Question

Principle: Nothing is an offence which is done by a person who, at the time of doing it, by reason of unsound state of mind, is incapable of knowing the nature of the act, or something that he is doing is either wrong or contrary to law.

Fact: X takes his son Y who is three years old, for bathing to the well. He throws his son inside the well so that the son can have a good bath. After 10 minutes he also jumps into the well to take bath and get his son out of the well. Both were rescued by the villagers but his son was found dead.

• A. X has committed culpable homicide amounting to murder
• B. X has committed murder
• C. X has done no offence as he can plead the defense of unsound state of mind
• D. X's family should be held responsible for allowing him to take the child to the well

Hint:

The facts never call X insane, so let his conduct speak. Ask what a man who throws a toddler into a well to bathe him, and then jumps in himself, must have understood about his own act.

Answer 1

The Correct Option is C

Step 1: Understanding the Question:
X throws his three year old son into a well believing this will give the boy a good bath, waits ten minutes, then jumps in himself both to bathe and to bring the boy out. Villagers pull both out but the child is dead. We must decide what offence, if any, X has committed.

Step 2: Key Formula or Approach:
The Principle gives a defence, and it turns on what the person was capable of knowing at the time of the act. It has two alternative branches.
Branch one, by reason of unsound state of mind he was incapable of knowing the nature of the act.
Branch two, by reason of unsound state of mind he was incapable of knowing that what he was doing was wrong or contrary to law.
If either branch is made out, the Principle says nothing he did is an offence at all. So the task is to look at X's conduct and ask what it shows about his understanding at that moment.

Step 3: Detailed Explanation:
The facts do not label X as insane, so we have to read his behaviour.
First, his stated purpose. He threw the child in "so that the son can have a good bath". That is not the thinking of a man who wants his son dead. A person who understood the nature of throwing a three year old into a well could not honestly believe it was a way of bathing him.
Second, his own conduct afterwards. He jumped into the same well himself, both to bathe and to get his son out. A man executing a murder does not follow his victim into the well and then need rescuing alongside him.
Third, the ten minute gap. He waited, as though nothing was wrong, which again shows he did not grasp what was happening to the child.
Put those three together and the picture is of a man who did not understand the nature of what he was doing. That squares with branch one of the Principle. Under the Principle, nothing he did is an offence.

Step 4: Checking the wrong options:
Options (A) and (B) both require a guilty mind, either an intention to kill or knowledge that death was likely. The bathing purpose and the jump into the well both point away from any such mind. These two options also say essentially the same thing in different words, since culpable homicide amounting to murder is murder.
Option (D) blames X's family. The Principle says nothing about anyone other than the doer of the act, and no facts are given about what the family knew or allowed. It is outside the material.

Step 5: Final Answer:
X's behaviour shows he could not know the nature of his act, so the Principle protects him. That is option (C).