R. V. Dudley & Stephen stands for the principle that:

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 R. V. Dudley & Stephen.
The case *R. V. Dudley & Stephen* (1884) involved two sailors who killed and ate a cabin boy to survive after being stranded at sea. The court held that necessity could be pleaded as a defense in cases where killing an innocent person was inevitable to save one’s own life. Step 2: Explanation of Other Options.
- (a) This option is incorrect because the court did accept necessity as a valid defense, but the necessity must be proven. - (c) The case did not discuss killing out of mercy as a defense in this context. - (d) This is incorrect because option (b) correctly reflects the court’s ruling. Step 3: Conclusion.
Necessity can be pleaded as a defense against murder, especially if killing an innocent life to save one’s own becomes inevitable.

R. V. Dudley & Stephen stands for the principle that:

Show Hint

The Correct Option is A

Solution and Explanation

Top Questions on Criminal Law

Questions Asked in AIBE exam