Question:

Principle: Death caused by rash or negligent act of a person is an offence.
Facts: X was driving his SUV car in a lonely road leading to a forest at 160 km per hour. Suddenly, someone appears from the forest on the road and in the resultant accident, the car hits the commuter causing his death.

Show Hint

In case of accidents, even if there is no intention to harm, if the act is negligent or reckless, the person can still be held liable for the injury or death caused.
Updated On: Jul 15, 2026
  • X is not guilty of an offence as the accident has occurred on a lonely road
  • X is not guilty because there was no intention to kill the deceased
  • X is guilty of an offence death by rash or negligent act
  • X is not guilty because he was also injured in the accident
Show Solution
collegedunia
Verified By Collegedunia

The Correct Option is C

Approach Solution - 1

The principle clearly mentions that death caused by rash or negligent act is an offence. In this case, X was driving at a high speed (160 km/h), which is considered rash or negligent, especially in a lonely road where the presence of others could be less predictable. Even though X did not intend to kill the deceased, the fact that the accident occurred due to the high speed of the vehicle implies that X is guilty of causing death by rash or negligent driving. The accident, although in a lonely area, still resulted in a fatality due to X's actions, making him guilty under the principle of rash or negligent driving.
Thus, the correct answer is (C).
Option (A) is incorrect because the location of the accident does not absolve one from negligence. Option (B) is incorrect because intention to kill is not necessary for a charge of rash or negligent act. Option (D) is incorrect because being injured in the accident does not absolve one from criminal responsibility for rash driving.
Was this answer helpful?
0
0
Show Solution
collegedunia
Verified By Collegedunia

Approach Solution -2

This question checks whether driving at extreme speed on a lonely stretch of road amounts to a rash or negligent act when it results in death. Let's assess the options.

  1. X is not guilty, as the accident happened on a lonely road: A road being lonely does not license reckless speed; if anything, an unpredictable forest road calls for more caution, not less. The location of the accident does not erase the fact that 160 km/h is a rash speed to drive at.
  2. X is not guilty, because there was no intention to kill the deceased: The principle does not require an intention to kill; it only requires that death was caused by a rash or negligent act. Driving at 160 km/h is rash regardless of whether X meant to hurt anyone, so the absence of intent does not clear X.
  3. X is guilty of an offence of death by rash or negligent act: Driving at 160 km/h is an extreme speed that leaves no real room to react to anything appearing suddenly on the road, which is exactly the kind of rashness the principle targets. Since this rash driving directly caused the commuter's death, X falls squarely within the offence described.
  4. X is not guilty, because he was also injured in the accident: X being hurt in the same accident does not undo the rashness of driving at that speed or the fact that it caused another person's death. The principle looks at whether the act causing death was rash or negligent, not at whether the driver also suffered harm.

Since driving at 160 km/h on any road, however isolated, is an obviously rash act, and that act directly caused the death of the commuter, X's conduct fits the offence the principle describes.

So the correct answer is X is guilty of an offence of death by rash or negligent act.

Was this answer helpful?
0
0
Show Solution
collegedunia
Verified By Collegedunia

Approach Solution -3

Each wrong option here offers a fact that sounds relevant but plays no actual role in the offence of death by rash or negligent act. Identifying what that offence does and does not require clears this up.

  1. Not guilty, since the accident happened on a lonely road: This option treats the location as a shield, but the offence asks only whether the act causing death was rash or negligent; if anything, a road where anyone or anything could appear suddenly calls for more caution, not less, so the location does not help X.
  2. Not guilty, since there was no intention to kill: This option treats intent to kill as a requirement, but the offence is defined entirely in terms of rashness or negligence, not intention, so the absence of intent has no bearing on guilt.
  3. Guilty of death by rash or negligent act: This option applies the offence exactly as defined, driving an SUV at 160 km/h leaves virtually no ability to react to anything appearing on the road, which is the rashness the offence targets, and that rashness directly caused the death.
  4. Not guilty, since he was also injured: This option treats X's own injury as a shield, but the offence looks at whether the act causing death was rash or negligent, not at whether the person who caused it also suffered harm in the same incident.

None of the surrounding facts, the road's isolation, the absence of intent to kill, or X's own injury, touch what the offence actually requires, so the extreme speed and the resulting death leave X guilty as defined.

Therefore, the correct answer is X is guilty of an offence of death by rash or negligent act.

Was this answer helpful?
0
0

Top CLAT Legal Studies Questions

View More Questions

Top CLAT Criminal Law Questions

View More Questions

Top CLAT Questions

View More Questions