Question

The question consists of legal propositions/ principles (hereinafter referred to as 'principle') and facts. These principles have to be applied to the given facts to arrive at the most reasonable conclusion.

Principle: Nothing is an offense which is done by a person who is bound by law to do it.

Facts: 'A', a police officer, without a warrant, apprehends 'Z', who has committed murder.

Options

• 'A' is guilty of the offense of wrongful confinement

• 'A' is not guilty of the offense of wrongful confinement

• 'A' may be guilty of the offense of wrongful restraint

• 'A' cannot apprehend 'Z' without a warrant issued by a court of law

Answer 1

'A' is not guilty of the offense of wrongful confinement

Explanation:

The principle given here is similar to that enshrined in section 76 of the Indian penal code, which states that nothing is an offense which is done by a person who is, or who by reason of a mistaken fact and not by reason of a mistake of law in good faith believes himself to be, bound by law to do it.  
In the present scenario, A is not guilty of the offense of wrongful confinement, because being a police officer he is duty-bound to apprehend Z, who has committed a murder. Thus, his, act comes within the purview of general exceptions of the Indian penal code.