Indian Penal Code – I (LL241)

Unit – IV

General Exceptions

Dr. Sumanta Meher

Assistant Professor
Teaching Objective, Learning Outcome and
Methods
• Teaching Objective
• To make students understand the general exceptions to the criminal liability
as prescribed by IPC.
• Learning Outcome
• The students will come to know the various defences available for the evading
of criminal liability. .
• Teaching Methods
• Questions answer method
• Case discussion
General Exceptions

Chapter IV of the IPC

From Sections 76 to 106 of IPC

Criminal Liability - General Exceptions

• Unable to know the nature and consequences of the act.
• Not intended to commit crime.
Conti…
General Exceptions

Excusable exceptions (lack of Justifiable exceptions (act is legally

requisite mens rea) justified)

Judicial Acts (S. 77 & 78); Necessity (S. 81);

Mistake (S. 76 & 79); Accident (S.
Consent (S. 87-89 & 92); Communication (S.
80); Infancy (S. 82 & 83); Insanity
93); Trifle Acts (S. 95); Duress (S. 94); Private
(S. 84); Intoxication (S. 85 & 86)
Defence (S. 96- 106)
Applicability of General Exceptions

Offences as mentioned in IPC

• Section 6 of IPC

Offences as mentioned in other laws

• Section 40 para 2 of IPC
• Shankar Narayan Bhadolkar v State of Maharashtra, AIR 2004 SC 1966
Plea of General Exceptions

Accused will take the plea of General Exceptions

Burden of Proof lies on the persons who take the plea of General Exceptions
• Section 105 in The Indian Evidence Act, 1872

Court has the responsibility to remind

Standard of proof – preponderance of probability

• Harbhajan Singh v State of Punjab AIR 1966 SC 97
Mistake of Fact

Ignorantia Facti Excusat, Ignorantia Juris Non Excusat

• ignorance of fact is an excuse but ignorance of law is no excuse.

Section 76 and Section 79 of the IPC

An act is considered as done by mistake if;

• The act is justified on the basis of the state of things believed to exist, if true.
• The mistake must be reasonable.
• The mistake must be of fact and not of law.
Conti…

Section 76 of IPC - Act done by a person bound, or by mistake of fact believing himself bound, by
law.—

Nothing is an offence which is done by a person who is, or who by reason of a mistake of fact and
not by reason of a mistake of law in good faith believes himself to be, bound by law to do it.

Illustrations
• (a) A, a soldier, fires on a mob by the order of his superior officer, in conformity with the commands of the law. A has
committed no offence.
• (b) A, an officer of a Court of Justice, being ordered by that Court to arrest Y, and after due enquiry, believing Z to be Y,
arrests Z. A has committed no offence
Conti…
Section 79 of IPC - Act done by a person justified, or by mistake of fact believing himself,
justified, by law.

Nothing is an offence which is done by any person who is justified by law, or who by
reason of a mistake of fact and not by reason of a mistake of law in good faith, believes
himself to be justified by law, in doing it.

Illustration

• A sees Z commit what appears to A to be a murder. A, in the exercise, to the best of his judgment exerted in
good faith, of the power which the law gives to all persons of apprehending murderers in the fact, seizes Z, in
order to bring Z before the proper authorities. A has committed no offence, though it may turn out that Z was
acting in self-defence.
Ingredients of Section 76 and 79
Mistake of Fact
• It is an factual error
• Reg v Frederick Jones, XI Cox CC 544
• R v Tolson (1889) 23 QBD 168
• Keso Sahu v. Saligram Shah, 1977 CriLJ 1725
• State Of Orissa vs Khora Ghasi, 1978 CriLJ 1305

Not by Mistake of Law

• Everyone has to know the law
• Public should not take the advantage of not knowing the law
• State Of Maharashtra vs Mayer Hans George, AIR 1965 SC 722
Conti…

Act done in Good Faith

• Section 52 of IPC
• with due care and attention

Acts Done by Persons Bound by Law or Justified by Law

• Acts done under Order of a Superior Authority
• State of WB v Shew Mangal Singh, 1981 Cr LJ 1683
Judicial Acts

Section 77 and Section 78 of IPC

Objectives
• Provides protection to judges and their staff who are executing the
orders of the judges
• to ensure the independence of the judges and to enable them to
discharge their duties without any fear of the consequences
Conti…

Section 77 of IPC - Act of Judge when acting judicially.

