Principle: Whoever causes death by rash or negligent act commits an offence.
Facts: X is having a house on the roadside which is also having a street on the back of the house. He has a lawn on the back of his house where he has built a toilet. To prevent the intruders from entering his house, he got the fence charged with a high voltage live electric wire. Z was passing through the street at the backyard of the house of X and sat down to take rest near the fence. While getting up, his hands came in contact with the fence which was connected to high voltage electric wire causing his death.

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

Step 1: Understanding the Principle:
Causing death through a rash or negligent act is an offence, separate from murder, which needs an intention to kill or an act known to be so dangerous it is likely to cause death to a specific person.

Step 2: Applying the Principle to the Facts:
X connected his backyard fence, next to a public street, to a high voltage wire without any warning, meaning to keep out intruders generally. Z, who was simply resting nearby and touched the fence while getting up, died as a result.

Step 3: Evaluating the Other Options:
The right to prevent trespass does not justify an unwarned, lethal setup that can kill anyone who brushes against it, and the absence of any personal enmity with Z does not matter for this offence. Since the fence was meant to deter trespassers in general rather than to kill Z specifically, calling it murder overstates what happened.

Step 4: Final Answer:
X has committed the offence of causing death by a rash and negligent act.

Answer 2

Major premise: causing death by a rash or negligent act is an offence distinct from murder, which needs intent to kill or knowledge that the act is so dangerous it will probably kill a specific person or class of persons. Minor premise: X charged his backyard fence, next to a public street, with high voltage and no warning, meaning to deter intruders generally; Z, merely resting nearby, touched the fence while getting up and died. Testing the conclusions:

No offence, right to prevent trespass: This conclusion needs the right to prevent trespass to justify any method whatsoever, but the major premise does not extend that right to unsafe, unwarned methods that endanger anyone nearby.
Offence of death by rash and negligent act: This follows directly, since the unwarned live wire is a rash and negligent method, and that rashness, not any targeted intent, is what caused Z's death.
No offence, no enmity with Z: This conclusion needs enmity to be part of the offence's requirements, but the major premise conditions the offence only on the rash act and resulting death.
Offence of murder: This conclusion needs the minor premise to show intent to kill Z specifically, or knowledge the act would probably kill him in particular, but the facts show a general deterrent aimed at intruders, not a targeted intent toward Z.

Only the second option matches the distinction the major premise draws once the general, unwarned nature of X's setup in the minor premise is applied to it.

Therefore, the correct answer is X has committed the offence of causing death by a rash and negligent act.

Answer 3

Major premise: causing death by a rash or negligent act is an offence distinct from murder, which needs intent to kill or knowledge that the act is so dangerous it will probably kill a specific person or class of persons. Minor premise: X charged his backyard fence, next to a public street, with high voltage and no warning, meaning to deter intruders generally; Z, merely resting nearby, touched the fence while getting up and died. Testing the conclusions:

No offence, right to prevent trespass: This conclusion needs the right to prevent trespass to justify any method whatsoever, but the major premise does not extend that right to unsafe, unwarned methods that endanger anyone nearby.
Offence of death by rash and negligent act: This follows directly, since the unwarned live wire is a rash and negligent method, and that rashness, not any targeted intent, is what caused Z's death.
No offence, no enmity with Z: This conclusion needs enmity to be part of the offence's requirements, but the major premise conditions the offence only on the rash act and resulting death.
Offence of murder: This conclusion needs the minor premise to show intent to kill Z specifically, or knowledge the act would probably kill him in particular, but the facts show a general deterrent aimed at intruders, not a targeted intent toward Z.

Only the second option matches the distinction the major premise draws once the general, unwarned nature of X's setup in the minor premise is applied to it.

Therefore, the correct answer is X has committed the offence of causing death by a rash and negligent act.

Show Hint

The Correct Option is B

Approach Solution - 1

Approach Solution -2

Top Questions on Criminal Law

Questions Asked in CLAT exam