Indian Penal Code (IPC) & General Exceptions | Legal Reasoning for CLAT PDF Download

Introduction

In 1835, the First Law Commission was established in India, consisting of four members and chaired by Lord T.B. Macaulay. The commission's main task was to create a draft of the penal code for India, which was submitted to the government in 1837. This draft was later enacted as law in 1860 by the Legislative Council, receiving the Governor General's approval on October 6, 1860. It officially came into effect on January 1, 1862, within British India. The implementation of this law led to the complete abolition of Muslim Criminal law and the introduction of a uniform penal code for India. However, the princely states maintained their own legal systems until 1940. Notably, the state of Jammu & Kashmir has its own penal code known as the Ranbir Penal Code, which is based on the Indian Penal Code (IPC). Following the partition, India inherited the legal system established by the British.

Elements of Crime

The fundamental principle of penal liability is contained in the maxim & quot; actus non facit reum nisi mens sit rea. 
The maxim means an act does not amount to a crime unless done with a guilty intention. In other words, the act alone does not amount to guilt, it must be accompanied by a guilty mind. The intent and the act must both concur to constitute the crime. Thus there are two essential conditions of criminal liability. 

They are:-

(1) Actus reus;

(2) Mens rea

Elements of Crime

(1) Actus Reus (Result of Human Conduct)

Actus reus is the first essential element or ingredient of a crime. An act is any event that is subject to the control of the human will. An act is a conscious movement. It is the conduct that results from the operation of the will.  
Actus reus & quot refers to the result of human conduct which the law seeks to prevent. If any human conduct (actus) is not prohibited by law, the act or conduct will not be termed a crime. A person who commits such an act is not liable for a crime. Any movement of the body which is not a consequence of the determination of the will is not an act. Thus involuntary actions will not become criminal acts. If a person suffers from a sleep disorder and he sets fire to a house during his sleepwalk, he will not be liable under criminal law.

Actus reus may be either Positive or Negative.

Example 1: X shoots Y and kills him. It is a positive actus reus.

It is an example of a ‘positive’ actus reus.

Example 2: The mother of a child does not feed him and causes the death of the child by starvation. Here, actus reus is negative or omission to act.

It is an example of a ‘negative’ kind of actus reus.

In order to be liable for crime, the act or omission should be prohibited by law.

More illustrations of the Negative kind of ‘actus reus’.

(i) A, who is having sufficient means, failed to help a starving man. The man dies due to starvation.  Is A criminally liable for the death of the starving man?

No. A is under no obligation to feed the starving man, and his omission is not prohibited by law. A has not committed any crime.

(ii) N, who knows swimming, failed to save the life of a drowning child in a swimming pool, and the child died as a result of the omission.

The omission is not prohibited by law, and A; is not liable for the crime. However, if A was so appointed to save the drowning persons, then the omission to act would have been a crime.

(iii) A is a Jail warden. He failed to supply food to the prisoners in the jail, and several prisoners died due to starvation. The jail warden is liable for murder as he was under a duty to provide food to the prisoners and thus violated a prohibited omission.

 (2) Mens Rea (Guilty Mind)

A prohibited act will become a crime only when accompanied by a guilty state of mind. The mind must know that the act it is asking the body to commit is prohibited by law and thus will be at fault; before any crime can be committed. An act or omission alone is not sufficient to constitute a crime. Thus we may say,

Crime = Prohibited Act + Guilty Mind

In England and India, the general rule relating to criminal liability is based on the maxim actus non facit reum nisi mens sit rea that an act is not a crime unless it is done with a guilty mind

Therefore, if the mental element of any conduct alleged to be a crime is proved to have been absent in any given case, the crime so defined is not committed, or nothing amounts to a crime that does not satisfy that definition.

Exceptions to ‘Mens Rea’:

There are certain enactments that define offences without mentioning the necessity of mens rea.

