General Exceptions | Criminal Law - CLAT PG PDF Download

General Exceptions Under the IPC

Recent Legal Changes

• In a significant ruling, the Supreme Court made it illegal for a man to have sexual relations with his wife if she is between 15 and 18 years old, regardless of her consent. This decision overturned a previous exception in rape law that allowed husbands to have sex with their wives aged 15 and older without considering consent.
• The ruling was influenced by a Public Interest Litigation (PIL) filed by the NGO Independent Thought and applies even within the framework of Muslim Personal Law.

Overview of Criminal Law

• Criminal law in India addresses various offenses and prescribes different punishments based on the nature of the crime.
• However, it is not always guaranteed that a person will be punished for a crime they have committed.

General Exceptions in the Indian Penal Code (IPC)

• The Indian Penal Code (IPC) of 1860 acknowledges certain defenses under Chapter IV, titled "General Exceptions."
• These defenses, outlined in Sections 76 to 106, are based on the assumption that a person is not liable for the crime committed.
• The applicability of these defenses depends on factors such as the prevailing circumstances, the mens rea (intention) of the person, and the reasonableness of the accused's actions at the time.

Object of Chapter IV

Not all offences are absolute; there are certain exceptions. When the Indian Penal Code (IPC) was drafted, it was assumed that there were no exceptions in criminal cases, which was a significant oversight. To address this, the makers of the Code introduced Chapter IV, applicable to the entire concept of criminal exceptions.

In summary, the objectives of Chapter IV include:

• Defining exceptional circumstances under which an individual can escape liability.
• Simplifying the construction of the Code by eliminating the repetition of criminal exceptions.

Burden of Proof

• Generally, the prosecution is required to prove its case against the accused beyond a reasonable doubt.
• Before the implementation of the Indian Evidence Act in 1882, the prosecution had to demonstrate that the case did not fall under any exception. However, Section 105 of the Evidence Act shifted the burden onto the claimant.
• In cases involving exceptions, according to Section 105 of the Evidence Act, the claimant must prove the existence of a general exception in crimes.

The Fabric of Chapter IV

Section 6 of the IPC states:

“Throughout this code, every definition of offence, every penal provision and every illustration of every such definition or penal provision, shall be understood subject to exceptions contained in the chapter titled General Exceptions”.

The General Exceptions are categorized into two types:

• Excusable Acts
• Judicially Justifiable Acts

Excusable Acts

An Excusable Act refers to a situation where a person causes harm but should be excused because they cannot be blamed for the act. For instance, if a person with an unsound mind commits a crime, they cannot be held responsible because they lacked mens rea (the intention to commit a crime). The same applies to cases of involuntary intoxication, insanity, infancy, or an honest mistake of fact.

A Mistake of Fact Under Sections 76 and 79

Section 76: Act Done by a Person Bound or by Mistake of Fact

• Section 76 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) addresses acts done by a person who believes, either by being bound by law or through a mistake of fact, that they are obligated to perform such acts.
• The principle is derived from the legal maxim "ignorantia facti doth excusat, ignorantia juris non excusat," which means ignorance of fact excuses, while ignorance of law does not.
• Example: If a soldier fires on a mob under the orders of his officer, believing he is acting in accordance with the law, he will not be held liable.

Section 79: Act Done by a Person Justified or by Mistake of Fact

• Section 79 of the IPC pertains to acts done by a person who believes, in good faith and due to a mistake of fact (not a mistake of law), that they are justified by law in performing such acts.
• Example: If A mistakenly believes that Z is a murderer and, acting in good faith, detains Z to present him before the authorities, A has not committed any offense.

Case Law for Section 79

• In the case of Kiran Bedi v. Committee of Inquiry, the petitioner refused to testify at the beginning of an inquiry, believing she could only do so at the end.

