GENERAL EXCEPTIONS CASE LIST
CASE FACTS
R. v. Prince 1875
State of West Bengal v Shew Mangal
Singh & Ors
Chirangi v. the State of M.P
MISTAKE OF FACT/ ‘Ignorantia facti doth
excusat’- Mistake of fact is
Excusable. NOT WHERE THE FACT IS
ITLSELF ILLEGAL, in this case a man
was held guilty for abducting a girl below
16 under the belief that she was above 18.
MISTAKE OF FACT/ BOUND BY LAW
the Court opined that since the order was
justified and hence, lawful, no
supplementary question could stand as to
whether the respondents, who acted in
compliance to that order, believed or did not
believe that order to be lawful. Acts of the
police officers to open fire was acceptable,
they could not be held liable as they had
been acting in conformity with the orders of
the superior officer.
MISTAKE OF FACT/ In this case, a
widower holding axe accompanied by his
son, went to woods to gather ‘siadi’ leaves.
After some time, his nephew discovered that
the accused was sleeping under the tree and
the child was missing. Later the child was
found dead. It was transpired in evidence
that the accused at the time being was seized
of the state of mind in which he visualized
that a tiger was going to attack him as by
mistake he killed his son considering his son
as the tiger. The court stated that it was a
mistake of fact that immunized him from
liability. He had no intention to kill his son.
MISTAKE OF LAW/ Respondent, Mayer
Hans George, a German smuggler, left
 CASE
state of maharashtra v mh george
R Vs Dudley Stephen Case
Mg Naughten Case
FACTS
Zurich by plane on 27th November 1962
with 34 kilos of gold concealed on his
person to be delivered in Manila. The plane
arrived at Bombay on 28th of November.
The Customs Authorities, as a part of their
duties, inspected to check if any gold was
dispatched by any traveller and looked
through George, seized his gold and accused
him of the offence as per the notification
dated November 8, 1962, of the RBI which
was published in the Gazette of India on
24th of November which made such thing
illegal . Even though mens rea is essential
but in this case ignorance of law constituted
crime.
NECESSITY/ Dudley and Stephens
murdered parker in a stranded boat for their
survival. Yes, it is murder. Stephens and
Dudley to be sentenced to death. The
necessity of hunger does not justify larceny,
let alone murder. Stephens and Dudley
chose the weakest and youngest to kill and it
was not more necessary to kill him than any
of the other grown men. Their unfortunate
circumstances also do not lend leniency to
the legal definition of murder.
INSTANITY/ in order to establish an
insanity defence, it must be clearly proven
that at the time of the act, the accused was
under such a defect of reason from disease
of the mind that he did not know the nature
and quality of the act he was committing; or
if he did know, he did not know what he
 CASE FACTS
was doing was wrong.
Ahmed v. King, 1949 INSANITY/ Accused killed his son by
thrusting a knife in his throat under the
delusion and in pursuance of a command by
someone in paradise, given in his dream.
Not held liable.
INTOXICATION/ the appellant was a
retired military Jamadar. He was charged
with murder of a young boy .Both of them
were attending a wedding, Appellant asked
M, who had taken his seat, to step aside a
little so that he may occupy a convenient
seat. But M did not move. The appellant
whipped out a pistol and shot the boy in the
abdomen. The injury proved fatal. Along
Basdev vs State of Pepsu with other members of the wedding party,
the Jamadar boozed quite a lot of liquor and
he became very drunk and intoxicated. It
was found that although the appellant was
under the influence of drink he was not so
much under its influence that his mind was
so obscured by the drink that there was
incapacity in him to form the required
intention.
It was held that the offence was not
reduced from murder to culpable homicide
not amounting to murder under the second
part of Section 304.Thus, where the accused
was so heavily drunk that he was incapable
of forming the requisite intent to bring his
act within the ambit of the offence of
murder, in view of Section 86, the accused
should be imputed with the knowledge of
 CASE
Mirza Ghani Baig v. State of Andhra
Pradesh, 1997
State of UP v. Ram Swarup, 1974
FACTS
his act.
Voluntary drunkenness is no excuse for
commission of a crime. Section 86 is not
available in cases of voluntarily
intoxication.
RIGHT TO PRIVATE DEFENCE
SECTION 96/ On 7th June 1970 at about 7
a.m. one Ganga Ram went to the market to
purchase a basket of melons in subzi mandi
Badauin, Uttar Pradesh. Sahib Datta Mal
alias Munimji who was the melons vendor
refused to sell it saying that it was already
marked for another customer. This led to the
exchange of hot words and Munimji
asserting his authority said that he was the
thekedar of the market and his words were
final. Ganga Ram could not take the
challenge and left in huff.
An hour later Ganga ram along with his
three sons Ram Swarup, Somi and Subhash
went back to the market. Ganga ram had a
knife, Ram Swarup had a gun and two
others carried lathis. They advanced
aggressively to the car of Munimji who,
taken by surprise rushed to take shelter in
the neighboring kothi. But before he could
retreat Ram Swarup shot him dead at point
black range.
Court held that the person exercising the
right need not chase the feeling
attacker and then beat him.
 Need not weigh the arguments for and
against an attack in golden scales
 CASE
Deo Narain v. State of U.P. (AIR 1973 SC
473)
Surendra Kumar BhatiyaVs. Kanhaiya Lal
& seek immunity from prosecution in criminal
Others AIR 2009
Hari Singh Gond vs State of MP
FACTS
 The aggressor cannot claim the right to
self-defence
 No private defence against private
defence
PRIVATE DEFENCE/ SECTION 97/The
Court observed that a person could only
claim the right to use force after he has
sustained a serious injury by an aggressive
wrongful assault, is a complete
misunderstanding. In this case, the accused
used spear though other party had aimed
lathi blow on his head. The court held it is
proportionate as a reasonable aspersion was
there.
SECTION 77/ MISTAKE BY A JUDGE,/ if
judges perform their functions in good faith
then they are immune under this. The
Supreme Court has held that a district
collector is not a judge and as such cannot
cases. The court ruled that the immunity
granted to judges under Section 77 IPC
would not be available to district collectors
or the land acquisition officers who acquire
private lands and award compensation.
INSANITY/ there was no definition of
unsoundness of mind, and that courts have
mainly treated this expression as the
equivalent of insanity. However, the judges
further said insanity itself has no precise
definition but it is a term used to describe
varying degrees of mental disorder.
INSANITY/ Onus would be on accused to
prove by expert
 CASE FACTS
evidence that he is suffering from such a
mental disorder or mental condition
that he could be expected to be aware of the
State of Rajasthan VS Shera Ram consequences of his act -- Once a
person is found to be suffering from mental
disorder or mental deficiency, which
takes within its ambit hallucinations,
dementia, loss of memory and self control,
at all relevant times by way of appropriate
documentary and oral evidence, the
person concerned would be entitled to seek
recourse to general exception.
In Uphar Cinema Case Element of Good
Uphaar Theatre Case faith was lacking as the accused did not act
with proper care & Caution required by law.