Necessity is not a defense for the murder

Barathkumar K M | Sastra Deemed to be University Thanjavur | 21st June 2020

R Vs Dudley and Stephens

Facts:

While travelling in a ship, the three men and a boy of 17 faced a storm and were trapped in the boat thousand miles from the land. They are suffering due to lack of sufficient water and food. After seven days, without the food and water, the captain of the ship, Dudley decided to kill one of the four men and so other three could survey by feeding on his flesh. Stephens agreed with Dudley but Ned Brooks refused to follow the method and the boy was not consulted. After some days Dudley and Stephens killed the boy and the three men fed on the boy’s flesh for four days and then they were rescued. This case was brought before the bench of five judges. 

Issues:

1. Whether necessity can be claimed as a defence for murder?
2. Whether killing of one person to save others, be termed as an act of self-defence?

Observation:

Richard suggested killing the boy to save his life that means he considered that his life was more important than the boy’s life. The boy was too young, he was just seventeen years old and had a family but Richard is an orphan and had no family to look after. To save one’s life by killing another is immoral and unresisting one. If necessity becomes the defence for the murder then everyone would be justified in killing and thereby would not be guilty of murder.

Self-defence is not applicable in this case. Because there is no treat to Dudley and Stephens’ lives, so the men cannot claim self-defence. Hence the act of Dudley and Stephens is an immoral, unjustified and unresisting one. 

Judgment:

This case was brought before the bench of five judges and the court held that if necessity became the defence for the crime, it would gradually weaken the system; the defence would encourage the people to do the crime. Then everyone will justify their crime. Dudley and Stephens were found to be guilty. They were sentenced to death but later the punishment was reduced to life imprisonment. Further, the court held that necessity is no defence for a crime.