Question:

Principle: Inducing any animal to move or to change its motion and thereby intentionally causing fear of injury or annoyance to others by such act, is an offence of use of criminal force.
Facts: X incites his dog to chase and run after his neighbour Y, to teach Y to stay away from him. The act is done without neighbour‘ consent and against his will
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
  • X has committed no offence
  • X has committed no offence because no harm is caused to Y
  • X has committed no offence because he intention only to put fear in the mind of Y
  • X has committed an offence of use of criminal force
Show Solution
collegedunia
Verified By Collegedunia

The Correct Option is D

Approach Solution - 1

The correct option is (D):X has committed an offence of use of criminal force .
Was this answer helpful?
0
0
Show Solution
collegedunia
Verified By Collegedunia

Approach Solution -2

The principle treats inducing an animal to move or change its motion, thereby intentionally causing fear of injury or annoyance to others, as an offence of using criminal force. X set his dog on his neighbour Y to chase him, meaning to teach Y a lesson, and did this without Y's consent and against Y's will.

  1. X has committed no offence: This does not engage with the facts at all, X deliberately incited his dog to chase Y without consent, which is the very conduct the principle describes as an offence.
  2. X has committed no offence because no harm is caused to Y: The principle is triggered by causing fear of injury or annoyance, it does not require that actual physical harm result. Being chased by a dog set loose intentionally is enough to cause that fear, regardless of whether Y was actually hurt.
  3. X has committed no offence because he intention only to put fear in the mind of Y: Intending to cause fear is not a defence under this principle, it is the exact mental element the principle requires for the offence, intentionally causing fear of injury or annoyance through inducing the animal's movement.
  4. X has committed an offence of use of criminal force: X intentionally incited the dog to chase Y, without Y's consent and against his will, and this was meant to cause fear, which lines up precisely with what the principle defines as this offence.

Since X deliberately set his dog on Y to frighten him, without consent and against Y's will, the facts satisfy every element the principle lists for this offence.

Therefore, the correct answer is X has committed an offence of use of criminal force.

Was this answer helpful?
0
0
Show Solution
collegedunia
Verified By Collegedunia

Approach Solution -3

The fact that decides this question is what the principle actually requires, inducing an animal to move in a way that intentionally causes fear of injury or annoyance, with no requirement that actual harm occur. Testing each option against that wording settles the matter.

  1. X has committed no offence: This does not engage with the facts at all, X deliberately set his dog on Y without consent, which is exactly the conduct the principle describes.
  2. X has committed no offence because no harm is caused to Y: The principle is triggered by causing fear of injury or annoyance, not by actual harm resulting, so the absence of physical injury does not remove what already happened, the fear caused by being chased.
  3. X has committed no offence because he intention only to put fear in the mind of Y: Intending to cause fear is not a defence, it is the exact mental element the principle requires, so this option treats the required element as an excuse.
  4. X has committed an offence of use of criminal force: This matches the wording directly, inciting the dog to chase Y, without consent and against his will, intentionally causing fear.

Testing each option against the principle's actual requirement, fear rather than harm, and intention rather than an excuse, leaves only the option finding an offence.

Therefore, the correct answer is X has committed an offence of use of criminal force.

Was this answer helpful?
0
0

Top CLAT Legal Studies Questions

View More Questions

Top CLAT Law of Torts Questions

View More Questions

Top CLAT Questions

View More Questions