Law 2023 Paper II 50 marks Explain

Q2

(a) A twenty year old girl 'G' was coming back to home after attending college. A man 'M' held her, shut her mouth and dragged her to a nearby bush, where he slit the girl's throat thereby killing her. Thereafter he raped her. Decide what offence(s), if any, 'M' has committed in the above case. Explain the relevant statutory provisions in detail. 20 (b) "In Negligence, the chain of causation must remain intact." Describe the essentials of 'negligence' by referring case-laws. 15 (c) Define 'Atrocity'. Also discuss the acts that amount to 'atrocity' under the provisions of The Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989. 15

हिंदी में प्रश्न पढ़ें

(a) एक बीस वर्षीय लड़की 'जी' कालेज के बाद घर आ रही थी। 'एम' एक आदमी ने उसे पकड़ लिया, उसका मुँह बन्द कर दिया एवं उसे पास की झाड़ी में घसीट लिया, जहाँ उसने लड़की का गला काट दिया जिससे वह लड़की मर गई। उसके बाद आदमी ने उसके साथ बलात्कार किया। उपरोक्त बाद में 'एम' ने क्या अपराध(धों) को, यदि कोई हो तो, कारित किया, तय करें। सुसंगत सांविधिक प्रावधानों की विस्तार में व्याख्या करें। 20 (b) "उपेक्षा में, कार्यकारण की श्रृंखला अक्षुण्ण (निरंतर) रहनी चाहिए।" वाद-विधियों के संदर्भ द्वारा 'उपेक्षा' के आवश्यक तत्त्वों का वर्णन कीजिए। 15 (c) 'अत्याचार' को परिभाषित करें। यह भी विवेचना करें कि अनुसूचित जाति और अनुसूचित जनजाति (अत्याचार निवारण) अधिनियम, 1989 के तहत कौनसे कार्य 'अत्याचार' की श्रेणी में आते हैं। 15

Evaluate your answer to this question → See all 2023 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 detailed exposition of legal principles with statutory backing and case illustrations. Structure: Introduction acknowledging the three distinct legal domains → Part (a): Apply Sections 302, 375/376 IPC with post-mortem rape analysis (40% time/words, ~20 marks) → Part (b): Explain negligence essentials (duty, breach, causation, damage) with 'chain of causation' focus using Ratanlal Dhirajlal and leading case laws (30%, ~15 marks) → Part (c): Define atrocity under SC/ST Act, 1989 with enumerated offences from Sections 3(1) and 3(2) (30%, ~15 marks) → Conclusion synthesizing how these offences protect dignity and life under constitutional mandate.

Key points expected

  • Part (a): Correct identification of murder under Section 302 IPC; analysis of whether rape constitutes separate offence post-mortem (Section 375/376) or if necrophilia applies; distinction between rape on living victim vs. dead body; possible application of Section 377 IPC if rape interpreted as 'unnatural offence' on corpse.
  • Part (a): Application of 'Mukhtar Ansari v. State of UP' or 'Priyanka Reddy case' principles on post-mortem sexual offences; whether death precedes sexual act breaking chain for rape conviction.
  • Part (b): Detailed explanation of four essentials of negligence: (i) duty of care, (ii) breach of duty, (iii) causation (causa sine qua non and proximate cause), (iv) damage; emphasis on 'chain of causation' with 'novus actus interveniens' doctrine.
  • Part (b): Case laws: 'Donoghue v. Stevenson' (neighbour principle), 'Blyth v. Birmingham Waterworks' (reasonable man standard), 'Overseas Tankship v. Morts Dock' (Wagon Mound remoteness rule), 'Ratanlal Dhirajlal' on causation break.
  • Part (c): Definition of 'atrocity' under Section 2(a) SC/ST Act, 1989 as inclusive of offences under IPC committed against SC/ST members with specific intent to humiliate.
  • Part (c): Enumerated acts under Section 3(1) (forced labour, denial of access, insults, sexual exploitation) and Section 3(2) (offences with common intention, abetment); 'Khurshid Alam v. State of UP' on caste identity nexus; 2015 Amendment expansion.

Evaluation rubric

DimensionWeightMax marksExcellentAveragePoor
Provision / section accuracy22%11For (a): Precisely cites Sections 302, 375, 376 IPC with correct ingredients; addresses Section 377 for necrophilia alternative. For (b): Accurately states Sections 279, 304A IPC and tort principles. For (c): Correctly quotes Section 2(a), 3(1), 3(2) SC/ST Act with 2015 Amendment changes.Identifies major sections but confuses ingredients (e.g., omits 'against her will' in rape); misses 2015 Amendment in (c); minor numbering errors in SC/ST Act provisions.Wrong sections cited (e.g., Section 300 instead of 302 for murder); fundamental misunderstanding of post-mortem rape provision; omits key SC/ST Act sections entirely.
Case-law citation20%10For (a): Cites 'Mukhtar Ansari', 'Priyanka Reddy' or 'Nirbhaya' principles on sexual violence sequencing. For (b): Uses 'Donoghue v. Stevenson', 'Wagon Mound', 'Ratanlal Dhirajlal', 'Jacob Mathew v. State of Punjab' on medical negligence. For (c): References 'Khurshid Alam', 'Hitesh Verma v. State of Uttarakhand' on caste nexus.Mentions 2-3 landmark cases with partial facts; confuses 'Wagon Mound' remoteness with causation break; generic reference to 'leading cases' without specifics in (c).No case laws cited or entirely incorrect citations (e.g., citing contract law cases for negligence); fabricated case names; misses all Indian precedents in (b) and (c).
Doctrinal analysis20%10For (a): Analyzes 'temporal sequence' doctrine—whether sexual act precedes death for rape conviction; discusses 'continuing offence' theory. For (b): Explains 'novus actus interveniens', 'eggshell skull' rule, 'but-for' test with clarity. For (c): Distinguishes 'atrocity' from ordinary IPC offence through 'caste-based humiliation' element.Basic doctrinal understanding without depth; mentions causation in (b) but doesn't explain chain break mechanism; superficial distinction in (c) without legal reasoning.No doctrinal analysis; conflates distinct legal concepts (e.g., treats negligence as strict liability); fails to distinguish atrocity from hate crime or discrimination.
Comparative / constitutional angle18%9For (a): References Article 21's expansive interpretation in 'Puttaswamy' on dignity post-death. For (b): Compares Indian negligence standard with English 'Bolam test' in medical context. For (c): Links SC/ST Act to Article 17 (abolition of untouchability), Article 46 (Directive Principle), and 'Karnail Singh v. State of Haryana' on affirmative action.Brief mention of Article 21 in (a) and (c) without elaboration; no comparative reference in (b); generic constitutional invocation without case linkage.No constitutional or comparative perspective; misses Article 17/46 relevance entirely; treats SC/ST Act as ordinary criminal law without constitutional foundation.
Conclusion & application20%10Synthesizes: (a) M guilty of murder + Section 377 (not rape) with reasoned conclusion; (b) Causation as linchpin of negligence liability with practical illustration; (c) Atrocity law as transformative justice tool. Proposes legislative reform (e.g., specific necrophilia provision) and connects to contemporary 'Bilkis Bano' or Hathras case sensitivity.Separate conclusions for each part without synthesis; correct but unremarkable findings; no reform suggestions or contemporary linkage.No conclusion or abrupt ending; contradictory findings (e.g., convicts for rape post-mortem); misses application to facts entirely; no contemporary relevance drawn.

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 2023 Paper II