S TAT E O F O R I S S A V S B H A G A B A N B A R I K C A S E R E V I E W

INTRODUCTION

Chapter IV of the Indian Penal Code, titled “General Exceptions”, provides a shield against
criminal liability for certain individuals. It asserts that if an accused's action, even if it seems
to align with the definition of an offense or the prescribed punishment, is covered by any
exception in Chapter IV, it shall not be deemed an offense. This article specifically explores
Section 79 of the Code, which deals with acts justified by law. It suggests a prior reading of
the Mistake of Law and Mistake of Fact article to lay a foundation for understanding. Section
105 of the Indian Evidence Act places the onus on the accused to prove the existence of
circumstances falling within the General Exceptions. The court assumes the absence of such
circumstances unless demonstrated otherwise. It explicitly states that the court will presume
the lack of circumstances warranting inclusion under Chapter IV of the General Exceptions of
the Indian Penal Code, putting the burden on the accused to provide evidence establishing the
case's alignment with any of the General Exceptions. Quite a legal puzzle, isn't it? Section 79
stipulates that an act committed by a person, justified by law or based on a mistake of fact is
not considered an offense. Essentially, if someone acts in the genuine belief that they are
justified by law, even if there's a mistake of fact involved, it’s not deemed a criminal act.

INGREDIENT OF SEC 79

Section 79 lays out specific criteria to justify an act and excuse an individual from criminal
liability:

 The act is justified by law or is believed to be justifiable by law due to a mistake.

 The mistake is a mistake of fact.
 The act is carried out honestly and in good faith.

In essence, Section 79 provides a defense for a person who, in good faith, commits an act,
given that the act is either justified by law or the person sincerely believes it to be justified by
law.
The first part of the section asserts that when a person is legally justified in performing an
action, that action is not considered an offense. This justification arises when the law grants
the person the right to carry out the particular action. In this context, matters related to
mistake of fact, mistake of law, or good faith are not relevant because the action is justified
by law.

The second part of the section addresses the defense of mistake of fact. Here, an action is not
an offense if it is done by a person who, due to a mistake of fact and in good faith, believes
that they are justified by law to do it. In this part, the presence of mistake of fact and good
faith must be demonstrated, while the absence of mistake of law must be proven.

Additionally, private individuals acting under specific sections of the Code of Criminal
Procedure Sections 38, 43, 72, and 73 are protected under Section 79. This adds a layer of
legal protection for individuals performing certain actions under the specified sections.

GOOD FAITH

“Good Faith” is a crucial element for an individual to invoke defense under Sections 76 and
79. It entails acting with genuine intention, believing that one’s actions are justified by law. In
the legal context, “justified” means an act done with adequate reason, supported by credible
evidence and evaluated by an unbiased mind guided by common sense and the correct rule of
law, as per Black’s Law Dictionary.

The term “good faith” is explicitly defined in Section 52 of the Indian Penal Code as an
action performed or belief held with due care and attention. The General Clauses Act of 1897,
in Section 3(22), further elaborates on “good faith,” stating that an action shall be deemed to
be done in good faith when it is honestly carried out, regardless of whether it is done
negligently or not. Therefore, to avail oneself of the defenses outlined in Sections 76 and 79,
an individual must demonstrate that their conduct was characterized by genuine intention and
a sincere belief in the justifiability of their actions under the law.

In the case of Sheo Surun Sahai v. Mohamed Fazil Khan (1868) 10 WR (Cri) 20, a police
officer observed a horse on B’s premises that resembled one recently lost by the
complainant's father. Without thorough investigation, the officer concluded that B either stole
the horse or purchased it from the thief. B was compelled to surrender the horse, and S, from
whom B had bought the horse, was charged with theft and forced to give bail during the
 pending investigation. However, the officer failed to take the necessary steps to ascertain
whether the horse truly belonged to the complainant's father.

MISTAKE OF LAW

The court ruled that the police officer, in this instance, did not act in good faith nor with due
care. Consequently, Section 79 did not provide protection for his actions. This case highlights
the importance of genuine intention and careful consideration in invoking the defense under
Section 79 factors that were found lacking in the conduct of the police officer in this
particular situation.

FACTS OF THE CASE

 Jagat Bandhu Chatterjee, identified as P.W. 29, arrived in Rasgovindpur, Balasore district,
with his servant Ram Bahadur Thapa in April 1958 with the intention of purchasing the
abandoned aerodrome's aero scrap. The surrounding area was notorious for being haunted,
and they chose to stay in the residence of Krishna Chandra Patro,who operated a tea stall in
the village.
 In their eagerness to encounter the alleged ghosts, Jagat Bandhu Chatterjee and his servant
convinced Krishna Chandra Patro to join them on a midnight expedition. As they traversed
through camp No. IV, they observed a distant flickering light. The gusty wind intensified the
effect, leading them to believe that the light was no ordinary illumination. To their surprise,
they also spotted apparitions moving around the flickering light.
 The respondent took the initiative and initiated an assault on what he believed to be a ghost,
wielding his ‘Khurki.’ Krishna Chandra Patro joined the scene later, but the respondent,
engrossed in his actions, remained unaware of his presence. Unfortunately, one of the Khurki
blows inflicted a serious injury on Krishna Chandra Patro, prompting him to scream.
 Simultaneously, other injured individuals began to cry out in pain. The respondent ceased his
attacks upon realizing the situation. It was later discovered that the victims were local female
Majhis who had gathered beneath a “Mohua” tree with a hurricane lantern, engaged in
collecting ‘Mohua’ flowers.
 Tragically, Gelhi Majhiani lost her life due to the indiscriminate attack by the respondent,
while Ganga Majhiani (P.W. 28) and Saunri Majhiani sustained severe injuries. Additionally,
Krishna Chandra Patro also suffered injuries in the incident.

ISSUE before the court of law

 Did the respondent act recklessly and without proper care?

 Does Section 79 of the Indian Penal Code provide protection for the respondent's actions?
 Should the consideration of good faith take into account the accused's position and the
circumstances in which they acted?

JUDGEMENT

In the verdict, the High Court concluded that the defendant was shielded by Section 79 of the
Indian Penal Code. This determination was based on the reasonable inference drawn from the
circumstances surrounding the apparition’s appearance and the defendant's predisposition,
suggesting that he genuinely believed he was confronting a ghost rather than a human being.

The protection afforded by Section 79 I.P.C. to the respondent was affirmed through the
testimony presented by the prosecution witnesses.

Despite the acknowledgment that the incident might have been preventable with greater
caution on the part of the respondent, this factor was deemed insufficient to negate the
protection provided by Section 79. Consequently, the judgment of acquittal was upheld,
leading to the dismissal of the appeal.

CONCLUSION

The appropriate level of care and caution in assessing an individual's actions should be
determined by their capability and intelligence. The consideration of good faith must account
for the accused's position and the circumstances surrounding their conduct. This underscores
the principle that the law doesn't impose a uniform standard of care on everyone, recognizing
the variability based on individual roles and situations. It adds a nuanced dimension to the
evaluation of legal matters. Section 79 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) provides protection to
individuals acting in good faith and in the discharge of their official duties. It states that acts
done by a person justified by law, or in the exercise of a legal right, are not considered
offenses, even if those acts cause harm. The section essentially provides immunity to public
officials and individuals acting in good faith from being held criminally liable for their
actions performed in the discharge of their duties.