Principle: A man is guilty of not only for what he actually does but also for the consequences of his doing. Facts: A wanted to kill the animal of B. He saw B standing with his animal and fired a gunshot at the animal. The gunshot killed B.

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 principle shifts the focus from what A intended to what A's act actually caused.

A is guilty of killing B: A fired the shot that killed B; since liability extends to the consequences of an act and not just its intended target, A is guilty.
A is not guilty: Wrong, the death is a direct consequence of A's own gunshot.
B is guilty of standing with the animal: Standing beside one's own animal is not an offence at all.
A did not know the gunshot would kill B: Lack of specific knowledge of this outcome does not remove liability under a principle that covers consequences, not just intentions.

The correct answer is A is guilty of killing B.

Answer 2

Assuming each option true and checking against the facts.

A is guilty of killing B: Assume true, then B's death must be a consequence of A's own act. The bullet that struck B is the same bullet A fired at the animal, so the consequence traces directly to A's conduct, matching the assumption.
A is not guilty: Assume true, then B's death must be unconnected to A's shot, some other cause must explain it. No other cause appears anywhere in the facts, the gunshot A fired is what killed B, so the assumption has nothing else to point to.
B is guilty of standing with the animal: Assume true, then standing near an animal would have to be a wrongful act. There is nothing unlawful about a person standing beside his own animal, so the assumption manufactures an offence out of an ordinary, innocent act.
A did not know the gunshot would kill B: Assume true, then this lack of knowledge would need to remove A's liability. The principle attaches liability to consequences of an act generally, not only to consequences a person specifically foresaw, so even granting the assumption, it does not lead to A escaping liability.

Only the assumption that A is liable survives, since the fatal consequence traces directly back to the shot he fired.

Therefore, the correct answer is A is guilty of killing B.

Answer 3

Assuming each option true and checking against the facts.

A is guilty of killing B: Assume true, then B's death must be a consequence of A's own act. The bullet that struck B is the same bullet A fired at the animal, so the consequence traces directly to A's conduct, matching the assumption.
A is not guilty: Assume true, then B's death must be unconnected to A's shot, some other cause must explain it. No other cause appears anywhere in the facts, the gunshot A fired is what killed B, so the assumption has nothing else to point to.
B is guilty of standing with the animal: Assume true, then standing near an animal would have to be a wrongful act. There is nothing unlawful about a person standing beside his own animal, so the assumption manufactures an offence out of an ordinary, innocent act.
A did not know the gunshot would kill B: Assume true, then this lack of knowledge would need to remove A's liability. The principle attaches liability to consequences of an act generally, not only to consequences a person specifically foresaw, so even granting the assumption, it does not lead to A escaping liability.

Only the assumption that A is liable survives, since the fatal consequence traces directly back to the shot he fired.

Therefore, the correct answer is A is guilty of killing B.

Principle: A man is guilty of not only for what he actually does but also for the consequences of his doing. Facts: A wanted to kill the animal of B. He saw B standing with his animal and fired a gunshot at the animal. The gunshot killed B.

Show Hint

The Correct Option is A

Approach Solution - 1

Approach Solution -2

Top Questions on Criminal Law

Questions Asked in CLAT exam