question_answer

Direction: This section consists of fifty (50) questions. Follow the instructions carefully and choose the most appropriate option:

The question number 111-145 in this section consists of legal proposition(s) (hereinafter referred to as 'principle') and facts. Such principles may or may not be true in the real and legal sense, yet you have to conclusively assume them to be true for the purpose of this section. In other words, in answering the following 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 absurd or unacceptable for any other reason.

To answer a question, the given principle is to be applied to the given facts so as to arrive at most reasonable conclusion.

Principle: Nothing is an offence which is done by a child under twelve years of age, who has not attained sufficient maturity of understanding to judge the nature and consequences of his conduct on that occasion.

Facts: Himesh, 11 years old boy, picks up a gold ring worth Rs 5000/- lying on a table in his friend's house and immediately sells it for Rs 2000/- and misappropriates the money.

A) Himesh would not be protected under the principle stated above because, irrespective of the age, stealing is an offence.

B) Himesh would be protected under the principle stated above because he is below 12 years of age.

C) Himesh would be protected under the principle stated above because his acts show that he was not sufficiently mature to understand the nature and consequences of his conduct.

D) Himesh would not be protected under the principle stated above because his acts show that he was sufficiently mature to understand the nature and consequences of his conduct.