striking was a direct result of the sudden and grave provocation caused by the argument, the offense may be considered culpable homicide amounting to murder. Hence, b is the correct option.