Nothing is an offence which is done by a Judge when

acting judicially in the exercise of any power which
is, or which in good faith he believes to be, given to
him by law.
Scope of immunity under Section 77

The act must be done by a judge in discharge of his official capacity

The act must be done within the jurisdiction

The act must be done in good faith

• Delhi Judicial Services Association, Tis Hazari Court v. State of Gujarat, 1991 AIR
2176
Conti…

Section 78 of IPC - Act done pursuant to the judgment or order of Court

Nothing which is done in pursuance of, or which is warranted by the

judgment or order of, a Court of Justice; if done whilst such judgment or
order remains in force, is an offence, notwithstanding the Court may have
had no jurisdiction to pass such judgment or order, provided the person
doing the act in good faith believes that the Court had such jurisdiction.
Scope of immunity under Section 78

Act must be done in pursuance of or which is warranted

by the judgment or order of a Court of Justice

Act must be done in good faith

• Sheo Narain v State of Rajasthan, (1999) 2 CriLJ 169(Raj)
Accident or Misfortune
Section 80 of IPC

Objective
• Act done without mens rea
• Beyond the control of anyone

Section 80 of IPC - Accident in doing a lawful act

Nothing is an offence which is done by accident or misfortune, and without any criminal
intention or knowledge in the doing of a lawful act in a lawful manner by lawful means and
with proper care and caution.
Conti…

Illustration - A is at work with a hatchet; the head flies off and kills
a man who is standing by. Here, if there was no want of proper
caution on the part of A, his act is excusable and not an offence.

Ingredients
• Act is done by accident or misfortune
• Act is done without any criminal intention or knowledge
• A lawful act in a lawful manner by lawful means and with proper care and
caution.
Conti…

Cases

Girish Saikia v State of Assam, (1993) CrLJ 3808 (Gau.)

State v Rangaswami, AIR 1952 Nag 268

Sita Ram v State of Rajasthan, (1998) CrLJ 287 (Raj)

Necessity
Quod necessitas non habet legem
• Necessity knows no law / Necessity has no law

Necessitas Vincit Legem

• necessity overrules the law

R v Dudley and Stephens, (1884) 14 QBD 273

• Principle laid down
• Self-preservation is not an absolute necessity;
• No person has a right to take another’s life to preserve his own (except private defence)
• There is no necessity that justifies homicide.
Necessity

Section 81 of IPC
• Act likely to cause harm, but done without criminal intent, and to prevent
other harm
• Nothing is an offence merely by reason of its being done with the knowledge
that it is likely to cause harm, if it be done without any criminal intention to
cause harm, and in good faith for the purpose of preventing or avoiding other
harm to person or property.
• Explanation.—It is a question of fact in such a case whether the harm to be
prevented or avoided was of such a nature and so imminent as to justify or
excuse the risk of doing the act with the knowledge that it was likely to cause
harm.
Conti…

Illustrations (a) (b)

Ingredients
• Act must have been done without any criminal intention to cause harm
• It is done in good faith for the purpose of preventing or avoiding other harm to person or
property.
• The harm must have been done in order to avert a greater harm

Dendati Sannibabu vs Varadapureddi Sannibabu And Ors, AIR 1959 AP 102

Infancy

Doli incapax
• Child incapability of committing a crime

Infancy – Section 82 and Section 83 of IPC

Section 82 – Absolute immunity

Section 83 – Partial Immunity

Conti…

Section 82 of IPC

Act of a child under seven years of age

Nothing is an offence which is done by a child under seven years of age.

Conti…

Section 83 of IPC

Act of a child above seven and under twelve of immature

understanding

Nothing is an offence which is done by a child above seven years of

age and under twelve, who has not attained sufficient maturity of
understanding to judge of the nature and consequences of his
conduct on that occasion.
Essential Ingredients

Absolute immunity
• Act of Child under Seven Years of Age

Partial Immunity
• Act of a Child above Seven (7) but Below twelve (12) Years of Age
• Maturity of Understanding
Conti..