1. Bigamy

2. Public Nuisance

3. Revenue Acts

4. Criminal Cases on Summary Trial

In those statutes, offences are defined in absolute terms. The Foreign Exchange Regulation Act, 1947, the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, of 1954, the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, of 1985, etc., are examples of such enactments.

When an offense is defined in absolute terms i.e. without mentioning the necessity of mens rea, the question that would normally arise is:

Whether the courts read in between lines the necessary mens rea?

In former times it was thought that the legislature was not competent to override the established rules of common law. According to this view, even if the necessity of mens rea is not expressly mentioned in a particular statute, the judges should read between the lines to find out the necessary mens rea. In other words, the necessity of mens rea should be taken for granted. Thus even if the offence is defined without mentioning the necessity of men's rea, the courts used to acquit the accused in the absence of a guilty mind.

Kinds of Punishments

• Death sentence (Capital Punishment)
• Imprisonment for life
• Imprisonment - simple and rigorous
• Forfeiture of property
• Fine

Commutation of Sentence of Imprisonment for Life - It empowers the appropriate govt to commute the sentence of Life imprisonment after he has already been in jail for 14 years. 

Death Sentence

General Exceptions

General Exceptions are provided in Chapter IV of the Indian Penal Code (Sections 76-95 and Sections 96-106 dealing with the right to a private defence). A general exception is a defence (that is why it is called an ‘exception’) that can be used for all crimes, and therefore, is incorporated in the Code as a chapter, and not repeated in every provision dealing with a different crime. Some general exceptions incorporated in the IPC include intoxication, mistake of fact, accident, unsoundness of mind, acts done under some compulsions, etc.

Exceptions

What is the effect of a general exception? Does it help the accused? If you study the above discussion explaining the necessity for an act to be done with mental intent in order to qualify as a crime, you will understand the significance of a general exception. The effect of a general exception applying to an act is that even though all elements of a crime are proved, the accused is shielded from the consequences (imprisonment/fine) of committing the crime. This is because most of the general exceptions cater to one of the following situations:

1. Where the person is not capable of forming or possessing the mental intent or state of mind that is required by the IPC (e.g. when a person of unsound mind assaults another, this is not a crime, since the person, being insane, is not capable of knowing that the act being committed is wrong and one that is prohibited by Law)

2. Where the person, though aware of the consequences and aware that the act is illegal, commits it for a lawful purpose (e.g. seeing that a child is trapped in a house on fire and that persons below are getting ready to catch the child, a person throws the child out of the window. While throwing the child out of the window is definitely a crime, the actual act that has occurred in this situation is deemed not to be a crime since it has been done to protect the child.)

Before we start examining some general exceptions in detail, make sure you're clear on the basic concept underlying this area: Exceptions are comparatively less in number than crimes themselves but are significant because given a situation where you have to decide about the guilt of an accused, you just need to analyze it if his act falls under any of the exceptions.

Example

A, a soldier, fires on a mob by order of his superior officer in conformity with the commands of the law. Here the onus is on A to prove that the act done by him was by order of his superior and thus, he is innocent.

The General Exceptions

1) Mistake of Fact … Ss – 76, 79

2) Judicial acts …. Ss- 77,78

3) Accident ... S-80

4) Absence of criminal intent … Ss-81- 86, 92-94

5) Consent …. Ss 87- 91

6) Trifling acts …… S – 95

7) Private Defence …. Ss-96 – 106

The sections related to general exceptions are discussed in detail below:

1) Mistake of Fact

A mistake of fact is sometimes a good defence. 

Section 76: 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 so.

Example- An officer of a court of Justice, being ordered by that Court to arrest Y and, after due enquiring, believing Z to be Y, arrests Z. A has committed no offence.

Section 79: According to Sec. 79, nothing is an offence if done by a person who in good faith believes himself to be justified by the law in doing that act.

