Beruflich Dokumente
Kultur Dokumente
Illustrations:
(a) A, the captain of a steam vessel, suddenly and without an fault or negligence,
on his part, he finds himself in such a position that, before he can stop his vessel,
he must inevitably run down a boat B, with twenty or thirty passengers on board,
unless he changes the course o0f his vessel, and that, by changing his course, he
must incur risk of running down boat C with only two passengers on board, which
he may possibly clear. Here if A alters his course without any intention to run
down boat C and in good faith for the p[purpose of Avoiding the danger to the4
passengers in the b oat B, he is not guilty of an offence, though he may run down
the boat C by doing an act which he knew was likely to cause that effect, if it be
found as a matter of fact that the danger which he intended to avoid was such as to
excuse him in incurring the risk of running down the boat C.
(b) A, in a great fire, pulls down houses in order to prevent the conflagration from
spreading. He does this with the intention in good faith of saving human life and
property. Here, if it be found that the harm to be prevented was of such a nature
and so imminent as to excused A’s act. A is not guilty of the offence
stated by Pollard In Reniger Vs.Fogosia.: In every law there are some things,
which when they happen, a man may break the words of the law, and yet not break
the law itself and such things are exempted out of the penalty of the law and the
law privileges them although they are done against the letter (not the spirit) of it;
breaking the words of the law is not breaking the law, so long as the intent of the
law is not broken . It is a common proverb, ‘quod necessitas non habet legem’-
necessity knows no law.
Queen v Dudley and Stephens: Facts- In 1884, the respondents, with one Brooks,
and the deceased, a boy between 17 and 18 years of age, the crew of a registered
English vessel, were cast away in a steam on the High Seas. They had no supply of
water or food. On the 18th day prisoners spoke of their having families, and
suggested it would be better to kill the boy so that their lives should be saved.
Stephens agreed to the act, but Brooks dissented from it. Dudley, with the assent of
Stephens, went to the boy, who was extremely weakened by famine, put a knife
into his throat and killed him. The three men upon the body and blood of the boy
for four days; after which the boat was picked up by a passing vessel and the
prisoners were rescued, still alive.
If the men had not fed upon the boy, they would probably have not survived to be
picked up and rescued, but would within the four days have died of famine. The
boy, be4ing in a much weaker condition, was likely to have died before them. As
the time of the act in question there was no sail in sight, nor any reasonable
prospect of relief. Under these circumstances there appeared to the prisoners every
probability that unless they then fed or very soon fed upon the boy or one of
themselves they would die of starvation. There was no appreciable chance of
saving life except by killing someone for the others to eat. Assuming any necessity
to kill anybody there was no greater necessity for ki8lling the boy than any of the
other three of them.
Held: How far the conservation of a man’s life own life is in all cases and under all
circumstances an absolute, unqualified and paramount duty. We are dealing with a
case of private4 homicide, not once imposed upon men in the service of their
Sovereign and in the defence of their country. It is admitted that the deliberate
killing of this unoffending and unresisting boy was clearly murder, unless the
killing can be justified by some well-recognized excuse admitted by the law. It is
further admitted that there was in this case no such excuse, unless the killing was
justified by necessity.
But the temptation to the act which existed here was not just what the law has ever
called necessity..,. To preserve one’s life is generally speaking a duty, but it may
be the plainest and the highest duty to sacrifice it.
In United States v Holmes it was held that “Necessity does not justify
indiscriminate throwing of passengers overboard to save sinking boat”(Circuit
Court, Pennsylvania-United States-1842) it was further held in this case that
”Where the ship is in danger of sinking, but all sustenance is exhausted, and the
sacrifice of one person is necessary to appease the hunger of others, the selection is
by lot. This mode is resorted to as the fairest mode and in some sort, as an appeal
to God for selection of the victim. The judge further felt that if lots are drawn and
the victim resists’ force’ May be employed to coerce submission’.
The defendants in the fourth appeal, the proprietor of a clinic, whose customers
suffered from debilitating diseases(heat debilitates which-makes people weak) and
his courier, who had imported cannabis which was an offence under the customs
And Excise Management Act 1979 contended that a defence of necessity is
admissible since they had acted in the interests of others towards whom thy had
reasonably regarded themselves as responsible and why they had genuinely and
reasonably feared would suffer serious pain and or injury if they did not receive the
cannabis imported.
The reason is because, if hunger were once allowed to be an excuse for stealing, it
would open a way through which all kinds of disorder and lawlessness would pass.
So here, if homelessness were once admitted as a defence to trespass , no one’s
house could be safe. Necessity would open the door which no man could
slur…The plea would be an excuse for all sorts of wrongdoing. So the courts must
for the sake of law and order take a firm stand. They must refuse to admit the plea
of necessity to the hungry and the homeless and trust that their distress will be
relieved by the charitable and the good. Appeal got dismissed.
The following principles of Doctrine of Necessity were laid down by the Australia
supremecourt in this case:
i) The law recognizes the defense of necessity.
a) The criminal act must have been done only to avoid certain consequences which
would have inflicted irreparable evil upon the accused or upon whom he was
bound to protect.
b) The accused must honestly believe, on reasonable grounds that he was placed in
a situation of imminent peril.
c) The acts done to avoid peril must not be out of proportion to the peril to be
avoided.
d) The harm to be4 justified must have been committed under the pressure either of
p0hysical forces or exerted by some human agency so that an urgent situation of
imminent peril has been created.
e) The accused must have acted with the intention of avoiding a greater harm or so
as to have made possible the preservation of at least an equal value.
f) There was open to the accused no alternative other than that adopted by him to
avoid greater harm or to conserve the value.
The Privy Council did not accept the contention of the just necessity, as mixing
poison was done by the accused inte4ntionally and also with the knowledge that it
would cause grave danger to the people. The accused was punished under section
328.
Gopal Naidu v State (10922)46 Mad 605-Brief Facts: The accused was a rich
person in a village3. He drank and created public nuisance and also grave danger to
the public. The village Magistrate arrested him. The accused filed a case against
the village Magistrate.
The court upheld the act of villager Magistrate as it was necessary to protect the
people from the grave danger of the drunken accused.
Bibliography:
1.Pillai,PSA,Criminal Law