Sexual offences and forensic psychiatry: consent under intoxication: practice question

A Forensic Medicine question in the style of the NEET PG paper. Answer it first, then read why the right option is right and why each of the others is wrong.

Try it

Forensic Medicine · Sexual offences and forensic psychiatry: consent under intoxication

Sample item

An acquaintance gives a woman a drink laced with a sedative and has intercourse with her while she is drowsy and unable to resist. He later argues that she did not object. How does the law view her apparent consent?

ANot valid, since she could not understand its nature and consequences because of a substance he administeredBValid, because there were no injuriesCValid, because she did not physically resistDValid, because she knew the man

Original practice item, not a recalled exam question. Nothing here is recorded.

The answer and the reasoning

A. Not valid, since she could not understand its nature and consequences because of a substance he administered

Consent is not valid when the woman cannot understand its nature and consequences because of unsoundness of mind, intoxication or a stupefying substance given by the accused or through another. Absence of resistance or injury is not consent.

Option by option

A. Not valid, since she could not understand its nature and consequences because of a substance he administered (correct)
Correct. A stupefying substance given by him negates the capacity to consent.
B. Valid, because there were no injuries
Absence of injuries does not show consent.
C. Valid, because she did not physically resist
Lack of resistance is not consent, particularly when she was incapable of resisting.
D. Valid, because she knew the man
Knowing the man does not make consent valid.

Source note: Original NextPrep sample item — pending expert review. This item is original practice material awaiting independent expert review, so confirm important facts in a standard textbook.

Questions about this Forensic Medicine question

What is the answer to this Forensic Medicine question?

The best answer is A, Not valid, since she could not understand its nature and consequences because of a substance he administered. Consent is not valid when the woman cannot understand its nature and consequences because of unsoundness of mind, intoxication or a stupefying substance given by the accused or through another.

Why is "Valid, because there were no injuries" not the answer?

Absence of injuries does not show consent.

Why is "Valid, because she did not physically resist" not the answer?

Lack of resistance is not consent, particularly when she was incapable of resisting.

Why is "Valid, because she knew the man" not the answer?

Knowing the man does not make consent valid.

What concept does this question test?

It tests Sexual offences and forensic psychiatry: consent under intoxication in Forensic Medicine. Absence of resistance or injury is not consent.

How hard is this question?

We tag it as a multi-step question: it asks you to combine more than one idea. The tag is our own editorial judgement, not an official difficulty rating, so read the reason for every option, not only the answer.

How should I study Sexual offences and forensic psychiatry: consent under intoxication?

Learn postmortem changes with their timelines, and toxicology as poison, sign, test and antidote. Then use the flashcards and the other Forensic Medicine questions on this site to test what stuck.

Is this a real NEET PG question?

No. It is an original practice item (editorial status: sample, version 1). NextPrep does not publish recalled or leaked questions, and independent faculty review of this item has not been completed yet, so confirm important facts in a standard textbook.