Example: A police officer came to Bombay from the village with a warrant to arrest a person. After reasonable inquiries and on well-founded suspicion, he arrested A, a shopkeeper under the warrant, believing in good faith that he was the person to be arrested. A, filed a complaint against the police officer for wrongful confinement. The police officer is not guilty because he was acting under the belief that the person he arrested was the one against whom the warrant was issued.

 2) Judicial Acts

The second general exception relates to act of judges and courts.

Section 77: Any act done by a judge while acting judicially, which he in good faith believes to be given to him by law, is no offence. Thus, a judge who sentences a prisoner to death (even wrongly) is not liable to be hanged for having caused somebody's death.

Section 78: An act done pursuant to the judgment or order of a court of justice (when the person doing the act in good faith believes that the court has jurisdiction) is no offence. If it were to be an offence the hangman who hangs the prisoner pursuant to the order of the judge, would also have to be hanged.

It may be noted that under Sec. 78, the officer is protected in carrying out an order of a court, which may have no jurisdiction at all, whereas as under Sec. 77, the judge must be acting within his jurisdiction to be protected by it. Thus, a mistake of law' can be pleaded as a defence under Sec. 78.

3) Accident

The third general exception relates to acts committed by accident. 

Section 80: Nothing is an offence, which is done by accident or misfortune:

1. Without criminal intention or knowledge.

2. In the doing of a lawful act in a lawful manner by lawful means.

3. With proper care and caution.

Factual Situation: A takes up a gun, and without examining whether it is loaded or not, points it in sport at B, and pulls the trigger. B dies. Such a death is not accidental, as there was want of proper care and caution. If A had reason to believe that the gun was not loaded, the death would have been accidental. It may be noted that shooting with an unlicensed gun will not debar an accused from claiming the benefit of Sec. 80. A shoots at a bird in B's house in order to steal it, and kills B. A is liable, as his act was not lawful. To steal is not a lawful act.

 4) Absence of Criminal Intent

Criminal intention means the purpose or design of doing an act forbidden by criminal law without just cause or excuse. Now, there are certain acts, which appear to be criminal, but are done without any criminal intent. It is but fair that such acts should not be penalized, which lack mens rea.

There are seven such acts mentioned in Secs. 81-86 and 92-94:

(i) Section 81: Act Done to Avoid Other Harm

An act was done with the knowledge that it is likely to cause harm, but done in good faith and without any criminal intention to cause harm, to prevent or avoid harm to a person or property is not an offence.

Example: A, in a great fire, pulls down houses in order to prevent the conflagration from spreading, or where the sailors threw passengers overboard to lighten a boat.

Factual Situation: A bargeman threw the goods of ‘P’ out of a barge in order to lighten the barge in a storm and for the safety of the passengers.

Here not only the bargeman but any passenger would be justified in taking any such action for the safety of the passengers, and it would be immaterial that the bargeman had overloaded the barge.

(ii) Section 82-83: Act of Child

Under the Indian Penal Code, there is an absolute incapacity for a crime under seven years of age. 

Section 82: An act of a child under seven years is no offence. It is to be noted that this immunity is not confined to offences under the Code only, but extends to offences under any special or local law. An infant is, by the presumption of law, doli incapax i.e. not endowed with any discretion so as to distinguish right from wrong, thus, the question of criminal intent does not arise. Where persons get crimes committed through children below 7 years, they will be held liable while the child will be exempted.

Section 83: Acts done by children above seven and below 12 will be protected if it is shown that the child in question has not attained sufficient maturity of understanding to judge the nature and consequences of his conduct on that occasion. It is to be noted that there is a complete liability to punishment after twelve years of age.

(iii) Section 84: Act of an Insane Person

Criminal law gives complete protection to a lunatic. 

Section 84: Nothing is an offence which is done by a person, who owing to unsoundness of mind, is incapable of knowing the nature of the act, or that he is doing what is wrong or contrary to law. The legal insanity contemplated by this section is different from medical insanity.

