Question Description
Principle:Nothing is an offense merely by reason of its being done with the knowledge that it is likely to cause harm, if it be done without any criminal intention to cause harm, and in good faith for the purpose of preventing or avoiding other harm to person or property.Facts:Hari,a bus driver was driving negligently and took a sharp turn without slowing down. Suddenly, he found a child standing on the road and in order to prevent him, he immediately turned his steering in other direction and collided with a car and thereby killed three individuals. The police charged him with death due to rash and negligent act. Decide whether Hari can avail the defense enunciated in the above principle.a)Yes, Hari acted in good faith and with proper knowledge to save the child and therefore is not liable.b)No, Hari should have not taken the turn without taking proper precautions on his part, failure of which denies him to resort to such a defense.c)Yes, Hari has acted to save the life of child and thus can resort to above defense.d)No, Hari did not act in good faith and neither his actions justified his driving negligently. Therefore, his defense will not subsist.Correct answer is option 'A'. Can you explain this answer? for CLAT 2024 is part of CLAT preparation. The Question and answers have been prepared according to the CLAT exam syllabus. Information about Principle:Nothing is an offense merely by reason of its being done with the knowledge that it is likely to cause harm, if it be done without any criminal intention to cause harm, and in good faith for the purpose of preventing or avoiding other harm to person or property.Facts:Hari,a bus driver was driving negligently and took a sharp turn without slowing down. Suddenly, he found a child standing on the road and in order to prevent him, he immediately turned his steering in other direction and collided with a car and thereby killed three individuals. The police charged him with death due to rash and negligent act. Decide whether Hari can avail the defense enunciated in the above principle.a)Yes, Hari acted in good faith and with proper knowledge to save the child and therefore is not liable.b)No, Hari should have not taken the turn without taking proper precautions on his part, failure of which denies him to resort to such a defense.c)Yes, Hari has acted to save the life of child and thus can resort to above defense.d)No, Hari did not act in good faith and neither his actions justified his driving negligently. Therefore, his defense will not subsist.Correct answer is option 'A'. Can you explain this answer? covers all topics & solutions for CLAT 2024 Exam. Find important definitions, questions, meanings, examples, exercises and tests below for Principle:Nothing is an offense merely by reason of its being done with the knowledge that it is likely to cause harm, if it be done without any criminal intention to cause harm, and in good faith for the purpose of preventing or avoiding other harm to person or property.Facts:Hari,a bus driver was driving negligently and took a sharp turn without slowing down. Suddenly, he found a child standing on the road and in order to prevent him, he immediately turned his steering in other direction and collided with a car and thereby killed three individuals. The police charged him with death due to rash and negligent act. Decide whether Hari can avail the defense enunciated in the above principle.a)Yes, Hari acted in good faith and with proper knowledge to save the child and therefore is not liable.b)No, Hari should have not taken the turn without taking proper precautions on his part, failure of which denies him to resort to such a defense.c)Yes, Hari has acted to save the life of child and thus can resort to above defense.d)No, Hari did not act in good faith and neither his actions justified his driving negligently. Therefore, his defense will not subsist.Correct answer is option 'A'. Can you explain this answer?.

Solutions for Principle:Nothing is an offense merely by reason of its being done with the knowledge that it is likely to cause harm, if it be done without any criminal intention to cause harm, and in good faith for the purpose of preventing or avoiding other harm to person or property.Facts:Hari,a bus driver was driving negligently and took a sharp turn without slowing down. Suddenly, he found a child standing on the road and in order to prevent him, he immediately turned his steering in other direction and collided with a car and thereby killed three individuals. The police charged him with death due to rash and negligent act. Decide whether Hari can avail the defense enunciated in the above principle.a)Yes, Hari acted in good faith and with proper knowledge to save the child and therefore is not liable.b)No, Hari should have not taken the turn without taking proper precautions on his part, failure of which denies him to resort to such a defense.c)Yes, Hari has acted to save the life of child and thus can resort to above defense.d)No, Hari did not act in good faith and neither his actions justified his driving negligently. Therefore, his defense will not subsist.Correct answer is option 'A'. Can you explain this answer? in English & in Hindi are available as part of our courses for CLAT. Download more important topics, notes, lectures and mock test series for CLAT Exam by signing up for free.

