GENERAL EXCEPTIONS

UNDER THE INDIAN

PENAL CODE, 1870
LECTURE -6UNIT 2

Ms. Jyoti Singh,

Assistant Professor,
St. Joseph's College of Law.
 SECTION 6 , IPC

Every definition of an offence, every penal provision, and

illustration should be understood subject to the exceptions
contained in the Chapter titled “General Exceptions”
Sections 76 to 106 of IPC
 An ‘offence’ becomes a ‘nonoffence’

Obviates repetition in every penal

clause a number of limitations

G ENERA L
E XCEP T IONS
GENERAL
EXCEPTIONS
Mistake of fact (S.76, 79)

Judicial acts (S.77 and S. 78)

Accident (S.80)

Absence of criminal intent (S.81-86 & 92-94)

Consent (Ss.87- 90)

Trifling acts (S.95)

Private defence (Ss.96-106)

GENERAL EXCEPTIONS
 Act of a person bound by law to do a certain thing
 Act of a Judge acting judicially
 Act done pursuant to an order or a judgment of a Court
 Act of a person justified, or believing himself justified, by law
 Act caused by accident
 Act likely to cause harm done without criminal intent to prevent other harm
 Act of a child under 7 years
 Act of a child above 7 andunder 12 years, but of immature
understanding
 Act of a person of unsound mind
GENERAL EXCEPTIONS
Act of an intoxicated person and partially exempted
Act not known to be likely to cause death or grievous hurt done by con sent of the
sufferer
Act not intended to cause death done by consent of sufferer
Act done in good faith for the benefit of a child or an insane person by or by the
consent of guardian
Act done in good faith for the benefit of a person without consent
Communication made in good faith to a person for his benefit
Act done under threat of death
Act causing slight harm
Act done in private defence
BURDEN OF PROOF IS ON WHOM?

S.105, INDIAN EVIDENCE ACT:

A person accused of an offence bears
ONUS OFthe burden of proving the existence of

PROOFcircumstancesany of the Generalto

bringExceptionsthe case within. The
court shall presume the
absence of such
circumstances.
1. MISTAKE OF FACT
M ISTAKE O F F ACT
• Mistake as an honest and reasonable belief in the existence of
circumstances, which, if true, would make the act an innocent
one
• Not applicable if the fact itself is illegal-
• R. v. Prince, 1875- Man was held guilty for abducting a girl
below 16 under the belief that she was above 18.
 M ISTAKE O F L AW

‘Ignorantia juris Legal presumption

non excusat ’- that everyone Often untrue as a
Mistake of law is knows the law of matter of fact
not excusable the land

But needed for the

Not necessary that
purpose of Applicable even for
law should be
expediency of the recent statutes
published
law
MISTAKE OF FACT, BOUND BY LAW,
SECTION 76
Section 76: Essentials • If by reason of ‘mistake of fact;’ and not
‘mistake of law’
• In good faith believes
• To be bound by law, in doing an act Example:
• If a soldier fires on a mob by the order of his superior, no offence is committed
• Bound by law- Respondeat Superior- Act done by the order of a superior
• Only obedience to legal orders comes within the ambit
• Obedience of illegal orders is not justified
• The servant should exercise his own judgment to determine the same

MISTAKE OF FACT, JUSTIFIED BY LAW

, SECTION 79

Section 79: Essentials:

•If justified by law, or
•By reason of a ‘mistake of fact’ and not ‘mistake of law’
•In ‘good faith’ believes
•To be justified by law, in doing an act. Case Laws:

•Chirangi v. State, 1952- The accused mistook his own son as a tiger and killed him.
•Waryam Singh v. Emperor, 1962- The accused mistook a human being as a ghost and
killed him.
 If the state of things as claimed
is actuallytrue, itwould justify
the act done