The words unsoundness of mind include the following kinds of persons:

• Idiot: one made non compos mentis by illness (temporary failure).

• A lunatic or a mad man (mental disorder).

• A person in an unconscious state, if proved (e.g. sleepwalking or somnambulism).

• An intoxicated person.

Example: ‘A’ killed his three infant granddaughters with a handle of a grinding stone, and he did not try to conceal the body of the victims, nor did he attempts to evade the law by destroying the evidence of a crime, and he did not prepare to kill the three kids. It shows that he was of unsound mind at the time of the commission of a crime.

Factual Situation: Ram Lal killed his 8 years old boy and concealed his dead body so that no one can search the body. After destroying the evidence of the crime, he ran away from the place of the incident. The doctor's report showed that he was a case of epilepsy with retarded mental faculty so as to put him in the category of severe sub-normality

Here Ram Lal would be guilty of murder because his running away from the place of the incident after destroying all the evidence of the crime clearly shows that he was conscious of the fact, which was enough to defeat the plea of insanity.

(iv) Section 85-86: Act of an Intoxicated Person

Drunkenness is a species of madness for which man is to blame. If a man chooses to get drunk, it is his own voluntary act; it is very different from madness, which is not caused by any act of the person.

Section 85: Nothing is an offence which is done by a person, who owing to intoxication is incapable of knowing the nature of the act, or that what he is doing is wrong or contrary to law, provided that the thing which intoxicated him was administered without his knowledge or against his will.

Section 86: States the presumption for certain offences committed by intoxicated persons. Thus, if an act is an offence only when done with a particular intention or knowledge, and such an act is committed by an intoxicated person, he will be presumed to have knowledge requisite for the offence, unless he can show that he was intoxicated without his knowledge or against his will. It may be noted that there is no presumption as regards his intention.

Factual Situation: Mohan Das got drunk of his own volition, and on his way back home, he assaulted a policeman. He is prosecuted for intimidating a public servant. Here, Mohan Das would be liable for punishment for interfering with the discharge of duties by a public servant. He has been intoxicated voluntarily. He can’t take the defence of intoxication to avoid liability.

(v) Section 92: Bona fide Act for Another's Benefit

Section 92: nothing is an offence by reason of any harm which it may cause to the person for whose benefit it is done, in good faith, and even without that person's consent, under emergent circumstances. 

Example: An immediate operation performed by a surgeon on an accidental victim; or where a person drops a child from the housetop (the house being on fire) knowing it to be likely that the fall may kill the child, but not intending to kill the child, and intending, in good faith, child's benefit.

(vi) Section 93: Communication made in Good Faith

Section 93: Any communication made in good faith to a person for such person's benefit is no offence, even though such communication may cause harm to such person. 

Example: A surgeon, in good faith, communicates to a patient his opinion that he cannot live. The patient dies under shock. The surgeon has committed no offence, though he knew that it was likely that the communication might cause the patient's death.

(vii) Section 94: Act Done under Compulsion or Threat

Section 94: Offences committed under compulsion or threat by a person so compelled or threatened will be excused if the threat is to cause instant death of such person. However, a person so put under threat cannot cause murder or an offence against the State punishable with death (e.g. treason) to avail the benefit of Sec. 94. Further, the person doing the act did not of his own accord, or from a reasonable apprehension of harm to himself short of instant death place himself under such constraint.

5) Act Done by Consent

Sections 87-91 lays down the law as to how far an act was done by consent will be excused in law. It is important to note that consent' plays a very important role in criminal law. Its presence or absence often makes a difference between innocence and crime (viz. an act of sexual intercourse may become rape).

(i) Section 87: An act not intended or known to be likely to cause death or grievous hurt, which act causes any harm to a person above 18 years of age who has given (express or implied) consent to suffer it is not an offence.

