Medical Jurisprudence — MCQs

Medical Jurisprudence Indian Medical PG Practice Questions and MCQs

Question 241: Which IPC section defines 'death' as the death of a human being unless the contrary appears from the context?

A. IPC 45: Defines life.
B. IPC 46: Defines death. (Correct Answer)
C. IPC 51: Defines oath reference.
D. IPC 44: Defines injury.

Explanation: ***Correct: IPC 46 - Defines death*** - Section 46 of the Indian Penal Code explicitly states that the word **"death"** denotes the death of a human being unless a contrary intention appears from the context - This section provides a fundamental definition for legal purposes, ensuring clarity in applying laws related to offenses against life - This is the **correct answer** as it directly addresses the question asking for the definition of death *Incorrect: IPC 45 - Defines life* - Section 45 of the IPC defines **"life"** as the life of a human being, unless a contrary intention appears from the context - This definition is distinct from death and focuses on the living state, not death *Incorrect: IPC 51 - Defines oath reference* - Section 51 of the IPC defines **"oath"** to include a solemn affirmation substituted by law for an oath, and any declaration required or authorized by law to be made before a public servant - This section deals with legal declarations and has no bearing on the definition of death *Incorrect: IPC 44 - Defines injury* - Section 44 of the IPC defines **"injury"** as any harm whatever illegally caused to any person, in body, mind, reputation, or property - This section focuses on the concept of harm and is unrelated to the definition of death

Question 242: All are true about dying declaration except

A. Cross examination permitted (Correct Answer)
B. Practiced in India
C. Oath is not needed
D. Made to Judicial Magistrate Or Medical officer

Explanation: ***Cross-examination permitted*** - A **dying declaration** is an exception to the hearsay rule, and the declarant (the dying person) is **not available for cross-examination**, as they are deceased. - The principle is based on the belief that a dying person would not lie, thus making cross-examination unnecessary for truthfulness in this context. *Practiced in India* - Dying declarations are indeed a recognized and practiced form of evidence in **Indian law**, specifically under Section 32(1) of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872. - They are considered a significant piece of evidence in criminal proceedings, especially in cases of murder or culpable homicide. *Oath is not needed* - A dying declaration does **not require an oath** to be administered to the declarant at the time of making the statement. - The belief that a person on the verge of death would speak the truth, known as the maxim **"nemo moriturus praesumitur mentiri"** (no one about to die is presumed to lie), substitutes the need for an oath. *Made to Judicial Magistrate Or Medical officer* - While a dying declaration can be made to **anyone**, including ordinary citizens, statements recorded by a **Judicial Magistrate** or a **Medical Officer** are generally given higher evidentiary value due to their impartiality and official capacity. - A medical officer can attest to the declarant's **mental fitness** at the time of making the statement, which is crucial for its admissibility.

Question 243: If death of a married woman occurs within 7 years of her marriage, the inquest is done by:

A. Police
B. Coroner
C. Magistrate (Correct Answer)
D. None of the options

Explanation: ***Magistrate*** - Under **Section 176(1-A) of the Criminal Procedure Code (CrPC)**, when a married woman dies within **seven years of marriage** and circumstances raise suspicion of dowry death, a **magisterial inquest** is mandatory. - Either an **Executive Magistrate** or **Judicial Magistrate** must conduct the inquest to ensure thorough investigation and judicial oversight. - This provision aims to prevent and investigate **dowry-related violence** and ensure proper scrutiny of suspicious deaths. *Police* - While police are involved in investigating unnatural deaths and collect evidence, they conduct inquests only in cases where a magistrate is not available (Section 174 CrPC). - In cases of married women dying within 7 years of marriage, the **statutory requirement** is for a **magisterial inquest**, not a police inquest. - Police work under the magistrate's supervision in these cases. *Coroner* - The **coroner system** exists primarily in common law jurisdictions (UK, USA, Australia) but is **not applicable in India**. - India follows a magistrate-based inquest system under the CrPC. - The functions performed by coroners in other countries are handled by magistrates in the Indian legal framework. *None of the options* - Incorrect, as **Magistrate** is the legally designated authority under Section 176(1-A) CrPC.

Question 244: Police officer has the power to summon a doctor to police station for recording a statement under

A. 161 Cr P C
B. 160 Cr P C (Correct Answer)
C. 162 Cr P C
D. 163 Cr P C

Explanation: ***160 Cr P C*** - Section **160 of the Criminal Procedure Code (CrPC)** empowers a police officer to summon any person who appears to be acquainted with the facts and circumstances of a case to attend their police station or any other place within specified limits. - This section is routinely used to call individuals, including doctors, for **recording their statements** during investigations. *161 Cr P C* - Section 161 CrPC deals with the **examination of witnesses by police**. It outlines how police officers can record statements of persons examined under Section 160. - It does not, however, grant the power to summon a person; rather, it specifies the process *after* a person has been summoned. *162 Cr P C* - Section 162 CrPC addresses the **use of statements recorded by police**. It primarily states that statements made to a police officer during an investigation cannot be signed by the person making them and cannot be used as evidence, with some exceptions. - This section limits the evidentiary value of such statements but does not provide the power to summon. *163 Cr P C* - Section 163 CrPC prohibits police officers from **offering inducements or threats** to any person to make a statement. - Its purpose is to ensure that statements are made voluntarily and without coercion, not to grant summoning powers.

