Question

Principle: Use of criminal force intentionally knowing that it would cause or is likely to cause injury or annoyance to the person against whom force is used, is an offence.
Facts: X, a renowned social worker who had launched a movement for liberation of women, pulls up a Muslim women‘s veil in public in good faith without her consent causing annoyance to her.
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. X is a renowned social worker and he has committed no offence because his motive was good
• B. X acted in good faith to liberate her from clutches of tradition and has hence has committed no offence
• C. X has done the act in public and not in secrecy therefore had not committed any offence
• D. X has committed an offence by use of criminal force

Answer 1

The Correct Option is D

The correct option is (D):X has committed an offence by use of criminal force .

Answer 2

The principle makes it an offence to use criminal force intentionally, knowing that it would cause or is likely to cause injury or annoyance to the person against whom the force is used. X, a well known social worker, pulled up a Muslim woman's veil in public without her consent, acting in good faith, and this caused her annoyance.

1. X is a renowned social worker and he has committed no offence because his motive was good: The principle is written around knowledge and likely effect, causing injury or annoyance, not around how respected or well intentioned the person applying the force happens to be. A good reputation does not appear anywhere in the definition of this offence.
2. X acted in good faith to liberate her from clutches of tradition and has hence committed no offence: Unlike some of the other principles in this set, this one carries no good faith carve out, it only asks whether force was used knowingly in a way likely to cause annoyance. Good motives toward liberation do not change that the act still fits the definition.
3. X has done the act in public and not in secrecy therefore had not committed any offence: Whether the act was done openly or secretly has no bearing on whether it used criminal force in a way likely to cause annoyance to the woman. Publicness might make the act more visible, but it does not remove the annoyance caused to her.
4. X has committed an offence by use of criminal force: Pulling up the veil without consent, in a way likely to cause and that did cause annoyance, matches every element the principle lists, intentional use of force, knowledge that it was likely to annoy, and it being directed at the woman.

Since X used force on the woman without her consent in a manner he could foresee would cause her annoyance, the act fits the offence defined by the principle regardless of X's motives or his standing as a social worker.

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

Answer 3

The fact that decides this question is what the principle actually asks for, intentional use of force known to be likely to cause injury or annoyance, with no carve out anywhere for good motives or public conduct. Testing each option against that narrow wording resolves the question.

1. X is a renowned social worker and he has committed no offence because his motive was good: Reputation is not part of what the principle asks about at all, it asks about knowledge and likely effect, so a good reputation does not appear anywhere in the test.
2. X acted in good faith to liberate her from clutches of tradition and has hence has committed no offence: This principle carries no good faith exception, unlike some related rules, it only asks whether force was used knowingly in a way likely to cause annoyance, and good intentions toward liberation do not change that the act still fits.
3. X has done the act in public and not in secrecy therefore had not committed any offence: Whether the act was public or secret is not part of the principle's wording either, publicness does not remove the annoyance caused to the woman.
4. X has committed an offence by use of criminal force: This is the only option that matches the principle's actual wording, force used intentionally, in a way likely to cause annoyance, directed at the woman without her consent.

Since none of motive, good faith, or publicness appear in the principle's own test, only the option built on the actual wording, intentional force likely to cause annoyance, survives.

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