A. A, B and C would be liable for murder of the boy because self-preservations not an absolute necessity and there can be no necessity that justifies homicide.
B. A, B, and C were not liable for murder of the boy because Sec.81 of the Penal Code justifies causing of lesser evil in order to avoid greater evil.
C. A, B and C were not liable for murder of the boy because to preserve one’s life is generally speaking a duty and in the present case there was no other way of saving the life of all the three except that some one was killed to save others from death by starvation.
D. A, B and C would not be liable because, the rule that a necessity can never be a defence to a charge of homicide is not conclusive and justifies homicide in self-defence.
✅ The correct answer is option A.