Question

R. V. Dudley & Stephen stands for the principle that:

• A. Killing an innocent life to save his own is not a defence and necessity cannot be pleaded as a defence against murder
• B. Necessity can be pleaded as a defence against murder, killing an innocent life to save his own may become inevitable
• C. Killing out of mercy is a defence and necessity cannot be pleaded as a defence against murder
• D. None of the above

Hint:

The principle in R. V. Dudley & Stephen emphasizes that necessity cannot justify the killing of an innocent person, even in life-threatening situations.

Answer 1

The Correct Option is A

Step 1: Understanding R. V. Dudley & Stephen case.
In the case of R. V. Dudley & Stephen, the court ruled that the killing of an innocent person to save oneself is not a valid defence in the case of murder, even if necessity is argued. The doctrine of necessity was not applicable in this case.
Step 2: Explanation of the options.
- (a) Killing an innocent life to save his own is not a defence and necessity cannot be pleaded as a defence against murder: This is correct, as per the judgment in R. V. Dudley & Stephen.
- (b) Necessity can be pleaded as a defence against murder, killing an innocent life to save his own may become inevitable: This is incorrect. Necessity is not accepted as a defence in this case.
- (c) Killing out of mercy is a defence and necessity cannot be pleaded as a defence against murder: This is incorrect. The case does not discuss killing out of mercy as a defence.
- (d) None of the above: This is incorrect, as (a) is the correct answer.
Step 3: Conclusion.
Thus, the correct answer is (a) Killing an innocent life to save his own is not a defence and necessity cannot be pleaded as a defence against murder.