Explanation:

Let’s break it down:

- Irresistible impulse per se is no defence to a charge of crime.

- Correct. Just feeling unable to control your actions, without proving insanity, isn’t enough of a defense under Indian law. The legal standard is unsoundness of mind that prevents the accused from knowing the nature or wrongness of the act (Section 84, IPC), not simply an impulse you can’t resist.

- Diminished responsibility is a defence to a charge of a crime.

- Not correct in the Indian context. Diminished responsibility isn’t recognized as a defense in Indian law. Someone with less-than-normal mental capacity doesn’t automatically get a lighter sentence or escape liability unless they meet the much higher bar of legal insanity.

So which option is correct?

Option 1 (1 only)