Cases
• Hiralal Mallick v State of Bihar, 1977 CrLJ 1921
• Kalka Prasad v State of Uttar Pradesh AIR 1959 All 698

Criminal Liability of Juvenile in other law

• Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2000
Insanity or Mental Abnormality
Furiousi nulla voluntas est - a mad man has no free will.

Furiosus furore sui puniter - A mad man is punished by his madness

Insanity or Mental Abnormality – absence of mens rea

R v McNaughten (1843) 8 E.R. 718

• McNaughten rule
• A defendant wishing to rely on the defence of insanity must show that:
• They laboured under a defect of reason
• Caused by a disease of the mind; so that either
• He did not know the nature and quality of his acts, or that he did not know what he was doing was
wrong.
Conti…

Section 84 of IPC - Act of a person of unsound mind.—

Nothing is an offence which is done by a person who,

at the time of doing it, by reason of unsoundness of
mind, is incapable of knowing the nature of the act, or
that he is doing what is either wrong or contrary to
law.
Conti…

Ingredients of Section 84 of IPC

• That the accused was of unsound mind;
• That he was of unsound mind at the time he did the act
and not merely before or after the act; and
• That as a result of unsoundness of mind he was
incapable of knowing the nature of the act and that
what he was doing was either wrong or contrary to law.
Conti…

Insanity

Medical Legal Insanity

Insanity (Section 84 )
Conti…
• Cases
• State of Madhya Pradesh v Ahmadulla, AIR 1961 SC 998
• Surendra Mishra v State of Jharkhand, AIR 2011SC 627
• Bhikari v State of Uttar Pradesh, AIR 1966 SC 1
Intoxication
Intoxication is a state of mind in which the person is incapable of knowing the nature of act or he was
doing an act which was either wrong or contrary to law.

Section 85 and 86 of IPC

Section 85 of IPC - Act of a person incapable of judgment by reason of intoxication caused against his
will.—

Nothing is an offence which is done by a person who, at the time of doing it, is, by reason of intoxication,
incapable of knowing the nature of the act, or that he is doing what is either wrong, or contrary to law:

Provided that the thing which intoxicated him was administered to him without his knowledge or against
his will.
Conti…

Ingredients of Section 85:-

Incapable of knowing the nature of the act; or

That he was doing what was either wrong or contrary to law;

That the thing which intoxicated him was given to him without his knowledge
or against his will.
Conti…

Section 86 of IPC - Offence requiring a particular intent or knowledge committed by

one who is intoxicated

In cases where an act done is not an offence unless done with a particular knowledge
or intent,

a person who does the act in a state of intoxication shall be liable to be dealt with as if
he had the same knowledge as he would have had if he had not been intoxicated,

unless the thing which intoxicated him was administered to him without his
knowledge or against his will.
Conti…
Ingredients of Section 86 :-

The absence of understanding the nature and consequences of an act whether produced by
drunkenness or otherwise is not a defence to the crime charged.

The evidence of drunkenness which renders the accused incapable of forming the specific intent
essential to constitute the crime, should be taken into consideration with other proven facts in
order to determine whether or not he had this intent.

The evidence of drunkenness falls short to prove the incapacity of rational judgement, and merely
establishing that his mind was affected by a drink which gave way to some violent passion, does
not rebut the presumption that a man intends the natural consequences of his acts.
Conti…
• Cases
• Basudev v. State of Pepsu ,AIR 1954 SC 722.
• Mavari Surya Satyanarayana vs state of Andhra Pradesh, (1995) 1 CrLJ
689).
Consent and Compulsion (Acts not
Intended to Cause Death or Injury)
Roman law maxim - Volunti non fit injuria

Sections 87 to 94 of IPC - deal with Consent and Compulsion as a general exception

Section 90 explains what is not consent

Sections 87 and 91 lay down the law of consent as a defence

Sections 88, 89, 92 and 93 lay down the law relating to immunity for the harm caused, in good faith, with or without
consent, for the benefit of the sufferer

Section 94 exempts a person from criminal liability for acts committed, with specified exceptions, under compulsion
or duress.
What is Consent?

