Durham doctrine means

Question

“There is no gainsaying that an able bodied youthful Jawan when physically assaulted by his superior may be in a state of provocation. The gravity of such a provocation may be heightened if the physical beating was meant to force him to submit to unnatural carnal intercourse to satisfy the superior’s lust. The store room incident involving the appellant and the deceased is alleged to have taken place when the deceased had bolted the door of the store room to keep out any intruder from seeing what was happening inside. By any standard the act of a superior to humiliate and force his subordinate in a closed room to succumb to the lustful design of the former was a potent recipe for anyone placed in the appellant’s position to revolt and retaliate against the treatment being given to him. What may have happened inside the store room if the appellant had indeed revolted and retaliated against the unbecoming conduct of the deceased is a matter of conjecture. The appellant or any one in his position may have retaliated violently to the grave peril of his tormentor. The fact of the matter, however, is that the appellant appears to have borne the assault without any retaliation against the deceased-superior and somehow managed to escape from the room…All that the evidence proves is that after the said incident
the appellant was seen crying and depressed and when asked by his colleagues, he is said to have narrated his tale of humiliation at the hands of the deceased…. That appears to have happened in the present case also for the appellant’s version is that he and his colleagues had planned to avenge the humiliation by beating up the deceased in the evening when they all assemble near the water heating point. That apart, the appellant attended to his normal duty during the day time and after the evening dinner, went to perform his guard duty at 2100 hrs.”
[Extracted from B.D Khunte v. Union of India, Criminal Appeal No. 2328 of 2014, para 12-13].

Answer 1

The Durham rule is commonly called the product test, and those words are the key to matching the right option.

Immature age: Concerns a different defence altogether, infancy, not the Durham doctrine, which is about mental illness.
Mental disease or defect causing the act: Matches the doctrine's very name, it excuses an accused whose unlawful act was caused by, or was the product of, mental disease or defect.
Liable even with mental disease or defect: This reverses the doctrine's actual effect, which is to excuse, not impose, liability.

Since only one option ties criminal non-liability to an act being the product of mental disease or defect, the correct answer is that an accused is not criminally liable if his unlawful act is the product of mental disease or mental defect.

Answer 2

Comparing the Durham rule with the more familiar M'Naghten test, which Indian law follows under Section 84 IPC, helps confirm the answer.

M'Naghten test: Asks whether, because of unsoundness of mind, the accused was incapable of knowing the nature of the act, or that it was wrong or contrary to law, a narrower, knowledge-based standard.
Durham test: Uses a broader, purely causal standard, asking only whether the unlawful act was a product of a mental disease or defect, without requiring proof that the accused specifically failed to understand the nature or wrongness of the act.
Option describing immature age: Belongs to a different defence entirely and does not describe either test.
Option imposing liability despite mental illness: Contradicts both the Durham rule and the general principle that mental illness can excuse criminal responsibility.

Recognising Durham as the broader, purely causal alternative to M'Naghten confirms which option correctly states the doctrine.

Therefore, the correct answer is that an accused is not criminally liable if his unlawful act is the product of mental disease or mental defect.

Answer 3

Comparing the Durham rule with the more familiar M'Naghten test, which Indian law follows under Section 84 IPC, helps confirm the answer.

M'Naghten test: Asks whether, because of unsoundness of mind, the accused was incapable of knowing the nature of the act, or that it was wrong or contrary to law, a narrower, knowledge-based standard.
Durham test: Uses a broader, purely causal standard, asking only whether the unlawful act was a product of a mental disease or defect, without requiring proof that the accused specifically failed to understand the nature or wrongness of the act.
Option describing immature age: Belongs to a different defence entirely and does not describe either test.
Option imposing liability despite mental illness: Contradicts both the Durham rule and the general principle that mental illness can excuse criminal responsibility.

Recognising Durham as the broader, purely causal alternative to M'Naghten confirms which option correctly states the doctrine.

Therefore, the correct answer is that an accused is not criminally liable if his unlawful act is the product of mental disease or mental defect.

Durham doctrine means

Show Hint

The Correct Option is B

Approach Solution - 1

Approach Solution -2

Top Questions on Criminal Law

Questions Asked in AIBE exam