(ii) Section 88: An act done in good faith for the victim's benefit with the victim's consent is not an offence. This section protects surgeons and surgical operations as also reasonable acts of teachers (viz. corporal punishment to a pupil to enforce discipline). However, persons who are not qualified as medical practitioners (quacks) are not protected.
(iii) Section 89: Protects act done in good faith for the benefit of a child or insane person or by consent of the guardian.

(iv) Section 90: What is not consent, viz.

1. A consent is given by a person under fear of injury or misconception of fact, or

2. 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

3. A person under 12 years of age.
   

(v) Section 92: Clarifies that mere pecuniary benefits are not covered by the term benefit' appearing in Secs. 88 and 89.

(vi) Section 91: The exceptions contained in Secs. 87-89 does not extend to acts which are offences -independently of any harm which may cause to the person giving the consent.

6) Trifling Acts/ Acts Causing Slight Harm

Section 95: The maxim de minimis non-curat lex (the law takes no account of trifles) is the foundation of the section: If a person causes any harm (even with an intention or knowledge to do so), and that harm is so slight that no person of ordinary sense and temper would complain of such harm, it is no offence. Thus, both accidental, as well as deliberate acts, are covered by the section. Further, the harm covers actual physical injury also.

Examples- picking up a wafer from another's plate; lighting one's own cigar from a match-box belonging to the other without his permission

7) Right of Private Defence

The right of private defence is the right to protect one's own person and property against the unlawful aggression of others. 

(i) Section 96: Nothing is an offence which is done in the exercise of the right of private defence. It is a right inherent in man; it is the first duty of man to help himself. The right must be fostered in the citizens of every free country.

Factual Situation: Robin, in his madness, attempts to kill Shabana. Shabana, in order to save himself, hits Robin with an iron rod.

Answers:

a) Shabana has the right of private defence though Robin is mad

b) Both Robin and Shabana are guilty of no offence

c) Shabana has no right of private defence since Robin is mad

d) Shabana guilty of inflicting grievous injury on Robin

The correct answer is (a).

(ii) Section 97: Every person has a right to defend his own body or that of any other person against any offence affecting the human body. Thus, even a stranger may defend the person or property of another person.

Factual Situation: Ravi was walking on a lonely road. Maniyan came with a knife and said to Ravi, “Your life or your purse.” Ravi pulled out his revolver. On seeing it, Maniyan ran. Ravi shot Maniyan in the legs.

Answers:

a) Ravi will not be punished as there was a danger to his property.

b) Ravi will not be punished as the force he used was proportionate to the apprehended injury.

c) Ravi will be punished as the force employed was disproportionate to the apprehended injury.

d) As Maniyan ran to escape, there was no longer a threat to Ravi’s property. So Ravi will be punished.

The correct answer shall be (d). You can appreciate (c) to be a close option, but once Mr. Maniyan ran to escape, there is not at all any apprehended danger. So, when there is no threat to property or body, no right of private defence is available.

(iii) Section 98: For the purpose of exercising the right of private defence, the physical or mental capacity of the attacker (whether with or without mens rea, e.g. a lunatic, a minor, an intoxicated person or a person acting under the misconception of fact) is no bar.

(iv) Section 99: The general restrictions on the right of private defence:

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

2. There is no right of defence in cases in which there is time to have recourse to the protection of public authorities. However, this does not mean that a person must run away to have recourse to the protection of public authorities when he is attacked, instead of protecting himself.

3. 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.

(v) Section 100: Six acts of aggression, so serious in nature, that the law gives full authority to the defender even to cause the death of assailant. The six cases of assault are: reasonable apprehension of death, or of grievous hurt, assault with the intention of committing rape, or of gratifying unnatural lust, or of kidnapping and abduction, or of wrongfully confining a person. 

(vi) Section 101: In other cases, the defender may cause any harm except death.

(vii) Section 102: The right of self-defence commences as soon as a reasonable apprehension of danger to the body arises and continues as long as such apprehension continues (even though the offence may not have been committed).

(viii) Section 103: The cases in which the right extends to justifiably causing the death of the wrong-doer, viz.