Consent means something that is done deliberately and by free will.

Law of Contract
• an agreement of two or more person upon the same thing in the same manner

Consent is also a good defence for avoiding the criminal liability.

• (1) that every person is the best judge of his own interests, and
• (2) that no man will consent to what he thinks hurtful to himself

In IPC consent has been defined in a negative sense.

Conti…

Section 90 of IPC - Consent known to be given under fear or misconception

A consent is not such a consent as is intended by any section of this Code, if the consent is given by a
person under fear of injury, or under a misconception of fact, and if the person doing the act knows, or
has reason to believe, that the consent was given in consequence of such fear or misconception; or

Consent of insane person.—if the consent is given by a person who, from unsoundness of mind, or
intoxication, is unable to understand the nature and consequence of that to which he gives his consent;
or

Consent of child.—unless the contrary appears from the context, if the consent is given by a person who
is under twelve years of age.
Acts Done by Consent

Section 87. Act not intended and not known to be likely to

cause death or grievous hurt, done by consent

Elements
• Absence of Intention
• Absence of Knowledge
• Express or Implied Consent
• Not intended to cause death, or grievous hurt
Benevolent Acts With Or Without Consent

Section 88. Act not intended to cause death, done by consent in

good faith for person's benefit

Section 89. Act done in good faith for benefit of child or insane
person, by or by consent of guardian.

Section 92. Act done in good faith for benefit of a person without
consent
Conti…
• Common Ingredients
• No Criminal Intention to Cause Death
• For the Benefit of the Person
• Consent
• Good Faith
• Sukaroo Kobiraj vs The Empress, (1887) ILR 14 Cal 566
• Juggankhan vs State Of Madhya Pradesh, 1965 AIR 831
• Suresh Gupta v Govt. of NCT of Delhi, AIR 2004 SC 4091
Where consent does not absolve a doer

Section 91 of IPC

Exclusion of acts which are offences independently of harm cause.

The exceptions in sections 87, 88 and 89 do not extend to acts which are offences
independently of any harm which they may cause, or be intended to cause, or be known to be
likely to cause, to the person giving the consent, or on whose behalf the consent is given.
Communication made in good faith for benefit

Section 93 of IPC - Communication made in good faith

No communication made in good faith is an offence by reason of any harm to the person
to whom it is made, if it is made for the benefit of that person.

Illustration - A, a surgeon, in good faith, communicates to a patient his opinion that he

cannot live. The patient dies in consequence of the shock. A has committed no offence,
though he knew it to be likely that the communication might cause the patient's death.
Conti…

Ingredients of Section 93 of IPC

• The communication must be made in good faith
• It must be made for the benefit of the person.

Mr “X” v. Hospital “Z” AIR 1999 SC 495

Compulsion by threats or duress

Offences committed out of compulsion is a defence to criminal liability

actus me invito factus non est meus acts

• an act which is done by me, against my will is not my act, and hence I am not responsible for it

Section 94 of IPC - Act to which a person is compelled by threats

• Exclusion of Murder and Offences against the State Punishable with Death
• Reasonable apprehension of threat
• Threat of Instant Death
• Threat should be Present at the Time of Doing the Act
• The person should not have placed himself in such a situation
Trifling acts

de minimis non curat lex

• the law does not concern itself with trifles

Section 95 of IPC

Act causing slight harm.—Nothing is an offence by reason that it causes, or that it is

intended to cause, or that it is known to be likely to cause, any harm, if that harm is
so slight that no person of ordinary sense and temper would complain of such harm.

Case
• Mrs. Rupan Deol Bajaj & Anr vs Kanwar Pal Singh Gill & Anr, 1995 SCC (6) 194
Right of Private Defence

A state is under obligation to protect life, limb and property of its subjects.

But, It cant provide a guard for every individual for all the time.

Based on the cardinal principle that it is the first duty of man to help himself.

The right of private defence serves a social purpose.

