AIBE XV — January 2021 — Q.49 (Indian Penal Code, 1860)

Share Q.49:

Q.49

Taxation Law Medium Knowledge-Based

Bare Act Indian Penal Code, 1860 · R. v. Dudley & Stephens (1884)

R. v. Dudley & Stephen stands for the principle that:

✓ Killing an innocent life to save his own is not a defence and necessity cannot be pleaded as a defence against murder Answer

B Necessity can be pleaded as a defence against murder, killing an innocent life to save his own may become inevitable

C Killing out of mercy is a defence and necessity cannot be pleaded as a defence against murder.

D None of the above

📋

Explanation & Strategy

Click any section to expand · only one open at a time

R. v. Dudley & Stephens (1884) established that necessity is NOT a defence to murder. Two shipwrecked sailors killed and ate a cabin boy to survive. The court held that preserving one's own life is no justification for taking an innocent life.

At a Glance

Subject Taxation Law

Difficulty Medium

Act Indian Penal Code, 1860

Section R. v. Dudley & Stephens (1884)

Answer (A) Knowledge-Based

Paper AIBE XV — January 2021

Navigation

← Q.48 ☰ All Questions Q.50 →

🎯 Mock Test

Progress in Paper

Q.49 100 questions

49% through paper

📖 Open Book — Reading Mode Indian Penal Code, 1860 ↗ New Tab

📄

Mobile browsers only show page 1 of a PDF in-panel.
Open in a new tab to read all pages.

Open Indian Penal Code, 1860 →