Delhi Judicial 2006 Criminal Law Question Paper

Preparing for Delhi Judicial Services?

You have come to the right place! DLA provides expertly crafted Study Material & Notes for Delhi Judicial Services Exams.

Delhi Judicial 2006 Criminal Law Question Paper

Q. 1 One A, a widower living alone had employed a full time male domestic servant B and he had been staying in A’s house for quite sometime. A used to go everyday in the morning to a temple for about two hours and his servant used to be there in his house. A started suspecting that his servant was misappropriating household things in his absence and so one day he terminated his job and B left the house conveying his unhappiness to A. Next day as usual A went to the temple and when after two hours he came back he found the lock of the entrance door of his house broken and when he entered inside he found that his imported TVB and some cash was missing. He immediately went to his next-door neighbour C and informed his about the theft. His neighbour C told him that sometime back he had seen his servant B and one more person taking away TV on a threewheeler scooter. Immediately thereafter both A and C go to the nearest police station and an FIR is lodged against B. Statement of C is also recorded wherein C claimed that he had seen B and one more person whom he would be able to identify on seeing him again taking away the TV. Next day of the incident B is arrested and he makes a disclosure statement and gets one TV and some currency notes recovered. At his instance his associate D is also arrested but nothing is recovered from him. During the trial of B and D, A deposes that he had been told by C on the day of incident that he had seen his servant B and one more person taking away one TV. He also identifies the recovered currency notes. C in his chief-examination supports A’s version and he also identifies both the accused correctly to be the culprits. His cross examination is deferred for the next day when he turns hostile and states that he had not seen B and D taking away the TV nor had he told so to A. C maintains that statement even when he is cross-examined by the public prosecutor. Investigating officer, in his evidence, deposed or about making of disclosure statement by B while in police custody and his getting recovered one TV and some currency notes and arrest of D.
Defence counsel argues that evidence of A that C had told him that he had seen his servant B and one more person taking away the TV had become hearsay evidence because C himself had turned hostile and had denied having said so to A and so entire evidence of C gets washed off the record and that evidence of alleged recovery of TV and currency notes at the instance of B and identification of D by B in court is of no value as there was no prior Test Identification Parade (TIP) got conducted by the police and so both the accused should be acquitted.
Write a judgement dealing with each of these contentions of the defence counsel.

Q. 2
(a) H divorces his wife W in the month of December 2004. W gets married to A in the month of January 2005 and delivers a child in the month of May 2005. A disowns the child. Can it be claimed that C is legitimate son of A?

(b) Explain briefly the law relating to attempt to commit an offence and examine whether A who intends to kill B is guilty of attempt to murder in the following cases:
(I) A fires a gun at B but misses his aim.
(II) A shoots at B believing him to be sleeping but in fact, B had died of heart failure before A shot at him.

Q. 3
(a) A & B master and servant, respectively are being jointly tried for the murder of X and also thereafter for having done away with the dead body to hide the crime. (section 302 and 201 IPC).
A confession is made by B the servant to the effect that, without any previous knowledge of the crime, B was taken to the house of X by A and was suddenly asked to throw light from a torch as a serpent had come out; at that ime X came out of the house at the call of A, and A killed him without any complicity of B. The two together then disposed of the body. Is this confession relevant against A? Give reasons for or against.

(b) A while driving his car in a rash and negligent manner causes death of B, C, D and E at different points of the same road on the same night. Prosecution alleged that it is a case of commission of offences under section 304 IPC. It is argued on behalf of the accused that the case falls under the ambit of section 304A IPC. Which fact would be relevant to determine negligence, intention or knowledge of the accused for commission of aforesaid offences? Discuss.

Q. 4
(a) Theft of a scooter takes place in the area of Sarojini Nagar, Delhi on 19-6-2005 and in the complaint made to the police, none has been named by the complainant. On 25-6-2005 A is arrested by police of police station Srinivaspur, Delhi in some theft case of that police station. During investigation of that case, he makes disclosure statement to have committed theft of the scooter from the area of Sarojini Nagar and having delivered the same to B for driving purpose and then offers to get the same recovered from B. In pursuance of the disclosure statement, A gets the scooter recovered from B on 25-6-2005 itself. Frame charge in this case. Also discuss about applicability of section 34 IPC so far as possession of the stolen scooter is concerned.

(b) Does a statement made to SDM by a bride relating to the cause of her death, becomes a ‘dying declaration’ under section 32 of the Indian Evidence Act though the bride firmly believed that she would recover, but dies after three days of making it?

Q. 5
(a) A and B have been arrested for the offence of murder of one punishable under section 302 read with section 34 IPC and were remanded to custody from time to time for a total period of 90 days, out of which 3 days were in police custody and 87 days in judicial custody. As the investigation could not be completed within the stipulated period of 90 days, on the 91st day a plea for the release of A and B on bail is made. The court issues notice to the State through Public Prosector and fixes the matter for consideration and hearing for the next day. On the next day police files report under section 173 Cr. P.C. with a footnote that the reports of Chemical Examiner and Serologist in regard to certain material exhibits are awaited and shall be filed soon after their receipt. Public Prosecutor opposes the plea of A and B for statutory bail under section 167 Cr. P.C.
Decide the plea of A and B. Would it make any difference if there was no foot-note in the report?

(b) A is accused of commission of murder of his father who was inclined to dispose of his immovable property for certain reasons. After committing murder, A himself went to the police station and lodged FIR narrating the manner in which he did commit murder. There is no eye-witness to the commission of the offence. Dead body and blood stained Kulhari is recovered

Looking for Judicial Services Coaching?

You have come to the right place! DLA now provides Online Coaching for Judicial Services Exams!