Principle: Nothing is an offence merely by reason of its being done with the knowledge that it is likely to cause harm, if it be done without any criminal intention to cause harm, and in good faith for the purpose of preventing or avoiding other harm to a person or property.

Facts: Mr. Sharman, the Captain of a steam vessel, suddenly and without any fault or negligence on his part, finds himself in such a position that, before he can stop his vessel, he must inevitably run down a boat B, with twenty or thirty passengers on board, unless he changes the course of his vessel, and that, by changing his course, he must incur the risk of running down a boat C with only two passengers on board and which he may possibly clear.

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 is written as a shield, and a shield only works if every strap is fastened. Break it into its three requirements and check them one by one against the captain's turn of the wheel.

First, was the act done merely with knowledge that harm was likely? Yes. Sharman knows that swinging away from boat B puts boat C at risk. Second, was there criminal intention to cause harm? No. He is not aiming at boat C, he is running from a collision with twenty or thirty people. Third, was it in good faith to prevent other harm to a person or property? Yes, and this is the strongest part of his case, because the harm he is avoiding is a certain strike on a crowded boat while the harm he risks is only a possible strike on a boat with two, one he may even clear. All three straps are fastened, so the shield holds and the act is not an offence at all.

Sharman has committed no offence because this was done out of necessity: This is the Principle applied in full. Knowledge yes, criminal intention no, good faith purpose of avoiding greater harm yes. The act falls outside the definition of an offence.
Sharman can be held responsible for the act of criminal negligence: The facts kill this outright. They say he found himself in this position suddenly and without any fault or negligence on his part.
Sharman can be held responsible for culpable homicide: You cannot charge homicide on an act the Principle has already lifted out of the category of offences. Also, nothing in the facts even says boat C was struck.
This is a clear case of accident so Sharman cannot be held responsible: The conclusion happens to be no liability, but the reason is wrong, and in principle questions the reason is the answer. An accident is something that happens without a choice. Sharman made a conscious, informed choice to change course. His protection is necessity, not accident.

Let's summarize:

Necessity needs knowledge of likely harm, absence of criminal intention, and a good faith purpose of avoiding other harm.
All three are present when the captain turns away from the crowded boat.
Negligence is expressly excluded by the facts.
A deliberate choice of the lesser harm is necessity, not an accident.

So option (A) is correct.

Answer 2

The Principle is written as a shield, and a shield only works if every strap is fastened. Break it into its three requirements and check them one by one against the captain's turn of the wheel.

First, was the act done merely with knowledge that harm was likely? Yes. Sharman knows that swinging away from boat B puts boat C at risk. Second, was there criminal intention to cause harm? No. He is not aiming at boat C, he is running from a collision with twenty or thirty people. Third, was it in good faith to prevent other harm to a person or property? Yes, and this is the strongest part of his case, because the harm he is avoiding is a certain strike on a crowded boat while the harm he risks is only a possible strike on a boat with two, one he may even clear. All three straps are fastened, so the shield holds and the act is not an offence at all.

Sharman has committed no offence because this was done out of necessity: This is the Principle applied in full. Knowledge yes, criminal intention no, good faith purpose of avoiding greater harm yes. The act falls outside the definition of an offence.
Sharman can be held responsible for the act of criminal negligence: The facts kill this outright. They say he found himself in this position suddenly and without any fault or negligence on his part.
Sharman can be held responsible for culpable homicide: You cannot charge homicide on an act the Principle has already lifted out of the category of offences. Also, nothing in the facts even says boat C was struck.
This is a clear case of accident so Sharman cannot be held responsible: The conclusion happens to be no liability, but the reason is wrong, and in principle questions the reason is the answer. An accident is something that happens without a choice. Sharman made a conscious, informed choice to change course. His protection is necessity, not accident.

Let's summarize:

Necessity needs knowledge of likely harm, absence of criminal intention, and a good faith purpose of avoiding other harm.
All three are present when the captain turns away from the crowded boat.
Negligence is expressly excluded by the facts.
A deliberate choice of the lesser harm is necessity, not an accident.

So option (A) is correct.

Show Hint

The Correct Option is A

Solution and Explanation

Top Questions on Criminal Law

Questions Asked in CLAT exam