Which principle is applied when a person performs an act that might cause harm, but is done without criminal intent to prevent a greater harm?

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: Read the situation.
A person does an act that may cause harm, but with no guilty intent, only to stop a bigger harm.

Step 2: Recall the defence of necessity.
Necessity allows a person to pick the smaller harm to avoid a greater one when caught in an emergency.

Step 3: Note the legal basis.
Section 81 of the IPC says an act is not an offence if done in good faith, without criminal intent, to prevent other harm.

Step 4: Separate it from the other defences.
Accident is an unintended result of a lawful careful act. Insanity is a mental incapacity. Duress is acting under another person's threat.

Step 5: Match the facts.
Choosing a lesser harm to avoid a greater one fits necessity exactly.

Answer: Necessity (Option 2).

Which principle is applied when a person performs an act that might cause harm, but is done without criminal intent to prevent a greater harm?

Show Hint

The Correct Option is B

Solution and Explanation

Top Questions on Criminal Law

Questions Asked in TS LAWCET exam