1. Robbery

2. House breaking by night.

3. Mischief by fire to any building, tent or vessel used as human dwelling or as a place for the custody of property.

4. Theft, mischief or house trespass under the circumstances causing reasonable apprehension of death/grievous hurt.

(ix) Section 104: In other cases, the right extends to any harm other than death.

(x) Section 105: The right commences when a reasonable apprehension of danger to the property commences, and the right continues:

1. Against theft, till offender has affected his retreat with the property, or the assistance of the public authorities is obtained, or the property has been recovered;

2. Against robbery, as long as the offender causes (or attempts to cause) to any person death or hurt or wrongful restraint, or the fear of instant death/hurt/ personal restraint continues;

3. Against criminal trespass or mischief, as long as the offender continues in the commission of such offence; or

4. Against house-breaking by night, as long as the house-trespass continues (thus, where a person followed a thief and killed him in the open, after house-trespass has ceased could not plead the right of private defence).

(xi) Section 106: In the case of reasonable apprehension of death, if the defender be so situated that he cannot exercise the right without risk of harm to an innocent person he may even run that risk.

[Question: 682409] 

8) Homicide

Homicide represents the act of unnaturally ending the life of a human being or killing a human being.

 9) Culpable Homicide

Illustrations
(a)  A lays sticks and turf over a pit, with the intention of thereby causing death, or with the knowledge that death is likely to be there by caused. Z believing the ground to be firm, treads on it, falls in and is killed. A has committed the offence of culpable homicide.
(b)  A knows Z to be behind a bush. B does not know it A, intending to cause, or knowing it to be likely to cause Z’s death, induces B to fire at the bush. B fires and kills Z. Here B may be guilty of no offence; but A has committed the offence of culpable homicide.
(c)  A, by shooting at a fowl with intent to kill and steal it, kills B who is behind a bush; A not knowing that he was there. Here, although A was doing an unlawful act, he was not guilty of culpable homicide, as he did not intend to kill B, or to cause death by doing an act that he knew was likely to cause death.

Explanation 1. A person who causes bodily injury to another who is labouring under a disorder, disease or bodily infirmity, and thereby accelerates the death of that other, shall be deemed to have caused his death.

Explanation 2. Where death is caused by bodily injury, the person who causes such bodily injury shall be deemed to have caused the death, although by resorting to proper remedies and skillful treatment the death might have been prevented.

Explanation 3. The causing of the death of a child in the mother’s womb is not homicide. But it may amount to culpable homicide to cause the death of a living child if any part of that child has been brought forth, though the child may not have breathed or been completely born.

10) Murder

(Secondly): If it is done with the intention of causing such bodily injury as the offender knows to be likely to cause the death of the person to whom the harm is caused

(Thirdly): If it is done with the intention of causing bodily injury to any person and the bodily injury intended to be inflicted is sufficient in the ordinary course of nature to cause death 

(Fourthly): If the person committing the act knows that it is so imminently dangerous that it must, in all probability, cause death or such bodily injury as is likely to cause death, and commits such act without any excuse for incurring the risk of causing death or such injury as aforesaid.

Illustrations
(a) A shoots Z with the intention of killing him. Z dies in consequence. A commits murder.
(b) A, knowing that Z is labouring under such a disease that a blow is likely to cause his death, strikes him with the intention of causing bodily injury. Z dies in consequence of the blow. A is guilty of murder, although the blow might not have been sufficient in the ordinary  course of nature to cause the death of a person in a sound state of health. 

But if A, not knowing that Z is labouring under any disease, gives him such a blow as would not in the ordinary course of nature kill a person in a sound state of health, here A, although he may intend to cause bodily injury, is not guilty of murder, if he did not intend to cause death, or such bodily injury as in the ordinary course of nature would cause death.
(c) A intentionally gives Z a sword-cut or club - wound sufficient to cause the death of a man in the ordinary course of nature. Z dies in consequence. Here, A is guilty of murder, although he may not have intended to cause Z’s death.
(d) A without any excuse fires a loaded cannon into a crowd of persons and kills one of them. A is guilty of murder, although he may not have had a premeditated design to kill any particular individual.

