K is in a house which is on fire with a three month old baby. People below hold out a blanket. K drops the baby from the house-top, knowing it well that the fall may kill the baby. His intention was not to kill but in good faith and for the benefit of the baby. Unfortunately the baby dies by the fall. Which one of the following is the correct legal position in this case?

Correct option is D

The correct option is (d) K would not be guilty of any offence.

Explanation:

This case is a direct application of the "General Exception" regarding acts done in good faith for the benefit of a person without consent.

• Legal Provision: Under Section 30 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS), 2023 (which corresponds to Section 92 of the old IPC), an act is not an offence if it is done in good faith for the benefit of a person, even without their consent, provided the circumstances make it impossible for the person to signify consent (or they are incapable of doing so, like a baby).
• Application to the facts:
1. Impossibility of Consent: A three-month-old baby is incapable of giving consent, and in a burning house, there is no time to seek a guardian's consent.
2. Knowledge vs. Intention: While K "knew" the fall might kill the baby, his intention was not to kill, but to save the baby from a certain death in the fire.
3. Good Faith: K acted with the sole purpose of benefiting the baby (saving its life).
• The Illustration: In fact, this scenario is explicitly listed as Illustration (4) under Section 30 of the BNS 2023, which concludes that even if the child is killed by the fall, the person (K) has committed no offence.

Information Booster:

Section 30 (Section 92 IPC) acts as a shield for "Good Samaritans" and professionals (like surgeons) in emergency situations. The key elements are:

• Benefit: The act must be for the benefit of the person harmed.
• Good Faith: It must be done with due care and attention.
• Urgency: It must be a situation where it is impossible to obtain consent in time to provide the benefit.