Question:medium

Principle: Killing is not murder, if it is committed in a sudden fight without pre-meditation in a heat of passion upon a sudden quarrel.
Facts: X and Y were buying liquor from a liquor shop at 7 pm. Y abused X and there was quarrel between them. X told Y that he will not spare him and Y shouted that his house is adjoining the shop only and if X had the guts, he can come anytime. X went back to his shop which was nearby, procured a knife and went to Y‘s residence at 9 pm and stabbed him to death.
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
  • X has committed murder
  • X has not committed an offence of murder since it was committed in sudden fight in a heat of passion
  • X has not committed murder of Y because he had no enimity with Y
  • X has committed no offence
Show Solution

The Correct Option is A

Approach Solution - 1

The exception in the principle protects a killing only when it happens without premeditation, in a sudden fight, in the heat of passion. The word doing the real work here is sudden, since it is what separates an impulsive reaction from a planned act carried out later.

Trace the timeline: the quarrel and threats happened at 7 pm, but X did not act in that moment. He walked back to his own shop, deliberately picked up a knife, and only then travelled to Y's residence, arriving at 9 pm, a full two hours after the original quarrel had ended. Fetching a weapon and covering that distance takes conscious, continued decision making, which is the opposite of an unplanned, sudden reaction.

That gap and that preparation are enough on their own to take this outside the sudden fight exception, regardless of whether X and Y had any history of enmity before that evening. Since the exception fails, the killing is treated as murder rather than as an excused sudden fight.

So the correct answer is X has committed murder.

Was this answer helpful?
0
Show Solution

Approach Solution -2

Checking what fact would need to change for each option to be correct makes the timeline decisive.

  1. X has committed murder: No change is needed, the two hour gap, the trip back to fetch a knife, and the travel to Y's house already show planning rather than an unplanned reaction, which is enough to take the killing outside the sudden fight exception.
  2. X has not committed an offence of murder since it was committed in sudden fight in a heat of passion: This would only hold if the stabbing had happened in the same moment as the quarrel, without any gap for reflection or preparation, but a two hour interval with a trip for a weapon is the opposite of that.
  3. X has not committed murder of Y because he had no enimity with Y: This would only matter if the exception depended on the parties' prior relationship, but it depends on suddenness and premeditation, and the deliberate gap and arming already defeat that regardless of enmity.
  4. X has committed no offence: This would require the killing itself to not have happened, which contradicts the facts entirely.

Since the timeline already shows planning rather than suddenness, and none of the three alternative conditions actually change that, the option finding murder is the one that needs no unstated fact.

Therefore, the correct answer is X has committed murder.

Was this answer helpful?
0

Top Questions on Law of Torts

Questions Asked in CLAT exam

Read the passage and answer the question.

Passage (extract): The work which Gandhiji had taken up was not only regarding the achievement of political freedom but also the establishment of a new social order based on truth and non-violence, unity and peace, equality and universal brotherhood and maximum freedom for all. A new order cannot be established without radically changing the mind and attitude of men towards property and, at some stage or the other, the 'haves' have to yield place to the 'have-nots'. We have seen, in our time, attempts to achieve a kind of egalitarian society and the picture of it after it was achieved. But this was done, by and large, through the use of physical force. It may even be that, like a gas kept confined within containers under great pressure, or water held back by a big dam, once the barrier breaks, the reaction will one day sweep back with a violence equal in extent and intensity to what was used to establish and maintain the outward egalitarian form. This enforced egalitarianism contains, in its bosom, the seed of its own destruction. If egalitarianism is to endure, it has to be based not on the possession of the maximum material goods by a few or by all but on voluntary, enlightened renunciation of those goods which cannot be shared by others or can be enjoyed only at the expense of others.

According to the passage, egalitarianism will not survive if
View Solution
Read the passage and answer the question.

Passage (extract): The work which Gandhiji had taken up was not only regarding the achievement of political freedom but also the establishment of a new social order based on truth and non-violence, unity and peace, equality and universal brotherhood and maximum freedom for all. This unfinished part of his experiment was perhaps even more difficult to achieve than the achievement of political freedom. In the political struggle, the fight was against a foreign power and all one could do was either join it or wish it success and give it his/her moral support. In establishing a social order on this pattern, there was a strong possibility of a conflict arising between diverse groups and classes of our own people.

According to the passage, which was the unfinished part of Gandhi's experiment?
View Solution
Read the passage and answer the question.

Passage (extract): In the political struggle, the fight was against a foreign power and all one could do was either join it or wish it success and give it his/her moral support. Experience shows that man values his possessions even more than his life because in the former he sees the means for perpetuation and survival of his descendants even after his body is reduced to ashes. We have seen, in our time, attempts to achieve a kind of egalitarian society and the picture of it after it was achieved. But this was done, by and large, through the use of physical force. This enforced egalitarianism contains, in its bosom, the seed of its own destruction. The root cause of class conflict is possessiveness or the acquisitive instinct.

Which of the following statements is 'not true' in the context of the passage?
View Solution