Test: General Exceptions under IPC - CLAT PG MCQ

The General Exceptions are designed to outline specific circumstances under which individuals may be excused from criminal liability. They clarify when actions, though seemingly criminal, may be justified based on context and intent.

The Supreme Court's ruling established that it is illegal for a husband to have sexual relations with his wife if she is between 15 and 18 years old, irrespective of her consent. This ruling was a significant change in the legal landscape, aimed at protecting minors from potential exploitation.

Duress involves being compelled to act against one’s will due to threats of immediate harm. This legal concept acknowledges that individuals may commit acts they would not normally consider under extreme pressure.

Section 82 states that a child under the age of seven cannot be held criminally liable for their actions. This recognizes the developmental understanding of young children and their inability to comprehend the consequences of their actions.

Section 94 states that, except for murder and offenses against the state punishable by death, acts committed under duress are typically not regarded as offenses. This highlights the legal system's recognition of coercion's impact on decision-making.

This maxim signifies that a person may be excused for actions taken in ignorance of fact, but ignorance of the law does not provide a defense. It emphasizes the importance of being aware of legal obligations.

Section 106 allows for the risk of harm to an innocent person if necessary to defend oneself against imminent danger. This provision underscores the complexity of self-defense situations where protecting oneself may unintentionally affect others.

The right of private defense must be proportional to the threat encountered. For instance, if someone is threatened with a minor injury, responding with lethal force would not be justified under the law.

Section 95 specifies that acts causing slight harm are not offenses if they would not be complained about by a reasonable person. This provision aims to prevent minor grievances from escalating into legal disputes.

Section 84 provides that an individual is not liable for an offense if, at the time of the act, they are unable to understand the nature of their actions due to unsoundness of mind. This principle is rooted in the understanding that culpability requires a certain level of mental competency.

Section 87 states that an act is not an offense if it is done with the consent of a person above 18 years of age and is not intended to cause death or grievous hurt. This section emphasizes the role of consent in certain circumstances.

Section 85 covers acts committed under involuntary intoxication, where a person is intoxicated without their knowledge or against their will. In contrast, voluntary intoxication, where a person knowingly consumes intoxicating substances, does not excuse criminal acts.

Section 103 allows for the use of deadly force in private defense when responding to serious offenses like robbery or house-breaking at night, where the threat to life is imminent.

Section 90 clarifies that consent obtained through fear or misconception is not valid, safeguarding individuals from being coerced or misled into consenting to actions that would otherwise be considered offenses.

An act performed by a judge in the course of their judicial duties is considered justifiable. Judges have the authority to make decisions that may otherwise be seen as harmful, as they are acting within the law and their jurisdiction.

Section 76 states that an act is excusable if performed under the belief that it is required by law. For example, a soldier firing on a mob under lawful orders would not be held liable, as he genuinely believed he was acting within his legal rights.

Section 100 permits the use of deadly force in self-defense when there is a reasonable apprehension of death or grievous hurt. This provision ensures individuals can protect themselves from serious harm.

Section 81 allows for acts that may cause harm if they are performed to prevent a greater harm. This principle recognizes the moral dilemma of choosing the lesser of two evils in critical situations.

The provision for excusable acts acknowledges that some actions may not stem from criminal intent or culpability, thereby providing a legal avenue for individuals who act without malicious intent or understanding.

The prosecution must prove its case beyond a reasonable doubt, establishing the defendant's guilt with a high level of certainty. This standard is fundamental in criminal law to protect individuals from wrongful conviction.