Principle: Nothing is an offence which is done by a person who, at the time of doing it, by reason of unsound state of mind, is incapable of knowing the nature of the act, or something that he is doing is either wrong or contrary to law.

Fact: X takes his son Y who is three years old, for bathing to the well. He throws his son inside the well so that the son can have a good bath. After 10 minutes he also jumps into the well to take bath and get his son out of the well. Both were rescued by the villagers but his son was found dead.

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

Nowhere do the facts say X is insane, so this question asks you to infer a state of mind from behaviour. The Principle excuses a person who, because of an unsound state of mind, could not know the nature of his act, or could not know that it was wrong or contrary to law. Only one of those needs to be true.

So read X's conduct as evidence. He throws a three year old into a well and the reason given is that the boy should have a good bath. That belief is not one a person who understands wells and small children can hold. Then he waits ten minutes, unbothered, which is not how someone behaves who knows a child is drowning below. Then he jumps in himself, partly to bathe and partly to fetch his son, and ends up needing rescue from the villagers along with the boy. Nobody planning a killing walks into the same well as the victim. Every piece of this points one way: X did not know the nature of what he was doing.

X has committed culpable homicide amounting to murder: This needs a guilty mind, an intent to cause death or knowledge that death was likely. The bathing belief and the jump into the well both cut against it.
X has committed murder: Same objection, and this option is really the same charge as (A) written in fewer words, which is itself a clue that neither is the intended answer.
X has done no offence as he can plead the defense of unsound state of mind: This fits the first branch of the Principle. The behaviour shows incapacity to know the nature of the act, and where that branch is met the Principle says nothing done is an offence at all.
X's family should be held responsible for allowing him to take the child to the well: The Principle addresses only the person who did the act. No facts tell us anything about the family's knowledge or role, so this comes from outside the question.

Let's summarize:

The defence needs an unsound state of mind that blocks knowledge of the nature of the act, or of its wrongness.
Where the facts do not label the person, the conduct itself is the evidence.
Bathing a child by throwing him into a well, then jumping in after him, shows no grasp of the act's nature.
If the defence applies, there is no offence at all, not a lesser one.

The answer is option (C).

Answer 2

Nowhere do the facts say X is insane, so this question asks you to infer a state of mind from behaviour. The Principle excuses a person who, because of an unsound state of mind, could not know the nature of his act, or could not know that it was wrong or contrary to law. Only one of those needs to be true.

So read X's conduct as evidence. He throws a three year old into a well and the reason given is that the boy should have a good bath. That belief is not one a person who understands wells and small children can hold. Then he waits ten minutes, unbothered, which is not how someone behaves who knows a child is drowning below. Then he jumps in himself, partly to bathe and partly to fetch his son, and ends up needing rescue from the villagers along with the boy. Nobody planning a killing walks into the same well as the victim. Every piece of this points one way: X did not know the nature of what he was doing.

X has committed culpable homicide amounting to murder: This needs a guilty mind, an intent to cause death or knowledge that death was likely. The bathing belief and the jump into the well both cut against it.
X has committed murder: Same objection, and this option is really the same charge as (A) written in fewer words, which is itself a clue that neither is the intended answer.
X has done no offence as he can plead the defense of unsound state of mind: This fits the first branch of the Principle. The behaviour shows incapacity to know the nature of the act, and where that branch is met the Principle says nothing done is an offence at all.
X's family should be held responsible for allowing him to take the child to the well: The Principle addresses only the person who did the act. No facts tell us anything about the family's knowledge or role, so this comes from outside the question.

Let's summarize:

The defence needs an unsound state of mind that blocks knowledge of the nature of the act, or of its wrongness.
Where the facts do not label the person, the conduct itself is the evidence.
Bathing a child by throwing him into a well, then jumping in after him, shows no grasp of the act's nature.
If the defence applies, there is no offence at all, not a lesser one.

The answer is option (C).

Show Hint

The Correct Option is C

Solution and Explanation

Top Questions on Criminal Law

Questions Asked in CLAT exam