Principle: Nothing is an offence if it is done in good faith for the purpose of preventing or avoiding greater harm or damage to person or property. Facts: A jumps into a swimming pool to save a boy from drowning. While pulling the boy from water A was hit by C. A left the boy in the water and attacked C. The boy died in the water.

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

Separate A's original good-faith act from the intervening event caused by C before deciding whether an offence was committed.

A has not committed the offence: A's rescue attempt was good-faith conduct to prevent greater harm, and the boy's death followed from C's attack interrupting that rescue, not from any offence by A.
A has committed the offence: This would need a blameworthy act by A causing the death, but A's actions were protective, not offensive, until C intervened.
The boy committed suicide: Nothing in the facts suggests a deliberate act of self-harm by the boy.
The boy committed the offence of drowning: Drowning is an unfortunate event, not a criminal act, so this option doesn't fit any recognised offence.

The correct answer is A has not committed the offence of killing the boy.

Answer 2

Testing each option by assumption.

A has not committed the offence: Assume true, then A's conduct toward the boy must be protected good faith action, and the death must trace to something other than A's own wrongdoing. A's jump into the pool was exactly a good-faith rescue attempt, and the fatal turn came from C striking A, an event A did not cause, so the assumption holds.
A has committed the offence: Assume true, then A must have done something blameworthy toward the boy specifically. Every action A takes before being struck is protective, and after being struck A's conflict is with C, not the boy, so there's no point in the sequence where A commits a wrongful act against the boy.
The boy has committed the offence of suicide: Assume true, then the boy must have intentionally caused his own death. Nothing in the facts shows any intention on the boy's part, he was being rescued and then left unattended after a third-party assault on his rescuer, which is the opposite of a deliberate act.
The boy has committed the offence of drowning: Assume true, then drowning itself would need to qualify as an offence the boy committed. Drowning is something that happened to him, not an act he performed against a rule, so there's no offence here to assume into existence.

Only the first assumption is consistent with the facts, A's protected rescue attempt was cut short by C's intervening attack, not by any wrongdoing of A's own.

Therefore, the correct answer is A has not committed the offence of killing the boy.

Answer 3

Testing each option by assumption.

A has not committed the offence: Assume true, then A's conduct toward the boy must be protected good faith action, and the death must trace to something other than A's own wrongdoing. A's jump into the pool was exactly a good-faith rescue attempt, and the fatal turn came from C striking A, an event A did not cause, so the assumption holds.
A has committed the offence: Assume true, then A must have done something blameworthy toward the boy specifically. Every action A takes before being struck is protective, and after being struck A's conflict is with C, not the boy, so there's no point in the sequence where A commits a wrongful act against the boy.
The boy has committed the offence of suicide: Assume true, then the boy must have intentionally caused his own death. Nothing in the facts shows any intention on the boy's part, he was being rescued and then left unattended after a third-party assault on his rescuer, which is the opposite of a deliberate act.
The boy has committed the offence of drowning: Assume true, then drowning itself would need to qualify as an offence the boy committed. Drowning is something that happened to him, not an act he performed against a rule, so there's no offence here to assume into existence.

Only the first assumption is consistent with the facts, A's protected rescue attempt was cut short by C's intervening attack, not by any wrongdoing of A's own.

Therefore, the correct answer is A has not committed the offence of killing the boy.

Show Hint

The Correct Option is A

Approach Solution - 1

Approach Solution -2

Top Questions on Criminal Law

Questions Asked in CLAT exam