Accident under Section 80

• Section 80 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) deals with accidents committed while performing a lawful act. It states that nothing is an offense if done by accident or misfortune, without any criminal intention or knowledge, in the course of doing a lawful act in a lawful manner, by lawful means, and with proper care and caution.
• Example: Suppose M is attempting to shoot a bird with a gun, but the bullet ricochets off an oak tree and accidentally injures N. In this case, M would not be held liable for the harm caused to N.

Case Law for Section 80

• In the case of King Emperor v. Timmappa, a division bench ruled that shooting with an unlicensed gun does not prevent an accused from claiming defense under Section 81 of the IPC. The appeal for acquittal was rejected, and the trial magistrate's order was upheld.
• The court believed that there was no reason to enhance the sentence under Section 19(e) of the Indian Arms Act. The respondent was liable under the provision, but not more than that. He had borrowed a gun for a few minutes to kill an animal he thought might attack him and his partners. The application for sentence enhancement was dismissed.

Infancy – Section 82 and 83

Section 82: Act of a Child Below Seven Years of Age

• According to Section 82 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC), nothing is considered an offense if committed by a child under seven years of age.
• Example: If a child below seven years of age accidentally pulls the trigger of a gun and causes the death of his father, the child will not be held liable for the act.

Section 83: Act of a Child Above Seven and Below Twelve Years of Age

• Section 83 of the IPC states that nothing is an offense if committed by a child above seven years of age and under twelve, who lacks sufficient maturity of understanding to comprehend the nature and implications of his actions at that time.
• Example: If a 10-year-old child kills his father with a gun due to immaturity, he will not be held liable if he has not attained the necessary maturity to understand the consequences of his actions.

Case Law for Section 83

• In the case of Krishna Bhagwan v. State of Bihar, the Patna High Court affirmed that a child accused of an offense during the trial can be convicted if he has attained the age of seven years at the time of decision and possesses the understanding and knowledge of the offense committed.

Insanity – Section 84

• According to Section 84 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC), an act committed by a person of unsound mind is not considered an offense if, at the time of committing it, the person, due to unsoundness of mind, is incapable of understanding the nature of the act or realizing that what they are doing is either wrong or against the law.
• Example: If A, who is insane, kills B with a knife believing it to be a fun game, A will not be held responsible for B's death because he was unaware of the nature of his actions and the legal implications. He lacked the capacity to think rationally.

Case Law for Section 84

• In the case of Ashiruddin Ahmed vs. State, the accused, Ashiruddin, was commanded by someone in paradise to sacrifice his four-year-old son. The next morning, he took his son to a Mosque and killed him, then went straight to his uncle. However, upon encountering a chowkidar, he took his uncle nearby a tank and recounted the story.
• The Supreme Court opined that the accused could claim the defense of insanity as, although he understood the nature of his act, he did not comprehend what was wrong.

Intoxication – Section 85 and 86

Section 85: Act of a Person Incapable of Judgment Due to Involuntary Intoxication

• According to Section 85 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC), an act committed by a person who is incapable of understanding the nature of the act, or that it is wrong or contrary to law, due to involuntary intoxication, is not an offense. This applies when the intoxication was administered against the person's will or without their knowledge.
• Example: If A consumes alcohol given by a friend, thinking it is a soft drink, and subsequently becomes intoxicated and injures someone while driving home, A will not be held liable as the alcohol was administered without his consent or knowledge.

Section 86: Intoxication in Offenses Requiring Specific Intent or Knowledge

• Section 86 of the IPC deals with situations where an act is not considered an offense unless done with specific knowledge or intent. If a person commits such an act while intoxicated, they will be treated as if they had the same knowledge they would have had if not intoxicated, unless the intoxication was involuntary.
• Example: If a person stabs another while intoxicated, and the alcohol was administered without their knowledge or against their will, they will not be liable. However, if the person stabbed another while voluntarily intoxicated, they would be liable.

Case Law for Section 86

• In the case of Babu Sadashiv Jadhav, the accused was intoxicated and had a dispute with his wife. He poured kerosene on her and set her on fire, then attempted to extinguish the fire. The court determined that he intended to cause bodily harm likely to result in death under section 299(2) and sentenced him under section 304, Part I of the code.

