Question:medium

Assertion (A): X, because of unsound state of mind and not knowing the nature of the act, attacks Y, who in self defence and in order to ward off the attack hits him thereby injuring him. Y has not committed an offence.
Reason (R): Y had a right of private defence against X under Section 98 of the Indian Penal Code.

Show Hint

Section 98 IPC gives a full right of private defence even when the attacker cannot himself be convicted, as with a person of unsound mind. Ask whether that section is the actual basis of Y's innocence.
Updated On: Jul 17, 2026
  • Both A and R are individually true and R is the correct explanation of A
  • Both A and R are individually true but R is not the correct explanation of A
  • A is true but R is false
  • A is false but R is true
Show Solution

The Correct Option is A

Solution and Explanation

This problem asks a single practical question: does a man lose his right to defend himself just because the person attacking him is insane? The Penal Code answers that with Section 98, and once that section is on the table the assertion and the reason fit together neatly.

  1. Both A and R are individually true and R is the correct explanation of A: Correct. Section 98 says that where an act would otherwise be an offence but is not one because the doer is of unsound mind, of tender years, intoxicated, or under a misconception, every person still has the same right of private defence against that act as he would have if it were an offence. So Y may repel X's attack, and force used within the right of private defence is not an offence. The section is not merely true in the abstract, it is the exact rule that produces the result in the assertion.
  2. Both A and R are individually true but R is not the correct explanation of A: Wrong. The link is direct, not incidental. Take Section 98 away and Y would have no lawful answer at all, because X's act would not qualify as an offence to defend against.
  3. A is true but R is false: Wrong. Section 98 exists and is worded to cover an attacker of unsound mind.
  4. A is false but R is true: Wrong. Y stayed within the limits of the right, hitting only to ward off the attack, so no offence was made out against him.

Two provisions are working side by side here. Section 84 shields X, because a person of unsound mind who does not know the nature of his act commits no crime. Section 98 shields Y, because the right of private defence is measured by the danger, not by the attacker's capacity to be punished. Both men walk away without liability, which is exactly what the Code intends.

Let's summarize:

  • X is not liable because of unsoundness of mind (Section 84).
  • Y is not liable because Section 98 gives him private defence against an attack by such a person.
  • The reason states the very rule that decides the assertion.

So both statements are true and the reason correctly explains the assertion. Option (A) is the answer.

Was this answer helpful?
0

Top Questions on Indian Penal Code (IPC)

Questions Asked in CLAT exam

Read the passage and answer the question.

Passage (extract): The work which Gandhiji had taken up was not only regarding the achievement of political freedom but also the establishment of a new social order based on truth and non-violence, unity and peace, equality and universal brotherhood and maximum freedom for all. A new order cannot be established without radically changing the mind and attitude of men towards property and, at some stage or the other, the 'haves' have to yield place to the 'have-nots'. We have seen, in our time, attempts to achieve a kind of egalitarian society and the picture of it after it was achieved. But this was done, by and large, through the use of physical force. It may even be that, like a gas kept confined within containers under great pressure, or water held back by a big dam, once the barrier breaks, the reaction will one day sweep back with a violence equal in extent and intensity to what was used to establish and maintain the outward egalitarian form. This enforced egalitarianism contains, in its bosom, the seed of its own destruction. If egalitarianism is to endure, it has to be based not on the possession of the maximum material goods by a few or by all but on voluntary, enlightened renunciation of those goods which cannot be shared by others or can be enjoyed only at the expense of others.

According to the passage, egalitarianism will not survive if
View Solution
Read the passage and answer the question.

Passage (extract): The work which Gandhiji had taken up was not only regarding the achievement of political freedom but also the establishment of a new social order based on truth and non-violence, unity and peace, equality and universal brotherhood and maximum freedom for all. This unfinished part of his experiment was perhaps even more difficult to achieve than the achievement of political freedom. In the political struggle, the fight was against a foreign power and all one could do was either join it or wish it success and give it his/her moral support. In establishing a social order on this pattern, there was a strong possibility of a conflict arising between diverse groups and classes of our own people.

According to the passage, which was the unfinished part of Gandhi's experiment?
View Solution
Read the passage and answer the question.

Passage (extract): In the political struggle, the fight was against a foreign power and all one could do was either join it or wish it success and give it his/her moral support. Experience shows that man values his possessions even more than his life because in the former he sees the means for perpetuation and survival of his descendants even after his body is reduced to ashes. We have seen, in our time, attempts to achieve a kind of egalitarian society and the picture of it after it was achieved. But this was done, by and large, through the use of physical force. This enforced egalitarianism contains, in its bosom, the seed of its own destruction. The root cause of class conflict is possessiveness or the acquisitive instinct.

Which of the following statements is 'not true' in the context of the passage?
View Solution