MISTAKE OF FACT Mistake must be reasonable,

AS A DEFENCE and

Mistake must relate to ‘fact’ and

not to ‘law’
IN GOOD FAITH
S.52
 Done with due care and attention
 The question is considered with
reference to the position of the accused
and the circumstances under which he
acted.
ACTING UNDER THE ORDER OF
THE SUPERIOR: MISTAKE OF FACT,
BOUND BY LAW
1. In the case of Chaman Lal v Emperor, the non-admissibility of the plea of superior orders as a valid defence in
criminal law was illustrated. The facts of the case involved the jail warders severely beating up the prisoners, which
led to the death of two of the prisoners. Chaman Lal, along with other jail officials had been convicted and awarded
sentence by the District Magistrate. Lahore High Court upheld these convictions. The Head Warder, Sawan Ram,
raised a defence that he had been acting under the orders of his superior official, Chaman Lal. The Court did not
accept this defence, stating that all of them knew that they were engaged in an illegal act and hence, there is no
question of good faith, mistake of law or mistake of fact. Due to the fact that they had been jail officials for quite
some time, the Court concluded that they must have known that mercilessly beating up the prisoners was contrary to
law.
2. In the case of Charan Das Narain Singh v The State, the accused, Charan Singh, appealed in the East Punjab
High Court, despite him firing the shot, it was done under the order of superior official, Harnam Singh. The Court
held that the order issued by the superior was wholly unjustified and manifestly illegal. Hence, the accused did not
have any duty to follow such an order. In fact, it was under his duty to defy any irrational and illegal order. Since, the
order was wholly unjustified, the firing by Charan Das and the killing in obedience to the order was murder. Khosla,
J. had held:
“To plead that he acted in obedience to the orders of Harnam Singh would not excuse him because the order was
unlawful. Obedience of an unlawful order does not exonerate or excuse the person who commits an offence as a
consequence of such an order. Therefore, Charan Das is clearly guilty of the offence of murder and his conviction
must be upheld.”
2. JUDICIAL ACTS
J UDICIAL ACTS: SECTION 77& 78
Section 77

• If a Judge does an act

• In the exercise of power given by law
• Which in good faith he believes to be given to him by law
• Eg: Judge sentencing a prisoner to death, even wrongly

Section 78
• Act done
• By virtue of a judgment or order of a Court
• While in force
• Even if Court had no jurisdiction, but person in good faith believes
Court had jurisdiction
• Eg: Hangman who hangs the prisoner pursuant to order
3. ACCIDENTS
ACCIDENT: SECTION 80
• Act done by accident or misfortune • Without
any criminal intention or knowledge
• While doing a lawful act in a lawful manner
by lawful means • With proper care and caution
• “Accident”- Happens ‘out of the
ordinary course of things’ andis unexpected
• Neitherwillfully nor negligently caused.

.
 ABSENCE OF C RIMINAL INTENTION
• “Criminal Intention”- Purpose or design of doing
an act forbidden by criminal act without just cause
or excuse

• Acts which arecriminal butwithout the

criminal intent, lacking mens rea , are not penalised .

They include :
4. ABSENCE OF CRIMINAL
INTENT
 A C T D ON E TO AVOI D O T H E R
H ARM: SECTION 81
• Act done with knowledge to cause harm
• In good faith
• Without any criminal intention to cause harm
• To prevent or avoid harm to person or
property
• In a sudden and extreme emergency, if two
evils are inevitable, direct events so that the
smaller one occurs.
• A crime can be committed in order to avoid a
greater harm.
• R vs. Dudley Stephens, 1884- Two man to save
himself from starvation kills another person for
the purpose of feeding on his flesh. The courts
convicts them for murder.
 ACT OF C HILD:
SECTION 82 & 83
• Act done by a child under 7 years of age,
is not an offence
• Between 7-12 years of age: Has no
sufficient maturity or understanding and
to judge the nature and consequ ences of
his conduct
• If proven to have sufficient maturity or
understanding,
liability arises
ACT OF AN INSANE PERSON: SECTION 84
•Act done
• Due to unsoundness of mind- no free will- born idiot, temporary failure, mad man,
unconscious, intoxicated
• Incapable of knowing the nature of the act, or that it is wrong or contrary to law
• Ahmed v. King, 1949- 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.
Tests:
•Insanity at the time of commission of offence
• State of mind before and after
• Only organic or natural incapability, uncontrollable impulses, weak intellect, or
eccentric behaviour
• On analysis of the Section 84 IPC, the following essential ingredients can be listed.
 • For the sake of easy understanding, the Section 84 IPC can be divided into two broad categories of,
major criteria (medical requirement of mental illness) and minor criteria (loss of reasoning
requirement).

