Scribd
Upload
99 views2 pages

Necessity

The Doctrine of Necessity under Section 81 of the Indian Penal Code allows individuals to avoid criminal liability when their actions, taken in good faith to prevent greater harm, lack criminal intent. This doctrine emphasizes the importance of proportionality and the distinction between public and private necessity, with historical precedents highlighting its application in crisis situations. However, it does not provide blanket immunity, particularly against actions that violate human rights or dignity, as illustrated in notable cases like Queen vs. Dudley and Stephens and Dhania Daji vs. Emperor.

Uploaded by

aryan
Copyright
© © All Rights Reserved
We take content rights seriously. If you suspect this is your content, claim it here.
Available Formats
Download as PDF, TXT or read online on Scribd
99 views2 pages

Necessity

The Doctrine of Necessity under Section 81 of the Indian Penal Code allows individuals to avoid criminal liability when their actions, taken in good faith to prevent greater harm, lack criminal intent. This doctrine emphasizes the importance of proportionality and the distinction between public and private necessity, with historical precedents highlighting its application in crisis situations. However, it does not provide blanket immunity, particularly against actions that violate human rights or dignity, as illustrated in notable cases like Queen vs. Dudley and Stephens and Dhania Daji vs. Emperor.

Uploaded by

aryan
Copyright
© © All Rights Reserved
We take content rights seriously. If you suspect this is your content, claim it here.
Available Formats
Download as PDF, TXT or read online on Scribd
You are on page 1/ 2

De Facto IAS

Doctrine of Necessity
Section 81 of the Indian Penal Code offers a ➢ Good Faith: The individual must
compelling study of the legal doctrine of genuinely believe that their action was
necessity. This provision is framed to absolve necessary to avert greater harm.
individuals from criminal liability when their ➢ Proportionality: The harm caused
actions, though potentially harmful, are must not be disproportionate to the
undertaken without criminal intent and in a harm avoided.
bid to prevent greater harm. This concept,
deeply rooted in both moral and practical Illustration
jurisprudence, is crucial for understanding the The doctrine is illustrated by the hypothetical
intersections of law, morality, and human scenario of a ship captain, 'A', who must
survival instincts. decide in an emergency whether to collide
with a smaller boat to avoid hitting a larger
Historically, the justification for this exemption one, potentially saving more lives. This
was notably discussed by Lord Mansfield in decision, if made without intent to harm and
George Stratton's case, where he asserted in good faith, could be protected under
that an act done out of natural necessity is Section 81, demonstrating the legal tolerance
involuntary and thus not criminal. Globally, for split-second decisions in crisis situations.
this defence finds parallels in the legal
systems of countries like the United States, Queen vs. Dudley and Stephens (1884)
Germany, and even former Soviet states, The court's decision in Dudley and Stephens
indicating its fundamental role in criminal law. established a critical legal precedent:

Important Links for Judiciary Free Resources


(Click on Each to Open Respective Pages)

Subject Wise Mains PYQ Solution Essay for Judiciary

Subject Wise Notes Legal Doctrines

Landmark Judgements GS Notes

Weekly Current Affair Subject Wise Prelims PYQ Solution

Free Answer Writing Course Judgement Writing

Telegram Link Youtube Link

Application and Limitations necessity does not justify the taking of an


The defence of necessity does not grant innocent life, even in the most extreme
blanket immunity but applies under stringent circumstances. The ruling emphasised
conditions: several key principles:
➢ Absence of Criminal Intent: The action
must not stem from a desire to cause ➢ Limitation of Self-Preservation:
harm. Self-preservation, while a powerful

www.defactojudiciary.in
De Facto IAS

instinct, does not confer an absolute


right to harm others to save oneself.

➢ Prohibition of Private Homicide: The


law distinguishes between public
necessity (actions taken for the
greater good) and private necessity
(actions taken for personal survival).
The latter does not justify homicide.

➢ Ethical and Legal Boundaries: The


court delineated the boundaries of
necessity, asserting that it should not
and cannot justify actions that are
fundamentally against the principles
of human rights and dignity.

Dhania Daji vs. Emperor


In the case of Dhania Daji vs. Emperor
(1868), the accused also employed a
necessity defence, claiming his action of
poisoning toddy was intended to catch a thief,
not to harm consumers. However, the court
rejected this defence, noting that the action
was not proportional to the threat posed and
it was not conducted in good faith concerning
public safety.

www.defactojudiciary.in

You might also like