Question

Z is carried off by a tiger. X fires at the tiger, knowing that the shot might kill Z, but with no intention to kill Z, and in good faith trying to save Z. X's shot, however, gives Z a mortal wound. Choose the correct option:

• A. X has committed an offence of a grievous nature.
• B. X has no moral duty to save Z therefore he can be held liable.
• C. X has not committed any offence, as the act was in good faith and for the benefit of Z.
• D. None of the above

Hint:

Separate knowledge of a risk from intention to cause harm. The Penal Code protects an act done in good faith for another person's benefit when consent cannot be obtained.

Answer 1

The Correct Option is C

Step 1: Understanding the Question.
X fired a shot that ended up mortally wounding Z. On the bare facts, X caused Z's death. The question is whether the surrounding circumstances take X's act out of the definition of an offence. This is a question about the general exceptions in the Indian Penal Code, which convert what would otherwise be a crime into no offence at all.

Step 2: The Rule Being Tested.
The Penal Code protects an act done in good faith for the benefit of another person, even without that person's consent, where the situation makes it impossible to obtain consent and the act is done to prevent a greater harm. Good faith here means the act was done with due care and attention, and not to cause the harm that resulted. The protection covers exactly the case where a rescuer risks hurting the very person he is trying to save.

Step 3: Applying the Rule to X.
Check each ingredient against the facts.
Was the act done for Z's benefit? Yes. Z was being carried off by a tiger and would almost certainly have died. Firing at the tiger was Z's only chance.
Was it done in good faith? Yes. The facts say X fired trying to save Z, not to harm him.
Was there an intention to kill Z? No. The facts expressly say X had no intention to kill Z. Knowledge that the shot might hit Z is not the same as intending to hit him.
Could consent have been asked for? No. Z was in the tiger's jaws, and there was no time for anything.
Every ingredient is met, so X commits no offence. These very facts are the illustration attached to the Penal Code provision that protects acts done in good faith for a person's benefit without consent.

Step 4: Why the other options fail.
Option (A) ignores the exception entirely. It looks only at the outcome, a mortal wound, and labels it grievous. But the general exceptions operate precisely on acts that do cause harm.
Option (B) is confused on two counts. It says X had no moral duty to save Z, and then concludes X is liable. Liability does not arise from the absence of a duty to rescue. The exception protects a volunteer rescuer whether or not he was obliged to act.
Option (D) is ruled out because option (C) is a correct statement of the law.

Final Answer:
X committed no offence because his act was done in good faith and for Z's benefit. Option (C) is correct.