Question:medium

Principle : Causing of 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.
This question consists of legal principle(s) (hereinafter referred to as ‘principle‘) and facts. Such proposition may or may not be true in the real and legal sense, yet you have to conclusively assume them to be true for the purposes of this section. Principles have to be applied to the given facts to arrive at the most reasonable conclusion. Only one of the alternatives, i.e., (A), (B), (C), or (D) is the most reasonable conclusion. In other words, in answering the following questions, you must not rely on any principle except the principles that are given herein below for every question. Further you must not assume any facts other than those stated in the question. The objective of this section is to test your ability in legal aptitude, study of law, research aptitude and problem solving ability even if the ’most reasonable conclusion‘ arrived at may be absurd or unacceptable for any other reason.

Updated On: Jul 15, 2026
  • A committed the offence of not providing food to D.
  • A committed the offence of confining D.
  • A committed the offence of killing D.
  • A committed no offence.
Show Solution

The Correct Option is C

Approach Solution - 1

Step 1: Understanding the Question:
We need to identify the correct label for A's conduct, given that both an act and an omission combined to cause D's death.

Step 2: Key Formula or Approach:
Apply the principle that a result caused partly by act and partly by omission is an offence, then match the offence to its actual consequence rather than to either ingredient by itself.

Step 3: Detailed Explanation:
A did two things, he actively confined D, which is an act, and he withheld food from her, which is an omission. Neither of these alone is the offence the principle is describing, what matters is their combined effect, which was D's death. Describing A's conduct as only confinement or only withholding food misses the point that both together produced the fatal outcome.

Step 4: Final Answer:
Since the act and the omission together caused D's death, A committed the offence of killing D.
Was this answer helpful?
0
Show Solution

Approach Solution -2

Approach this by eliminating the option that contradicts the principle outright, then the two that isolate only half the conduct, before settling on what remains.

  1. A committed no offence: Eliminate this first, it directly contradicts the principle, which expressly makes an act-plus-omission combination an offence.
  2. A committed the offence of confining D: Eliminate this next, it isolates the act alone and leaves out the fact that D actually died from the combined conduct.
  3. A committed the offence of not providing food to D: Eliminate this too, for the mirror reason, it isolates only the omission and ignores the confinement and the resulting death.
  4. A committed the offence of killing D: Once the other three are eliminated, this is what is left, and it correctly names the offence after the actual combined effect of the act and the omission together.

Eliminating the options that either deny an offence exists or that describe only one ingredient of it leaves the option that names the real, combined outcome.

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

Was this answer helpful?
0

Top Questions on Law of Torts


Questions Asked in CLAT exam