Justifiable Acts

A justified act is typically considered wrongful, but the circumstances surrounding its execution render it acceptable and tolerable.

Act of Judge and Act performed in pursuance of an order under Section 77 and 78

Section 77: Act of Judge when acting judicially

• Nothing is considered an offense if done by a judge acting judicially within the powers believed to be granted by law.

Example: Judges exercising judicial powers, such as giving capital punishment, are acting within their legal authority.

Section 78: Act done pursuant to the Judgment or order of the court

• Acts done in accordance with a court's judgment or order are not offenses, even if the court lacked jurisdiction, as long as the person believed in good faith that the court had jurisdiction.

Example: A judge imposing a lifetime jail sentence in good faith is not liable for any offense.

Necessity under 81

• Act likely to cause harm, but done without criminal intent, and to prevent other harm. Nothig is an offence merely by reason of its being done with the knowledge that it is likely to cause harm if it is 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.
• Example: A Captain of a ship turned the direction of the ship of 100 people in order to save their lives, but harming the life of 30 people of a small boat, without any intention or negligence or fault on his part. He will not be liable because necessity is a condition in which a person causes small harm to avoid great harm.

Case law for Section 81

• In Bishambher v. Roomal, 1950, the complainant Bishambhara had molested a girl Nathia. Khacheru, Mansukh, and Nathu were accused related to the father of the girl. The Chamars were agitated and determined to punish Bhishambher. Rumal Singh, Fateh Singh, and Balwant Singh intervened and tried to bring a settlement. They collected a panchayat and the complainant’s black was blackened and given shoe beating. It was found by the court that the accused had intervened in good faith but the panchayat was having no authority to take such a step.

Consent under Section 87 – 89 and Section 92

Section 87: Act not intended and not known to be likely to cause death or grievous hurt, done by consent.

• Nothing which is not intended to cause death, or grievous hurt, and which is not known by the doer which is likely to cause death or grievous hurt, is an offence by reason of any harm which it may cause, or to be intended by the doer to cause, to any person, above 18 years of age, who has given consent, whether express or implied, to suffer that harm; or by reason of any harm which it may be known by the doer to be likely to cause to any such person who has consented to that risk of harm.
• Example: A and E agreed to fence each other for enjoyment. This agreement implies the consent of each other to suffer harm which, in the course of such fencing, may be caused without foul play and if A while playing fairly hurts E, then A, has committed no offence.

Case law for Section 87

• In Poonai Fattemah v. Emp, the accused who professed to be a snake charmer, induced the deceased to believe him that he had the power to protect him from any harm caused by the snake bite. The deceased believed him and got bitten by the snake and died. The defence of consent was rejected.

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.

Case law for Section 88

• In R.P Dhanda V. Bhurelal, the appellant, a medical doctor, performed an eye operation for cataract with patient’s consent. The operation resulted in the loss of eyesight. The doctor was protected under this defence as he acted in good faith.

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

• Nothing which is done in good faith for the benefit of a person under twelve years of age, or of unsound mind, by or by consent, either express or implied, of the guardian or other person having lawful charge of that person, 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 that person

Section 92: Act done in good faith for the benefit of a person without consent.

• Nothig is an offence by reason of any harm which it may causes to a person for whose benefit it is done in good faith, even without that person’s consent, if the circumstances are such that it is impossible for that person to signify consent, or if that person is incapable of giving consent, and has no guardian or other person in lawful charge of him from whom it is possible to obtain consent in time for the thing to be done with benefit.

Section 90: 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;
• Consent of children: The contrary appears from the context, if the consent is given by a person who is under twelve years of age.

Case law for Section 90

• In Jakir Ali v. State of Assam, it was proved beyond doubt that the accused had sexual intercourse with the victim on a false promise of marriage. The Gauhati High Court held that submission of the body by a woman under fear or misconception of fact cannot be construed as consent and so conviction of the accused under sections 376 and 417 of the Indian Penal Code was proper.

