Question

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

• A. Both Assertion and Reason are correct and Reason is the correct explanation for Assertion
• B. Both Assertion and Reason are correct but Reason is not the correct explanation for Assertion
• C. Assertion is correct but Reason is incorrect
• D. Assertion is incorrect but Reason is correct

Answer 1

The correct option is A Both Assertion and Reason are correct and Reason is the correct explanation for Assertion

According to the section 98 of the Indian penal code when an act, which would otherwise be a certain offence , is not that offence, by reaction of the youth, the want of maturity of understanding, the unsoundness of mind o the intoxication of the person doing that act, or by reason of any misconception on the part of that person, every person has the same right of private defence against that act which he would have if the act were that offence. This problem is based on illustration (a) of sec.98 of IPC. The right of private defence does not depend upon the actual criminality of the aggressor but on the wrongful character of the act attempted.