Question

Principle : Nothing is an offence if it is done in good faith for the purpose of preventing or avoiding greater harm or damage to person or property.
Facts : A jumps into a swimming pool to save a boy from drowning. While pulling the boy from water A was hit by C. A left the boy in the water and attacked C. The boy died in the water.
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.

• A. A has not committed the offence of killing the boy.
• B. A has committed the offence of killing the boy.
• C. The boy has committed the offence of suicide.
• D. The boy has committed the offence of drowning.

Answer 1

The Correct Option is A

The correct option is (A): A has not committed the offence of killing the boy.

Answer 2

The principle says that nothing is an offence if done in good faith to prevent or avoid greater harm to a person or property. A jumped into a pool to save a drowning boy, was hit by C while pulling the boy out, left the boy and attacked C, and the boy then died. Let's look at each option.

1. Option A: A has not committed the offence of killing the boy: A's original act, jumping in to save the boy, is exactly the kind of good faith rescue the principle protects. The rescue was cut short only because C struck A. A turning to deal with C was a direct reaction to being hit, not a decision to abandon the boy to his fate. Since C's blow is what actually broke the rescue, the boy's death traces back to that intervening event, not to any intent of A's to cause harm.
2. Option B: A has committed the offence of killing the boy: This overlooks that A began with a good faith rescue attempt and only stopped because he was attacked by C. The interruption did not come from A choosing to let the boy die, it came from C's unlawful act against A.
3. Option C: The boy has committed the offence of suicide: Nothing in the facts suggests the boy tried to end his own life, he was a person drowning and being rescued, not someone who chose to die.
4. Option D: The boy has committed the offence of drowning: Drowning is something that happened to the boy, not an offence a person commits, this option does not fit the situation at all.

A's rescue attempt began in good faith, and it was interrupted by C's attack, so the resulting death of the boy cannot be pinned on A as an offence.

Therefore, the correct answer is A has not committed the offence of killing the boy.

Answer 3

Break this into two questions: was the original act done in good faith to prevent greater harm, and does the eventual outcome still trace back to that same conduct or to something else that intervened. Check each option against these two questions.

1. A has not committed the offence of killing the boy: The first question is answered yes, A jumped in specifically to save a drowning boy, a good faith act to prevent harm. On the second question, the chain was broken by C's blow, an intervening event not caused by A, so the boy's death traces back to that interruption rather than to any choice A made to abandon him.
2. A has committed the offence of killing the boy: This treats A's turning to deal with C as though it were a free choice to abandon the boy, but it was a direct reaction to being struck, the second question shows the interruption came from C, not from A.
3. The boy has committed the offence of suicide: Neither question even applies here, nothing in the facts suggests any intention by the boy to end his own life, he was simply a person drowning and being rescued.
4. The boy has committed the offence of drowning: This also does not engage either question meaningfully, drowning is something that happened to the boy, not a wrongful act capable of being an offence at all.

A's rescue passes the good faith test, and the break in that rescue came from C's intervening attack, not from any decision by A, so the boy's death cannot be pinned on A as an offence.

Therefore, the correct answer is A has not committed the offence of killing the boy.