Section 91: Exclusion of acts which are offences independently of harm caused.

• 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 under Section 93

• 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.
• Example: A doctor in good faith tells the wife that her husband has cancer and his life is in danger. The wife died of shock after hearing this. The doctor will not be liable because he communicated this news in good faith.

Duress under Section 94

• Act to which a person is compelled by threats. Except murder, and offences against the state punishable with death, nothing is an offence which done by a person compelled to do it under threats, which, at the time of doing it, reasonably cause the apprehension that instant death to that person will otherwise be the consequence, provided the person doing the act did not of his own accord, or from reasonable apprehension of harm to himself short of instant death, place himself in the situation by which he became subject to such constraint.
• Example: A was caught by a gang of dacoits and was under fear of instant death. He was compelled to take gun and forced to open the door of house for entrance of dacoits and harm the family. A will not be guilty of offence under duress.

Trifles under Section 95

• Act causing slight harm is included under this section. 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 law for Section 95

• 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.

Private Defence under Section 96 – 106

Section 96: Things done in private defence.

• Definition: Nothing is considered an offense when a person harms another in the course of exercising private defense.

Section 97: Right of private defence of body and property.

• Overview: Every individual has the right to private defense with reasonable restrictions as outlined in Section 99.
• Private Defence of Body: Protection against any offense threatening life, including actions to safeguard one's own or another's body.
• Private Defence of Property: Protection of movable or immovable property against offenses like theft, robbery, mischief, or criminal trespass, including attempts to commit these offenses.

Example: A father protects his daughter from a thief by shooting him in the leg. The father is not liable as he was defending his daughter's life.

Case Law for Section 97

• In Akonti Bora v. State of Assam: The Gauhati High Court ruled that the right of private defense of property includes the act of dispossession or throwing out a trespasser, which extends to throwing away the material objects used in the trespass.

Section 98: Right of private defence against the act of a person of unsound mind etc.

• Definition: When an act that would typically be an offense is not considered so due to factors like youth, lack of understanding, unsoundness of mind, intoxication, or misconception on the part of the actor, individuals have the same right of private defense against that act as they would if it were an offense.
• Example: If A, under the influence of insanity, attempts to kill Z, but A is not guilty, Z has the right to exercise private defense to protect himself from A.

Section 99: Acts against which there is no right of private defence.

• There is no right of private defence against an act that does not reasonably cause the apprehension of death or grievous hurt when done or attempted by a public servant acting in good faith under the color of his office, even if the act is not strictly justifiable by law.
• There is no right of private defence against an act that does not reasonably cause the apprehension of death or grievous hurt when done or attempted by the direction of a public servant acting in good faith under the color of his office, even if the direction is not strictly justifiable by law.
• There is no right of private defence in situations where there is time to seek the protection of public authorities.
• The harm caused in private defence should be proportional to the imminent danger or attack.

Case Law for Section 99

• In Puran Singh v. State of Punjab: The Supreme Court noted that when there is an invasion or aggression on property by someone without the right of possession, the accused has the right to resist the attack and use force if necessary, without needing to rely on public authorities.

Section 100: When the right of private defence of the body extends to causing death.

• Assault causing reasonable apprehension of death.
• Reasonable apprehension of grievous hurt.
• Committing rape.
• Unnatural lust.
• Kidnapping or abducting.
• Wrongfully confining a person in a manner that the person reasonably apprehends assault and cannot contact public authority.
• Throwing or attempting to throw acid, causing apprehension of grievous hurt.

Case Law for Section 100

• In Yogendra Morarji v. State: The Supreme Court elaborated on the extent and limitations of the right of private defense of the body. It emphasized that there must be no safe or reasonable mode of escape or retreat for a person facing imminent peril to life or bodily harm except by inflicting death.

Section 101: When such rights extend to causing any harm other than death.

