Principle: Inducing any animal to move or to change its motion and thereby intentionally causing fear of injury or annoyance to others by such act, is an offence of use of criminal force.
Facts: X incites his dog to chase and run after his neighbour Y, to teach Y to stay away from him. The act is done without neighbour's consent and against his will.

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

Step 1: Understanding the Principle:
Inducing an animal to move or change its motion, intentionally causing fear of injury or annoyance to someone by that act, is treated as the offence of using criminal force.

Step 2: Applying the Principle to the Facts:
X incited his dog to chase his neighbour Y, wanting to scare Y into keeping away, and did this without Y's consent and against his will. This matches the principle's description exactly, since the dog's chase was meant to frighten Y.

Step 3: Evaluating the Other Options:
The principle does not require Y to suffer actual harm, only fear of injury or annoyance, so the absence of physical injury does not clear X. Intending only to frighten Y is not a defence, since causing that fear is the offence itself.

Step 4: Final Answer:
X has committed the offence of use of criminal force, since he deliberately used his dog to cause Y fear without his consent.

Answer 2

Major premise: inducing an animal to move or change its motion, intentionally causing fear of injury or annoyance to someone, is the offence of using criminal force. Minor premise: X incited his dog to chase Y, without Y's consent and against his will, meaning to frighten Y into staying away. Testing the conclusions:

No offence at all: This conclusion needs some element of the major premise to be missing from the minor premise, but every element, inducing the animal, intention, and resulting fear, is present.
No offence, since no harm caused: This conclusion needs the major premise to require actual injury, but it requires only fear of injury or annoyance, which the chase produced regardless of whether Y was hurt.
No offence, intent was only to frighten: This conclusion needs intending fear to be a defence, but the major premise defines the offence around exactly that intention, so it cannot also excuse it.
Offence of use of criminal force: This follows directly, since the minor premise satisfies every element the major premise sets out.

Only the fourth option is the conclusion the major premise supports once matched against X's deliberate use of the dog in the minor premise.

Therefore, the correct answer is X has committed the offence of use of criminal force.

Answer 3

Major premise: inducing an animal to move or change its motion, intentionally causing fear of injury or annoyance to someone, is the offence of using criminal force. Minor premise: X incited his dog to chase Y, without Y's consent and against his will, meaning to frighten Y into staying away. Testing the conclusions:

No offence at all: This conclusion needs some element of the major premise to be missing from the minor premise, but every element, inducing the animal, intention, and resulting fear, is present.
No offence, since no harm caused: This conclusion needs the major premise to require actual injury, but it requires only fear of injury or annoyance, which the chase produced regardless of whether Y was hurt.
No offence, intent was only to frighten: This conclusion needs intending fear to be a defence, but the major premise defines the offence around exactly that intention, so it cannot also excuse it.
Offence of use of criminal force: This follows directly, since the minor premise satisfies every element the major premise sets out.

Only the fourth option is the conclusion the major premise supports once matched against X's deliberate use of the dog in the minor premise.

Therefore, the correct answer is X has committed the offence of use of criminal force.

Show Hint

The Correct Option is D

Approach Solution - 1

Approach Solution -2

Top Questions on Criminal Law

Questions Asked in CLAT exam