Law 2021 Paper II 50 marks Explain

Q2

(a) Has 'Attempt' been defined anywhere in the IPC, 1860 ? What are the various tests for determining, whether an act amounts to preparation or attempt to commit an offence ? Explain with the help of relevant case laws. 20 (b) Differentiate between the following : 5×3=15 (i) 'Kidnapping' and 'Abduction' (ii) 'Riot' and 'Affray' (iii) 'Criminal Breach of Trust' and 'Dishonest Misappropriation of property'. (c) What are the various kinds of 'damages' that a plaintiff can avail as a remedy under the law of Torts ? Under what circumstances can "prospective damages" be awarded ? 15

हिंदी में प्रश्न पढ़ें

(a) क्या आई.पी.सी., 1860 में 'प्रयत्न' (अटेम्प्ट) को कहीं पर परिभाषित किया गया है ? क्या एक कार्य किसी अपराध को करने की तैयारी या प्रयास के बराबर है, यह निर्धारित करने के लिए विभिन्न परीक्षण क्या हैं ? प्रासंगिक निर्णयजन्य विधि/केस कानूनों की सहायता से व्याख्या कीजिए । 20 (b) निम्नलिखित के बीच अंतर करें : 5×3=15 (i) 'अपहरण' (किडनैपिंग) एवं 'अपहरण' (एबडक्शन) (ii) बलवा (रायट) और दंगा (एफ्रे) (iii) 'आपराधिक विश्वास-भंग' और 'बेईमानी से संपत्ति का दुर्विनियोग' । (c) विभिन्न प्रकार के 'नुकसान' क्या हैं जो एक वादी (प्लेन्टिफ) टोर्ट्स कानून के तहत एक उपाय के रूप में लाभ उठा सकता है ? किन परिस्थितियों में 'संभावित मुआवजा' दिया जा सकता है ? 15

Evaluate your answer to this question → See all 2021 Law questions

Directive word: Explain

This question asks you to explain. The directive word signals the depth of analysis expected, the structure of your answer, and the weight of evidence you must bring.

See our UPSC directive words guide for a full breakdown of how to respond to each command word.

How this answer will be evaluated

Approach

The directive 'explain' demands conceptual clarity with illustrative depth. Allocate approximately 40% of time/words to part (a) given its 20 marks, 30% to part (b) covering three differentiations, and 30% to part (c) on torts damages. Structure: brief introduction acknowledging attempt's undefined status in IPC; systematic treatment of each sub-part with sections, tests, and cases; integrated conclusion on criminal law-torts interface.

Key points expected

  • Part (a): Clarify that 'attempt' is not defined in IPC; enumerate tests (proximity, locus poenitentiae, equivocality, social danger) with cases like Aman Kumar v. State of Haryana, State of Maharashtra v. Mohd. Yakub
  • Part (b)(i): Contrast kidnapping (S. 360-361: from lawful guardianship, age-specific, without consent) vs abduction (S. 362: compelling/deceiving any person to go from any place)
  • Part (b)(ii): Distinguish riot (S. 146: 5+ persons, common object, force/violence) from affray (S. 159: 2+ persons, public place, disturb peace)
  • Part (b)(iii): Differentiate CBT (S. 405: entrustment+dishonest use) from dishonest misappropriation (S. 403: converting to own use without entrustment)
  • Part (c): Enumerate damages (nominal, contemptuous, compensatory, aggravated, exemplary, prospective); explain prospective damages in continuing torts/injuries (e.g., permanent disability cases)

Evaluation rubric

DimensionWeightMax marksExcellentAveragePoor
Provision / section accuracy20%10Precisely cites S. 511 IPC for attempt; correct sections for kidnapping (360-361), abduction (362), riot (146), affray (159), CBT (405), misappropriation (403); accurate torts categories with prospective damages contextIdentifies most sections correctly but confuses S. 362 with 363 or misstates elements of CBT; generic mention of damages without specificityWrong sections (e.g., S. 307 for attempt), conflates kidnapping/abduction definitions, omits key statutory elements entirely
Case-law citation20%10Cites landmark cases for each test: Aman Kumar (proximity), Abhayanand Mishra (locus poenitentiae), State of Maharashtra v. Mohd. Yakub (social danger); relevant torts precedents on prospective damages like British Transport Commission v. GourleyMentions 2-3 standard cases (e.g., only Mohd. Yakub) without elaborating test-specific application; sparse or generic torts citationsNo case laws cited, or cites irrelevant/overruled decisions; confuses criminal attempt cases with torts precedents
Doctrinal analysis20%10Explains theoretical underpinnings: why attempt is punished (dangerous proximity theory vs. subjective approach); analyzes interplay of preparation-attempt continuum; doctrinal basis for damage categories in torts (restitutionary vs. deterrent functions)Describes tests superficially without theoretical depth; lists damages types without explaining rationale; mechanical differentiation without legal policy insightMerely reproduces definitions without doctrinal engagement; confuses legal tests with each other; no understanding of prospective damages' forward-looking nature
Comparative / constitutional angle20%10References English law on attempt (Criminal Attempts Act 1981) for comparative context; notes constitutional dimensions (S. 21 liberty interest in attempt scope); connects torts damages to Art. 300A property rights jurisprudence; mentions Law Commission recommendationsBrief mention of English law position without elaboration; superficial constitutional reference; no comparative torts perspectiveNo comparative or constitutional engagement; treats law as purely statutory without systemic context
Conclusion & application20%10Synthesizes criminal law-torts interface (attempt's civil liability overlap); critically evaluates whether S. 511's uniform punishment approach needs revision; applies prospective damages analysis to contemporary Indian scenarios (medical negligence, environmental torts)Summarizes main points without critical integration; generic conclusion on importance of law; no application to current legal developmentsNo conclusion or abrupt ending; mere repetition of points; irrelevant or tangential closing remarks

Practice this exact question

Write your answer, then get a detailed evaluation from our AI trained on UPSC's answer-writing standards. Free first evaluation — no signup needed to start.

Evaluate my answer →

More from Law 2021 Paper II