Question

Principle: Use of criminal force intentionally knowing that it would cause or is likely to cause injury or annoyance to the person against whom force is used, is an offence.
Facts: X, a renowned social worker who had launched a movement for the liberation of women, pulls up a Muslim women’s veil in public in good faith without her consent, causing annoyance to her.

• A. X is a renowned social worker and he has committed no offence because his motive was good
• B. X acted in good faith to liberate her from clutches of tradition and has hence committed no offence
• C. X has done the act in public and not in secrecy therefore had not committed any offence
• D. X has committed an offence by use of criminal force

Hint:

Even if an action is taken with good intentions, it does not justify the use of force without consent. The law takes into account the effects of the act rather than the motive.

Answer 1

The Correct Option is D

The principle states that any act that causes injury or annoyance, even with good intentions, is considered criminal force if performed without the consent of the other person. In this case, although X might have had good intentions (to liberate the woman), pulling off her veil in public is a violation of her personal space and consent. The act caused annoyance to the woman, which is a form of criminal force under the law. The fact that X acted in good faith does not absolve him from liability because the law does not permit physical interference with others’ rights, even for a seemingly righteous cause. Therefore, X has committed an offence by using criminal force.
Option (A) is incorrect because being a social worker does not exempt X from committing an offence. Option (B) is also incorrect because good intentions do not negate the act of criminal force. Option (C) is incorrect as performing the act in public does not exempt one from liability under criminal law.