It is utilized with due diligence

• must use as a shield and not as a sword.
• Must be exercised directly in proportion to the extent of aggression
Conti…

The whole of self-defence rests on these propositions:

• (1) that society undertakes, and in the great majority of cases, is able to
protect private persons against unlawful attacks upon their person and
property;
• (2) that, where its aid can be obtained, it must be resorted to;
• (3) that, where its aid cannot be obtained, the individual may do everything
that is necessary to protect himself;
• (4) but that the violence used must be in proportion to the injury to be
averted, and must not be employed for the gratification of vindictive or
malicious feelings
Right of Private Defence Under IPC

Section 96 to 106 of IPC

General Rule
• Section 96 of IPC - Things done in private defence.—Nothing is an
offence which is done in the exercise of the right of private defence.
• Section 98 of IPC - Right of private defence against the act of a Child,
a person of unsound mind, Intoxication or by reason of any
misconception on the part of that person
 Restriction on private defence
Acts against which there is no right of private defence - Section 99 of IPC

No right of private defence against an act done by a public servant acting in good faith under colour of
his office, though that act, may not be strictly justifiable by law.
• act which does not reasonably cause the apprehension of death or of grievous hurt

No right of private defence against an act done by the direction of a public servant acting in good faith
under colour of his office, though that act, may not be strictly justifiable by law.
• act which does not reasonably cause the apprehension of death or of grievous hurt

There is no right of private defence in cases in which there is time to have recourse to protection of the
public authorities.

Exception
• Unless he knows or has reason to believe, that the person doing the act is such public servant
• Unless such person state and show that he is acting under the direction of any authority.
Extent to which the right may be exercised

Section 99 of IPC - Extent to which the right may be

exercised
• The right of private defence in no case extends to the inflicting of
more harm than it is necessary to inflict for the purpose of defence.

Cases
• Krishnan v State of Tamil Nadu, AIR 2006 SC 3037
• Narinder Kumar vs State Of Jammu & Kashmir, (2010) 9 SCC 259
Conti…

Type of private defence

• Section 97 of IPC
• First- (Private defence of Body) - His own body, and the body of
any other person, against any offence affecting the human body;
• Secondly- (Private defence of Property) —The property, whether
movable or immovable, of himself or of any other person, against
any act which is an offence falling under the definition of theft,
robbery, mischief or criminal trespass, or which is an attempt to
commit theft, robbery, mischief or criminal trespass.
Private defence of Persons
Section 100 to 102 and Section 106 of the IPC

Right of private defence of the body extends to causing death – Section 100 of IPC
• First — apprehension of causing death
• Secondly – apprehension of grievous hurt
• Thirdly — An assault with the intention of committing rape
• Fourthly — An assault with the intention of gratifying unnatural lust
• Fifthly.—An assault with the intention of kidnapping or abducting
• Sixthly —An assault with the intention of wrongfully confining - unable to have recourse to the public
authorities
• Seventhly — An act of throwing or administering acid or an attempt to throw or administer acid -
apprehension of grievous hurt
Conti…

Right of private defence of the body extends to causing any harm

other than death - Section 101 of IPC

Commencement and continuance of the right of private defence of

the body - Section 102 of IPC

Right of private defence against deadly assault when there is risk of

harm to innocent person - Section 106 of IPC
Private defence of Property

Section 103 to 105 of the IPC

Right of private defence of property extends to causing death – Section

103 of IPC
• First.—Robbery;
• Secondly.—House-breaking by night;
• Thirdly.—Mischief by fire committed on any building, tent or vessel, which building, tent or
vessel is used as a human dwelling, or as a place for the custody of property;
• Fourthly.—Theft, mischief, or house-trespass, under such circumstances as may reasonably
cause apprehension that death or grievous hurt will be the consequence, if such right of
private defence is not exercised.
Conti…

Right of private defence of property extends to causing

any harm other than death - Section 104 of IPC

Commencement and continuance of the right of

private defence of the property - Section 105 of IPC
Conti…

Cases

Amjad Khan v State AIR 1952 SC 165

Nabia Bai vs State Of Madhya Pradesh, AIR 1992 SC 602

James Martin vs State Of Kerala, (2004) 2 SCC 203