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 to save his life, kills A.

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

Two different actors, two different immunities: A's conduct is judged under the madness rule, and B's conduct is judged under the private defence rule.

A committed attempt to murder: A's attempt happened under the influence of madness, which the principle exempts from being an offence.
A committed the offence of being mad: Being mad is a condition, not an act; the principle does not criminalise the state itself.
B has committed an offence: Incorrect, B killed A only to save his own life from A's attack.
B has not committed an offence: Saving one's own life from an ongoing attack is the exercise of the right of private defence, which the principle exempts entirely, so B committed no offence.

The correct answer is B has not committed an offence.

Answer 2

Testing each option by assumption, keeping the two immunities and two actors separate.

A committed attempt to murder: Assume true, then the madness immunity would have to not apply to A's attempt. But A acted under the influence of madness throughout, which is precisely what that immunity excuses, so the assumption runs directly against the facts.
A committed the offence of being mad: Assume true, then simply existing in a state of madness would have to be criminal on its own. Neither immunity, nor anything else in the principle, creates such an offence, so the assumption has no textual support.
B has committed an offence: Assume true, then the private-defence immunity would have to not cover B's act of killing A. B killed A only while trying to save his own life from A's attack, which is the exact scenario private defence is meant to excuse, so the assumption contradicts the immunity's own terms.
B has not committed an offence: Assume true, then B's killing of A must fall within the private-defence immunity. It does, B acted to save his life from an ongoing attack, matching the immunity precisely, so the assumption holds.

Only the assumption that B is immune survives, since his killing of A fits the private-defence immunity exactly, while A's attempt is separately excused by the madness immunity.

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

Answer 3

Testing each option by assumption, keeping the two immunities and two actors separate.

A committed attempt to murder: Assume true, then the madness immunity would have to not apply to A's attempt. But A acted under the influence of madness throughout, which is precisely what that immunity excuses, so the assumption runs directly against the facts.
A committed the offence of being mad: Assume true, then simply existing in a state of madness would have to be criminal on its own. Neither immunity, nor anything else in the principle, creates such an offence, so the assumption has no textual support.
B has committed an offence: Assume true, then the private-defence immunity would have to not cover B's act of killing A. B killed A only while trying to save his own life from A's attack, which is the exact scenario private defence is meant to excuse, so the assumption contradicts the immunity's own terms.
B has not committed an offence: Assume true, then B's killing of A must fall within the private-defence immunity. It does, B acted to save his life from an ongoing attack, matching the immunity precisely, so the assumption holds.

Only the assumption that B is immune survives, since his killing of A fits the private-defence immunity exactly, while A's attempt is separately excused by the madness immunity.

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

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 to save his life, kills A.

Show Hint

The Correct Option is D

Approach Solution - 1

Approach Solution -2

Top Questions on Criminal Law

Questions Asked in CLAT exam