Question

Principle : Whoever takes away any moveable thing from the land of any person without that person‘s consent is said to commit theft.
Facts : During his visit to the home of C, A asks B, the son of C, to accompany A to a forest. Neither A nor B inform C in this regard. B accompanies A to the forest.
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. A has committed theft.
• B. A has not committed theft.
• C. A has committed theft as soon as he entered the home of C.
• D. A has not committed theft till B did not accompany him.

Answer 1

The Correct Option is B

The correct option is (B): A has not committed theft.

Answer 2

The principle defines theft as taking away any moveable thing from a person's land without that person's consent. A asked B, C's son, to come along to the forest, without telling C, and B agreed and went. Let's check whether this fits the definition of theft.

1. Option A: A has committed theft: Theft under this principle is about taking a moveable thing, an object, from someone's land. B is a person with his own will, not property, so taking him along cannot be theft under this wording.
2. Option B: A has not committed theft: B chose to accompany A, he is not a moveable object being carried away, he is a living person capable of deciding for himself. Since the principle only covers taking a moveable thing, and B does not qualify as one, no theft occurs here, whatever C's feelings about not being told.
3. Option C: A has committed theft as soon as he entered the home of C: Simply entering someone's home is not the act the principle describes. Theft requires taking a moveable thing away, and nothing was taken at the moment A entered the house.
4. Option D: A has not committed theft till B did not accompany him: This wording suggests theft would begin once B goes along with A. But since B is a person and not a moveable thing, theft never arises at any point in this sequence, not before B agrees to go and not after.

Because the principle's definition of theft is limited to taking a moveable thing, and B is a person who accompanied A by his own choice, none of the facts amount to theft.

Therefore, the correct answer is A has not committed theft.

Answer 3

Break the principle into its required ingredients: theft under this wording needs (i) a moveable thing, (ii) taken from a person's land, (iii) without that person's consent. Check whether B, a person, can even satisfy the first ingredient before going further.

1. A has committed theft: This fails at the very first ingredient, B is a person exercising his own will and choosing to go along, not an object or moveable thing being carried away, so the taking-of-a-thing requirement is never met.
2. A has not committed theft: Since the first ingredient is never satisfied, there being no moveable thing involved at all, none of the later ingredients even come into play, and theft cannot arise on these facts.
3. A has committed theft as soon as he entered the home of C: The second ingredient requires an actual taking away of something, mere entry into a house is not a taking, so this fails at the threshold regardless of what happens afterward.
4. A has not committed theft till B did not accompany him: This assumes the threshold for theft might be crossed once B goes along, but since the first ingredient, a moveable thing, is never met by a person at any stage, the timing question does not even arise.

Since B is a person and not a moveable thing, the very first ingredient the principle requires is missing throughout, so theft never arises at any point in these facts.

Therefore, the correct answer is A has not committed theft.