Question

Principle: Whoever causes death by rash or negligent act commits an offence.
Facts: X is having a house on the roadside which is also having a street on the back of the house. He has a lawn on the back of his house where he has built a toilet. To prevent the intruders from entering his house, he got the fence charged with a high voltage live electric wire. Z was passing through the street at the backyard of the house of X and sat down to take rest near the fence. While getting up, his hands came in contact with the fence which was connected to high voltage electric wire causing his death.
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 has not committed any offence because he has right to prevent trespass
• B. X has committed an offence of causing death by rash and negligent act
• C. X has committed no offence because he does not have any enmity with X
• D. X has committed an offence of Murder

Answer 1

The Correct Option is B

The correct option is (B):X has committed an offence of causing death by rash and negligent act .

Answer 2

The principle says whoever causes death by a rash or negligent act commits an offence. X ran a high voltage live wire along the fence at the back of his house to keep out intruders, and Z, who was simply passing through the public street behind the house and sat down to rest near the fence, died on touching it while getting up.

1. X has not committed any offence because he has right to prevent trespass: A right to prevent trespass does not stretch to charging a boundary fence next to a public street with lethal high voltage current, where anyone merely resting nearby could make contact with it. Using force that extreme against people who are not even entering the property is rash conduct, not a lawful use of the right.
2. X has committed an offence of causing death by rash and negligent act: Setting up a lethal electric current along a fence bordering a public street, where passersby could easily come into contact with it, is a rash and negligent act, and it caused Z's death exactly as the principle describes.
3. X has committed no offence because he does not have any enmity with X: Enmity, or the lack of it, toward the victim has no bearing on whether the act itself was rash or negligent. The principle looks at the nature of the act, not at the relationship between the parties.
4. X has committed an offence of Murder: The facts describe an act aimed generally at intruders through a booby trapped fence, not an act targeted at Z specifically with the intention or knowledge of causing his death. What the principle addresses here is death caused by rashness or negligence, which fits this fact pattern better than a charge of murder.

Because charging a fence next to a public street with lethal current is a rash and negligent act that led directly to a passerby's death, the facts match the offence the principle describes.

Therefore, the correct answer is X has committed an offence of causing death by rash and negligent act.

Answer 3

The fact that decides this question is where the fence was and who could reach it, a live high voltage wire along a boundary next to a public street, where Z, an ordinary passerby resting nearby, was fatally shocked. The principle is about rashness or negligence in causing death, so each option should be tested against that risk to the general public.

1. X has not committed any offence because he has right to prevent trespass: A right to prevent trespass does not stretch to lethal voltage on a fence bordering a public street, where people who are not even trying to enter the property, like Z, could be harmed, that risk to the public is what makes the act rash rather than a lawful defence of property.
2. X has committed an offence of causing death by rash and negligent act: This matches the deciding fact, a lethal current placed where passersby could foreseeably make contact is rash and negligent, and it caused Z's death exactly as the principle describes.
3. X has committed no offence because he does not have any enmity with X: Absence of enmity toward the victim has nothing to do with whether the act itself was rash, the principle looks at the nature of the act, not the relationship between the parties.
4. X has committed an offence of Murder: The fence was aimed generally at intruders, not targeted at Z specifically with intent or knowledge of causing his death, so the facts fit rashness and negligence better than a targeted killing.

Testing each option against the risk the live fence posed to ordinary passersby on a public street leaves only the option finding a rash and negligent act.

Therefore, the correct answer is X has committed an offence of causing death by rash and negligent act.