Question 245: If a patient survives after having given dying declaration, then it stands as:

A. No value (Correct Answer)
B. Valid for 48 h
C. None of the options
D. Corroborative evidence

Explanation: ***No value*** - Under **Section 32 of the Indian Evidence Act**, a dying declaration is admissible in court only when the person who made it has **died**. The key principle is that the declarant must not be available to testify. - If the patient **survives** after making the dying declaration, the statement loses its special evidentiary status as a dying declaration and has **no value** as such in court. - The person can now testify **directly as a witness** in court, and their earlier statement cannot be admitted under the dying declaration exception. The law requires the person to give evidence in person if they are available. - Therefore, a dying declaration by a person who survives has **no legal value** as a dying declaration. *Corroborative evidence* - This is incorrect under Indian law. A dying declaration that loses its status (because the declarant survived) cannot be used as corroborative evidence. - The declarant must testify in person if alive, and the previous statement made under belief of imminent death is not admissible in evidence. - The special exception under Section 32 applies **only when the declarant is deceased**. *Valid for 48 h* - This is incorrect as there is **no time limit** (such as 48 hours) attached to dying declarations under Indian Evidence Act. - The validity depends on whether the declarant **dies**, not on any specific time period after making the statement. *None of the options* - This is incorrect because "No value" accurately describes the legal status of a dying declaration when the declarant survives.

Question 246: Which of the following doesn't come under section 320 of IPC?

A. Emasculation
B. Dislocation of a tooth
C. Any hurt which endangers life
D. Any hurt which leaves the person bed ridden for 5 days (Correct Answer)

Explanation: ***Any hurt which leaves the person bed ridden for 5 days*** - Section 320 IPC defines grievous hurt as hurt that causes the sufferer to be **unable to follow his ordinary pursuits for a space of twenty days or upwards**. - While being bedridden for 5 days indicates serious injury, it **does not meet the 20-day threshold** required by Section 320 to be classified as grievous hurt. - This would typically be classified as **simple hurt** under Section 319 IPC, not grievous hurt. *Emasculation* - This is **explicitly listed** as a form of grievous hurt under Section 320 IPC. - It refers to deprivation of masculine vigor or castration, which is considered a severe permanent injury. *Dislocation of a tooth* - Section 320 IPC **explicitly includes** "fracture or **dislocation of a bone or tooth**" as grievous hurt. - Any tooth dislocation is considered grievous hurt regardless of whether it's temporary or permanent. *Any hurt which endangers life* - This is **explicitly defined** as grievous hurt under Section 320 IPC. - Any injury that puts the victim's life in serious jeopardy falls directly under this category of grievous hurt.

Question 247: Exhumation can be ordered by

A. Civil surgeon
B. Police commissioner
C. District magistrate (Correct Answer)
D. Doctor

Explanation: ***District magistrate*** - A **District Magistrate** (or equivalent judicial officer) is typically the authority empowered to order exhumation, especially when there's an ongoing **criminal investigation** or a need to clarify the cause of death. - This power is granted to ensure justice and gather further evidence in cases of suspected foul play or when initial investigations were inconclusive. *Civil surgeon* - A **Civil Surgeon** is a medical professional responsible for medical services in a district, including conducting post-mortems requested by legal authorities. - While they perform the medical examination of an exhumed body, they do not have the legal authority to **order the exhumation** itself. *Police commissioner* - A **Police Commissioner** heads the police force and can request an exhumation as part of their investigation. - However, the final **legal order** for exhumation must come from a judicial authority like a Magistrate, not directly from the police. *Doctor* - A **doctor** plays a crucial role in examining the exhumed remains and providing expert medical opinion on the cause of death. - They lack the **legal jurisdiction** to order the exhumation of a body; this power is reserved for specific legal authorities.

Question 248: A woman died within 5 years of marriage under suspicious circumstances. Her parents complained that her in-laws used to frequently demand dowry. Under which of the following sections can a magistrate authorize an autopsy of the case?