• Major criteria (mental illness requirement) mean the person must be suffering from mental illness
during the commission of act.

• Minor criteria (loss of reasoning requirement) mean the person is:

1. Incapable of knowing the nature of the act or
2. Incapable of knowing his act is wrong or
3. Incapable of knowing it is contrary to law.
Both major (mental illness) and minor (loss of reasoning) criteria constitute legal insanity.
ACT OF AN INTOXICATED PERSON: SEC 85 & 86
S.85
• Act of a person
• Incapable of judgment
• Due to intoxication
• Caused without his knowledge or against his will
• Mirza Ghani Baig v. State of Andhra Pradesh, 1997-
Voluntary drunkenness is no excuse for commission of a
crime

S.86
• Offence requiring a particular intent or knowledge
• Committed by an intoxicated person
• Presumptionof knowledge, unless proves
intoxicated without his knowledge or against his will
ACT OF AN INTOXICATED
PERSON
Basdev v. State of Pepsu, 1956

• Facts: The intoxicated appellant was seated next to a boy

during a meal served at a wedding. He asked the boy to move
a little so that he would occupy a more convenient seat. The
boy refused. He shot him in the abdomen and killed him on
the spot.
• SC- So far as attributing knowledge is concerned, the
intoxicated man is treated as if he was sober. So far as
 intention is concerned, it is gathered from the general circumstances of the case and the degree of
intoxication.

BONA FIDE ACT FOR ANOTHER’S BENEFIT:

SECTION 92

•An act done for the benefit of a person who suffers harm.
•The act done must be in good faith.
•There was no time to obtain the consent of the person.
•Where it is impossible to signify the consent of that person.
•There was no guardian or lawfulin charge of that person to obtain
the consent.
C OMMUNICATION MADE IN G OOD FAITH: SECTION 93
 Communication made to a person
 In good faith
 For his benefit
 Even if it causes harm
 Sia, a surgeon, communicates to her patient that he cannot
live much longer because of his incurabledisease. The
patientdies in consequence of the shock. Here Sia has
not committed any offence even though she knew that the
information might affect him.
ACT DONE UNDER COMPULSION OR THREAT:
SECTION 94
•Section 94 of the code grants immunity from criminal liability to a person for an act done by
him under threat or compulsion.
•It states that if a person does an act under the fear of instant death, he cannot be held
criminally liable.
•Actus ne invito factus non est mens actus: An act done by me against my will is not my act.
•Section 94 does not apply to the offence of murder (S.300) and offences against the state
punishable with death(S.121)
•Two conditions which must be fulfilled for the section to apply include:

 The act must have been committed by the accused involuntarily  The
apprehension or fear must have been of instant death.
5. CONSENT
 ACT DONE BY
CONSENT
S. 87-91
• Acts done with the consent of the victim which do
not amount to an offence S.90- What is not consent?
• Given under fear of injury or misconception of fact
• Given from unsoundness of mind or
intoxication
• Given by person under 12 years of age
Section 87: Act not intended and not known to be likely to
cause death or grievous hurt, done by consent

• Act not intended or known

• To cause death or grievous hurt
• Causes harm to person above 18 years
• On consent, to suffer
• Proceeds from volenti non fit injuria- he who consents
cannot complain
Section 88: Act not intended to
cause death, done by consent in
good faith for person’s benefit :
 Nothing, which is not intended to cause death, is an offence by reason of any
harm which it may cause, or be intended by the doer to cause, or be known by
the doer to be likely to cause, to any person for whose benefit it is done in
good faith, and who has given a consent, whether express or implied to
suffer that harm, or to take the risk of that harm.
Section 89: Act done in good
faith for the benefit of a child or
insane person, by or by consent of
the guardian

 Act done
 In good faith
 For benefit of child or insane person
 By or by consent of guardian
6. TRIFLING ACT
 Section 95. 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.
TRIFLING ACTS, C AUSING S LIGHT HARM:
Section 95

• ‘De minimis non curat lex’- The law takes no account of trifles
• A harm Even with intention or knowledge
• Is so slight that a person of ordinary sense and temper would not complain
• In Mrs. Veeda Menezes v. Khan, during the course of exchange of high tempers
and abusive words between appellant’s husband and the respondent, the latter threw
a file of papers at the former which hit the appellant causing a scratch on the elbow.
SC said that the harm caused was slight and hence, not guilty.
7. PRIVATE DEFENCE
SECTION 96: THINGS DONE IN
PRIVATE DEFENCE
Nothing is an offence which is done in the
exercise of the right of private defence.