• If the offense is not one of the types mentioned in the previous section, the right of private defense of the body does not allow for the voluntary causing of death to the assailant. However, it does permit the voluntary causing of any harm other than death to the assailant, subject to the restrictions outlined in Section 99.

Case Law for Section 101

• In Dharmindar v. State of Himachal Pradesh: The court noted that the burden of proof to establish the right of private defense is not as heavy as that of the prosecution to prove its case. If the facts and circumstances lead to a preponderance of probabilities in favor of the defense case, it is sufficient to discharge the burden of proving self-defense.

Section 102: Commencement and continuance of the right of private defence of the body.

• The right of private defense of the body begins as soon as there is a reasonable apprehension of danger to the body arising from an attempt or threat to commit an offense, even if the offense has not yet been committed. It continues as long as the apprehension of danger to the body persists.

Example: If A, B, and C are chasing D with the intention to kill him for revenge, and suddenly they see a policeman approaching, causing them to turn back in fear. If D then shoots B in the leg, even though there was no imminent danger, D would be liable as there was no apprehension of death or danger.

Section 103: When the right of private defence of property extends to causing death.

• Robbery.
• House-breaking by night.
• Mischief by fire committed on any building, tent, or vessel used as a dwelling or for the custody of property.
• Theft, mischief, or house-trespass under circumstances that reasonably cause apprehension of death or grievous hurt if the right of private defense is not exercised.

Example: If C attempts to stab D during a burglary in D's house, D may reasonably fear grievous harm. To protect himself and his property, D kills C in self-defense. D would not be liable.

Case Law for Section 103

• In Mohinder Pal Jolly v. State: The court found that the accused acted in defense of property when he shot a deceased worker during a protest. The court ruled that the accused was justified in his actions under the circumstances.

Section 104: When such right extends to causing harm other than death.

• If the offense that occasions the exercise of the right of private defense is theft, mischief, or criminal trespass, and does not fall under the descriptions in the previous section, the right does not extend to causing death. However, it does extend to causing any harm other than death to the wrongdoer, subject to the restrictions in Section 99.

Example: If A commits criminal trespass to annoy or harm B, B has the right to harm A in a proportional manner, but not to cause A's death.

Case Law for Section 104

• In V.C Cheriyan v. State: The court ruled that private defense does not extend to causing death in this case. The accused's actions were not justified under the principle of private defense.

Section 105: Commencement and continuance of the right of private defence of property.

• The right of private defense of property begins when there is a reasonable apprehension of danger to the property.
• The right of private defense of property against theft continues until the offender has retreated with the property, or public authorities are involved, or the property is recovered.
• The right of private defense of property against robbery lasts as long as the offender poses a threat of death, hurt, or wrongful restraint.
• The right of private defense of property against criminal trespass or mischief lasts as long as the offender continues the trespass or mischief.
• The right of private defense of property against house-breaking by night lasts as long as the house-trespass initiated by such house-breaking continues.

Example: If a thief breaks into an individual's house and attempts to harm him with a knife, the individual has the right to act in private defense and harm the thief to protect life and property.

Case Law for Section 105

• In Nga Pu Ke v. Emp: The accused was found guilty of an offense after attacking a cartman who had illegally removed his paddy sheaves. The court held the accused responsible for the death of the cartman.

Section 106: Right of private defence against deadly assault when there is a risk of harm to innocent person.

• If, in exercising private defense against an assault, a person causes apprehension of death and has no choice but to harm an innocent person, the right extends to that risk.

Example: If C is attacked by a mob attempting to murder him and must fire at the mob to defend himself, causing harm to innocent bystanders, C is not at fault for exercising his right to private defense.

Conclusion

• These general exceptions provide the accused with the opportunity to evade liability or protect themselves in specific circumstances.
• Depending on the situation, these exceptions can extend to causing the death of a person or harming an innocent individual.
• It is essential to uphold the accused's right to be heard, reflecting the democratic principles of our nation.
• These exceptions are designed to ensure that individuals can defend themselves in a court of law.