Question

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.

• A. Both A and R are individually true and R is the correct explanation of A
• B. Both A and R are individually true but R is not the correct explanation of A
• C. A is true but R is false
• D. A is false but R is true

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.

Answer 1

The Correct Option is A

Step 1: Understanding the Question:
X is of unsound mind and does not know what he is doing. He attacks Y. Y hits back only to ward off the attack and injures X. The assertion says Y has committed no offence. The reason points to Section 98 of the Indian Penal Code. We have to check both statements and then check the link between them.

Step 2: The rule in Section 98 IPC:
Section 98 deals with the right of private defence against the act of a person who is himself not capable of committing an offence. It covers an attacker who is of unsound mind, an infant, intoxicated, or acting under a misconception. The section says that every person has the same right of private defence against such an act as he would have if the act were an offence.
The reason behind the rule is easy to see. The law does not ask a victim to stand still and take a beating merely because his attacker cannot be punished. The defender's right depends on the danger he faces, not on whether the attacker can be convicted.

Step 3: Applying the rule to the facts:
X's attack, coming from an unsound mind, is not an offence on X's part; Section 84 protects him. But Section 98 tells us to treat that attack, for Y's purposes, as if it were an offence. So Y gets a full right of private defence.
Y used the force only to ward off the attack, so he stayed inside the limits of that right. Force used in the lawful exercise of private defence is not an offence. The assertion is therefore true.

Step 4: Checking the reason and the link:
The reason correctly names Section 98 as the provision that gives Y the right of private defence against an attacker of unsound mind. So the reason is true. It is also the very rule that makes Y's act lawful, which is exactly what the assertion claims. So R explains A.

Step 5: Why the other options fail:
Option (B) fails because R is not a stray true fact; it is the precise legal basis of the conclusion in A.
Option (C) fails because Section 98 is real and squarely applies, so R is true.
Option (D) fails because A is true; Y committed no offence.

Final Answer:
Both statements are true and Section 98 is the reason Y is not liable, so the answer is option (A).