Question:medium

Principle : Nothing is an offence which is done in the exercise of the right of private defence. Nothing is an offence which is done in madness.
Facts : A, under the influence of madness, attempts to kill B. B to save his life kills A.
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
  • A has committed the offence of attempt to murder
  • A has committed an offence of being mad
  • B has committed an offence
  • B has not committed an offence
Show Solution

The Correct Option is D

Approach Solution - 1

Step 1: Understanding the Question:
We need to work out whether either party's conduct is excused under the two protections given, madness and private defence.

Step 2: Key Formula or Approach:
Apply each limb of the principle in turn, madness excuses A's attack, and private defence excuses B's response to it.

Step 3: Detailed Explanation:
A attempted to kill B while under the influence of madness, so under the first limb of the principle, that act is not an offence for A. B then killed A only to save his own life from that attack. Under the second limb, an act done in the exercise of the right of private defence is not an offence, and B's killing of A fits that description exactly, it was a direct response to a threat on his life.

Step 4: Final Answer:
Since B acted purely in private defence, B has not committed an offence.
Was this answer helpful?
0
Show Solution

Approach Solution -2

Work through this by eliminating the option that mischaracterizes what an offence even is, then the one already excused by the madness limb, before settling between the two that remain.

  1. A has committed an offence of being mad: Eliminate this first, being mad is a state a person is in, not a punishable act, so it cannot itself be treated as an offence under either limb of the principle.
  2. A has committed the offence of attempt to murder: Eliminate this next, A's attack happened while under the influence of madness, and the principle's first limb excuses exactly that.
  3. B has committed an offence: Between the two remaining options, this one requires ignoring that B's killing of A was a direct response to a life-threatening attack, which the private defence limb protects.
  4. B has not committed an offence: Once the others are eliminated, this is what remains, and it holds up, since B's conduct fits squarely within the private defence limb of the principle.

Eliminating the option that misreads madness as an offence, and the one already excused for A, leaves the conclusion that B, defending his life, has committed nothing wrongful.

Therefore, the correct answer is B has not committed an offence.

Was this answer helpful?
0

Top Questions on Law of Torts


Questions Asked in CLAT exam