A. Section 302 IPC
B. Section 174 Cr Pc
C. Section 304 IPC
D. Section 176 Cr Pc (Correct Answer)

Explanation: ***Section 176 Cr PC*** - This section empowers a **Magistrate to hold an inquiry into the cause of death** in cases of suspicious circumstances, including deaths within seven years of marriage where dowry harassment is alleged. - The magistrate can **order a post-mortem examination** or even a second post-mortem if there are doubts about the initial findings, making it the appropriate section for **magisterial authorization** of autopsy. - In dowry death cases, Section 176 provides judicial oversight and ensures an independent inquiry beyond police investigation. *Section 174 Cr PC* - This section deals with **police inquiry** and report on suicide and suspicious deaths, empowering the **police officer** (not magistrate) to investigate and order an autopsy. - While Section 174 is used for initial police investigation in suspicious deaths, the question specifically asks about **magistrate authorization**, which falls under Section 176. - Section 174 is the procedural provision for police-initiated investigation, whereas magisterial inquiry requires Section 176. *Section 304 IPC* - This section pertains to **punishment for culpable homicide not amounting to murder**. It is a substantive penal provision, not a procedural law. - It deals with the legal consequence of an act after investigation and trial, not with the investigative procedure for conducting an autopsy. - Charges under Section 304 IPC may result from findings after the autopsy, but it doesn't authorize the autopsy itself. *Section 302 IPC* - This section specifies the **punishment for murder**. Like Section 304 IPC, it is substantive criminal law defining a crime and its penalty. - It would be invoked *after* the investigation reveals evidence of murder, not during the initial phase of ordering an autopsy for a suspicious death. - An autopsy authorized under Cr PC sections might lead to charges under Section 302 IPC, but it doesn't authorize the autopsy procedure.

Question 249: A patient died during surgery. The relatives allege that death was due to negligence, According to a recent Supreme Court judgment, doctor can be charged for Medical Negligence under section 304-A, only if:

A. There is corporate negligence
B. Negligence is from inadvertent error
C. There is gross negligence (Correct Answer)
D. It falls under the doctrine of Res Ipsa Loquitur

Explanation: ***There is gross negligence*** - A doctor can be charged with medical negligence under **Section 304-A** of the IPC only if there is evidence of **gross negligence** or recklessness. - This implies a high degree of carelessness or an extreme departure from the recognized standards of medical practice, indicating a **want of due care and caution**. *There is corporate negligence* - **Corporate negligence** refers to the liability of a hospital or healthcare organization for failing to provide appropriate care, which is distinct from individual criminal liability of a doctor under Section 304-A. - While corporate negligence can lead to civil actions, it does not directly lead to **criminal charges** against an individual doctor under Section 304-A. *Negligence is from inadvertent error* - An **inadvertent error** or a mere mistake, without gross negligence, typically does not warrant criminal prosecution under Section 304-A of the IPC. - This section requires a higher degree of culpability than simple negligence for criminal charges. *It falls under the doctrine of Res Ipsa Loquitur* - The doctrine of **Res Ipsa Loquitur** ("the thing speaks for itself") is primarily used in **civil cases** to infer negligence when the cause of harm is clearly within the defendant's control and would not typically occur without negligence. - While it can help establish negligence in civil proceedings, it is generally **not sufficient** on its own to establish the gross negligence required for criminal charges under Section 304-A.

Question 250: Dying declaration comes under?

A. Section 60 IEA
B. 291 CrPC
C. Section 32 IEA (Correct Answer)
D. Section 32 IPC

Explanation: ***Section 32 IEA*** - This section of the **Indian Evidence Act (IEA)** specifically deals with cases in which a statement of a relevant fact by a person who is dead or cannot be found, etc., is relevant. - A **dying declaration** is a statement made by a person as to the cause of their death, or as to any of the circumstances of the transaction which resulted in their death when the cause of that person's death is in question. *Section 60 IEA* - This section refers to **oral evidence** and states that oral evidence must, in all cases whatever, be direct. - It does not specifically address the admissibility of statements made by deceased persons. *291 CrPC* - This section relates to the **Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC)** and deals with the evidence of formal character, which can be proved by affidavit. - It is not concerned with the concept of dying declarations. *Section 32 IPC* - This refers to the **Indian Penal Code (IPC)**, which defines various offenses and their punishments. - Section 32 of the IPC states that words referring to acts include illegal omissions; it does not deal with evidence or dying declarations.

Practice by Chapter

Legal Systems and Medical Practice

Practice Questions

Civil and Criminal Liability

Practice Questions

Medical Certificates and Reports

Practice Questions

MCI Code of Ethics

Practice Questions

Medical Registration Acts

Practice Questions

Human Organ Transplantation Acts

Practice Questions

Mental Health Legislation

Practice Questions

Medical Termination of Pregnancy Act

Practice Questions

PCPNDT Act

Practice Questions

Human Rights in Medical Practice

Practice Questions

Legal Aspects of Medical Records

Practice Questions

Medicolegal Case Management

Practice Questions

Want unlimited practice?

Get full access to all questions, explanations, and performance tracking.

Start For Free