Private defence- Right inherent in

man, which is the duty to help
himself.
• Right is exercised when there is real and immediate threat
• If life is threatened by grave danger, need not wait for State aid, unless aid is
available
RIGHT OF PRIVATE DEFENCE
• Right is protective or preventive and not punitive
• Not for self-gratification
• Should not be deliberate or for retaliation of past injury
• Right commences as soon as reasonable apprehension of danger arises and
continues till the apprehension continues
•The protective measures must be proportionate to injury or threat
•The right ends with the necessity for it
•State of UP v. Ram Swarup, 1974- 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.
•The aggressor cannot claim the right to self-defence
•No private defence against private defence
•Deo Narain v. State of UP, 1973- One who goes to beat the other cannot claim the right
•Even if private defence is not claimed, court may consider the plea based on material on
record
RIGHT OF PRIVATE DEFENCE OF BODY

S. 97: Right of private

defenceof body and of property
• Every person has a right
• To defend his own bodyoforany other person, against an offence affecting the human body
• To defend his own property (moveable or immovable) or of another against the offence of theft,
robbery, mischief or criminal trespass or an attempt of the same.

S.98: Right of private

defenceagainst the act of a person of unsound mind, etc.
• Right to private defense is the same even if the person against whom it is exercised is a minor,
lacks understanding, is of unsound mind, is intoxicated or is acting by reason of misconception.
Section 99- Acts against which there is no right of private defence

• No right if there is no apprehension of death or grievous hurt

• If done by public servant under office or attempted to be done by him or under the
authority of a public servant
• In good faith
• Even if not strictly justified by law
• No right if there is time to have recourse to protection of public authorities
• Right does not extend to inflicting more harm than necessary for the purpose of defence.
• Explanation 1 & 2: The right to private defence exists until the person exercising such right
knows or has reason to believe that the person against whom the right to private defence is
to be exercised is a public servant or the act is done under the authority of a public servant.
S.100: When right to private
defenceextends to causing death:

• When right extends to causing death

• Assault causing apprehension of death
• Assault causing apprehension of grievous hurt
• Assault with intention of committing rape
• Assault with intention to gratify unnatural lust
• Assault with intention of kidnapping or abducting
• Assault with intention of wrongfully confining a person, apprehension that he will
be unable to have recourse to public authorities
• An act of throwing acid which causes reasonable apprehension of grievous hurt

S.101: When such right extends to causing harm other than death:

• In other circumstances the defender may cause any harm

except death
S.102: Right commences as soon as reasonable
apprehension ofdanger to body arises and continues till
the apprehensioncontinues.

S.106:In case of assault causing reasonable apprehension

of death, if defender
cannot exercise the right without risk
of harm to innocentperson, he may even run that risk.
RIGHT OF PRIVATE DEFENCE OF
PROPERTY: SECTION 97

The right to defend the property

( moveable or immoveable) of himself or
of any other person

Against offence of or attempt of

• theft,
• robbery,
• mischief, or
• criminal trespass
RIGHT OF PRIVATE DEFENCE OF
PROPERTY
S . 103 : When such right extends to death :
Right extends to causing death if
• Robbery
• House breaking by night
• Mischief by fire to any building, tent or vessel used as human
dwelling or as place of custody of property
• Theft, mischief or house trespass under circumstances causing
reasonable apprehension of death/grievous hurt

S . 104 : When such right extends to causing harm other than death :
• In other cases, right extends to any harm other than death
 SECTION 105: Commencement and continuance of right of private
defence of property
Theft
• Offender has effected his retreat with property, or
• Assistance of public authority is obtained, or
• Property is recovered
Robbery
• Offender causes/attempts to cause death/ hurt/ wrongful restraint, or
• As long as fear of instant death/ instant hurt/ instant personal restraint continues
Criminal trespass or mischief
• As long as the offender continues in the commission of criminal trespass or
mischief.
House breaking by night
• As long as house trespass which has begun by such house- breaking continues.