Question

‘RANI’ ran to a well stating that she would jump into it, and she started running towards the well but she was caught before she could reach it.

• A. : She is not guilty of attempt to commit suicide because she might have changed her mind before jumping into the well.
• B. : She is guilty of attempt to commit suicide
• C. : Right to life includes rights right to die hence a person should not be held responsible for attempt to commit suicide.
• D. : None of the above.
• A. : SINY will be liable only for attempting to pick-pocket and not for killing because she cannot be treated differently from all other pick-pockets who steal under exactly similar circumstances and same intention, with no risk of causing death and with no greater care to avoid it.
• B. : SINY will be liable for attempting to murder
• C. : SINY will be liable for culpable homicide not amounting to murder as his intention was definitely not to kill.
• D. : None of the above
• A. : JAM is guilty for attempt to murder his wife.
• B. : JAM is not guilty for attempt to murder his wife and he was only doing preparation.
• C. : JAM is not guilty for attempt to murder his wife as she always had option to escape.
• D. : None of the above.

Answer 1

The Correct Option is A

In order to constitute an attempt, there must be both an intention to commit the offence and an overt act that goes beyond mere preparation. In this case, Rani only ran towards the well but did not actually jump or attempt to jump into it. Her actions suggest preparation, not a definitive attempt, as she could have changed her mind. Since the attempt was not proximate enough to the commission of suicide and did not cross the threshold of conduct element, she cannot be held guilty under attempt to suicide. \fbox{Final Answer: (A): She is not guilty of attempt to commit suicide because she might have changed her mind before jumping into the well.}

Answer 2

The legal principle here involves mens rea — the intention behind the act. SINY’s intention was to pick-pocket, not to cause death. The act of death was accidental and unforeseen. Since the act of putting his hand in the pocket was intended only for theft, and he could not reasonably foresee that it would result in death, he is not liable for murder or culpable homicide. The courts differentiate liability based on intention and foreseeability of consequence. \fbox{Final Answer: (A): SINY is liable only for attempt to pick-pocket.}

Answer 3

JAM confined his wife and denied her food with a clear intention to kill her. This act went beyond mere preparation and constituted a direct step towards causing her death. The fact that JANE survived does not reduce the gravity of the offence. The essential components of attempt — intention and overt act in execution — are present. Hence, JAM is guilty of attempt to murder. \fbox{Final Answer: (A): JAM is guilty for attempt to murder his wife.}