Principle: Causing an effect partly by an act and partly by an omission is an offence. Facts: A did not provide any food to his daughter D. He also confined D in a room. Consequently, D died.

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's key move is combining an act and an omission into a single cause of the resulting effect, so the offence should be named after that effect, not after either piece alone.

Offence of not providing food: Captures only the omission, leaving out the confinement and the resulting death.
Offence of confining D: Captures only the act, leaving out the starvation and the resulting death.
Offence of killing D: The confinement and the failure to feed together caused D's death, and the principle treats such a combined cause as the offence, so the correct characterisation is killing.
No offence: Contradicts both the principle and the fact that D died as a result of A's conduct.

The correct answer is A committed the offence of killing D.

Answer 2

Assuming each option true in turn.

Offence of not providing food: Assume true, then the confinement and the death would need to play no role in naming the offence. But both are part of the same combined conduct the principle treats as producing the effect, so leaving them out understates the assumption's own scope.
Offence of confining D: Assume true, then the starvation and death would similarly need to be irrelevant to the naming. The same problem arises, the omission and its consequence cannot be set aside from a structure that joins act and omission together.
Offence of killing D: Assume true, then the act and omission must have combined to cause D's death, and the offence must be named for that effect. That is exactly what the facts describe, confinement plus starvation causing death, so the assumption is fully consistent.
No offence: Assume true, then D's death would have to be unconnected to A's conduct entirely. The facts directly tie her death to being confined and denied food, so this assumption cannot be reconciled with what happened.

Only the assumption naming the offence after the resulting effect, D's death, holds up against the combined act and omission described in the facts.

Therefore, the correct answer is A committed the offence of killing D.

Answer 3

Assuming each option true in turn.

Offence of not providing food: Assume true, then the confinement and the death would need to play no role in naming the offence. But both are part of the same combined conduct the principle treats as producing the effect, so leaving them out understates the assumption's own scope.
Offence of confining D: Assume true, then the starvation and death would similarly need to be irrelevant to the naming. The same problem arises, the omission and its consequence cannot be set aside from a structure that joins act and omission together.
Offence of killing D: Assume true, then the act and omission must have combined to cause D's death, and the offence must be named for that effect. That is exactly what the facts describe, confinement plus starvation causing death, so the assumption is fully consistent.
No offence: Assume true, then D's death would have to be unconnected to A's conduct entirely. The facts directly tie her death to being confined and denied food, so this assumption cannot be reconciled with what happened.

Only the assumption naming the offence after the resulting effect, D's death, holds up against the combined act and omission described in the facts.

Therefore, the correct answer is A committed the offence of killing D.

Principle: Causing an effect partly by an act and partly by an omission is an offence. Facts: A did not provide any food to his daughter D. He also confined D in a room. Consequently, D died.

Show Hint

The Correct Option is C

Approach Solution - 1

Approach Solution -2

Top Questions on Criminal Law

Questions Asked in CLAT exam