Here you can find the meaning of Principle:Nothing is an offense merely by reason of its being done with the knowledge that it is likely to cause harm, if it be done without any criminal intention to cause harm, and in good faith for the purpose of preventing or avoiding other harm to person or property.Facts:Hari,a bus driver was driving negligently and took a sharp turn without slowing down. Suddenly, he found a child standing on the road and in order to prevent him, he immediately turned his steering in other direction and collided with a car and thereby killed three individuals. The police charged him with death due to rash and negligent act. Decide whether Hari can avail the defense enunciated in the above principle.a)Yes, Hari acted in good faith and with proper knowledge to save the child and therefore is not liable.b)No, Hari should have not taken the turn without taking proper precautions on his part, failure of which denies him to resort to such a defense.c)Yes, Hari has acted to save the life of child and thus can resort to above defense.d)No, Hari did not act in good faith and neither his actions justified his driving negligently. Therefore, his defense will not subsist.Correct answer is option 'A'. Can you explain this answer? defined & explained in the simplest way possible. Besides giving the explanation of Principle:Nothing is an offense merely by reason of its being done with the knowledge that it is likely to cause harm, if it be done without any criminal intention to cause harm, and in good faith for the purpose of preventing or avoiding other harm to person or property.Facts:Hari,a bus driver was driving negligently and took a sharp turn without slowing down. Suddenly, he found a child standing on the road and in order to prevent him, he immediately turned his steering in other direction and collided with a car and thereby killed three individuals. The police charged him with death due to rash and negligent act. Decide whether Hari can avail the defense enunciated in the above principle.a)Yes, Hari acted in good faith and with proper knowledge to save the child and therefore is not liable.b)No, Hari should have not taken the turn without taking proper precautions on his part, failure of which denies him to resort to such a defense.c)Yes, Hari has acted to save the life of child and thus can resort to above defense.d)No, Hari did not act in good faith and neither his actions justified his driving negligently. Therefore, his defense will not subsist.Correct answer is option 'A'. Can you explain this answer?, a detailed solution for Principle:Nothing is an offense merely by reason of its being done with the knowledge that it is likely to cause harm, if it be done without any criminal intention to cause harm, and in good faith for the purpose of preventing or avoiding other harm to person or property.Facts:Hari,a bus driver was driving negligently and took a sharp turn without slowing down. Suddenly, he found a child standing on the road and in order to prevent him, he immediately turned his steering in other direction and collided with a car and thereby killed three individuals. The police charged him with death due to rash and negligent act. Decide whether Hari can avail the defense enunciated in the above principle.a)Yes, Hari acted in good faith and with proper knowledge to save the child and therefore is not liable.b)No, Hari should have not taken the turn without taking proper precautions on his part, failure of which denies him to resort to such a defense.c)Yes, Hari has acted to save the life of child and thus can resort to above defense.d)No, Hari did not act in good faith and neither his actions justified his driving negligently. Therefore, his defense will not subsist.Correct answer is option 'A'. Can you explain this answer? has been provided alongside types of Principle:Nothing is an offense merely by reason of its being done with the knowledge that it is likely to cause harm, if it be done without any criminal intention to cause harm, and in good faith for the purpose of preventing or avoiding other harm to person or property.Facts:Hari,a bus driver was driving negligently and took a sharp turn without slowing down. Suddenly, he found a child standing on the road and in order to prevent him, he immediately turned his steering in other direction and collided with a car and thereby killed three individuals. The police charged him with death due to rash and negligent act. Decide whether Hari can avail the defense enunciated in the above principle.a)Yes, Hari acted in good faith and with proper knowledge to save the child and therefore is not liable.b)No, Hari should have not taken the turn without taking proper precautions on his part, failure of which denies him to resort to such a defense.c)Yes, Hari has acted to save the life of child and thus can resort to above defense.d)No, Hari did not act in good faith and neither his actions justified his driving negligently. Therefore, his defense will not subsist.Correct answer is option 'A'. Can you explain this answer? theory, EduRev gives you an ample number of questions to practice Principle:Nothing is an offense merely by reason of its being done with the knowledge that it is likely to cause harm, if it be done without any criminal intention to cause harm, and in good faith for the purpose of preventing or avoiding other harm to person or property.Facts:Hari,a bus driver was driving negligently and took a sharp turn without slowing down. Suddenly, he found a child standing on the road and in order to prevent him, he immediately turned his steering in other direction and collided with a car and thereby killed three individuals. The police charged him with death due to rash and negligent act. Decide whether Hari can avail the defense enunciated in the above principle.a)Yes, Hari acted in good faith and with proper knowledge to save the child and therefore is not liable.b)No, Hari should have not taken the turn without taking proper precautions on his part, failure of which denies him to resort to such a defense.c)Yes, Hari has acted to save the life of child and thus can resort to above defense.d)No, Hari did not act in good faith and neither his actions justified his driving negligently. Therefore, his defense will not subsist.Correct answer is option 'A'. Can you explain this answer? tests, examples and also practice CLAT tests.