Exception 1. When culpable homicide is not murder, culpable homicide is not murder if the offender, whilst deprived of the power of self-control by grave and sudden provocation, causes the death of the person who gave the provocation or caused the death of any other person by mistake or accident.

The above exception is subject to the following provisos:

(First) - That the provocation is not sought or voluntarily provoked by the offender as an excuse for killing or doing harm to any person.
(Secondly) - That the provocation is not given by anything done in obedience to the law, or by a public servant in the lawful exercise of the powers of such public servant.
(Thirdly) - That the provocation is not given by anything done in the lawful exercise of the right of private defence. Explanation.—Whether the provocation was grave and sudden enough to prevent the offence from amounting to murder is a question of fact.

Illustrations
(a) A, under the influence of passion excited by a provocation given by Z, intentionally kills. Y, Z’s child. This is murder, in as much as the provocation was not given by the child, and the death of the child was not caused by accident or misfortune in doing an act caused by the provocation.
(b) Y gives grave and sudden provocation to A. A, on this provocation, fires a pistol at Y, neither intending nor knowing himself to be likely to kill Z, who is near him, but out of sight. A kills Z. Here A has not committed murder, but merely culpable homicide.
(c) A is lawfully arrested by Z, a bailiff. A is excited to sudden and violent passion by the arrest, and kills Z. This is murder, in as much as the provocation was given by a thing done by a public servant in the exercise of his powers.
(d) A appears as witness before Z, a Magistrate, Z says that he does not believe a word of A’s deposition, and that A has perjured himself. A is moved to sudden passion by these words, and kills Z. This is murder.
(e) A attempts to pull Z’s nose, Z, in the exercise of the right of private defence, lays hold of A to prevent him from doing so. A is moved to sudden and violent passion in consequence, and kills Z. This is murder, in as much as the provocation was given by a thing done in the exercise of the right of private defence.
(f) Z strikes B. B is by this provocation excited to violent rage. A, a bystander, intending to take advantage of B’s rage, and to cause him to kill Z, puts a knife into B’s hand for that purpose. B kills Z with the knife. Here B may have committed only culpable homicide, but A is guilty of murder.

Exception 2. Culpable homicide is not murdered if the offender, in the exercise in good faith of the right of private defence of person or property, exceeds the power given to him by law and causes the death of the person against whom he is exercising such right of defence without premeditation, and without any intention of doing more harm than is necessary for the purpose of such defence.

Illustration 

Z attempts to horsewhip A, not in such a manner as to cause grievous hurt to A. A draws out a pistol. Z persists in the assault. A believing in good faith that he can by no other means prevent himself from being horsewhipped, shoots Z dead. A has not committed murder, but only culpable homicide.

Exception 3. Culpable homicide is not murdered if the offender, being a public servant or aiding a public servant acting for the advancement of public justice, exceeds the powers given to him by law, and causes death by doing an act which he, in good faith, believes to be lawful and necessary for the due discharge of his duty as such public servant and without ill-will towards the person whose death is caused.

Exception 4. Culpable homicide is not murdered if it is committed without premeditation in a sudden fight in the heat of passion upon a sudden quarrel and without the offender having taken undue advantage or acted in a cruel or unusual manner.  Explanation.—It is immaterial in such cases which party offers the provocation or commits the first assault.

Exception 5. Culpable homicide is not murder when the person whose death is caused, being above the age of eighteen years, suffers death or takes the risk of death with his own consent. Illustration A, by instigation, voluntarily causes, Z, a person under eighteen years of age to commit suicide. Here, on account of Z’s youth, he was incapable of giving consent to his own death; A has therefore abetted murder.