'A', the Captain of a steam vessel, suddenly and without any fault or negligence on his part, finds himself in such a position that, before he can stop his vessel, he must inevitably run down a boat 'B', with thirty passengers on board, unless he changes the course of his vessel and faces the risk to run down boat 'C', with two passengers on board. 'A' altered his course to save passengers in boat 'B' without any intention to run down the boat 'C' and in good faith. In the process of altering his course, he runs down boat 'C' with 2 passengers. In this case, 'A' can be held guilty of which one of the offences given below ?

This case is based on the Doctrine of Necessity, which was codified under Section 81 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) and is now contained in Section 24 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS), 2023. The principle states that an act likely to cause harm is not an offence if it is done without criminal intention, in good faith, and for the purpose of preventing or avoiding other greater harm to person or property.

The scenario provided is a classic illustration from the legal code. Since Captain 'A' acted without negligence and with the sole intention of saving thirty lives (a greater harm) at the risk of two (a lesser harm), his actions fall under this general exception. Because there was no mens rea (criminal intent) and the act was necessary to avoid a larger disaster, 'A' is not guilty of any offence.