Are you looking for the general exceptions under the IPC (Indian Penal Code)? If yes then in this post i am going to discuss this topic in detail.
When a person has committed an offence, and ought to have been punished by law, if he is exempted from such legal punishment under special conditions stipulated in the law, it is known as General exceptions.
The law offers certain defences that exculpate criminal liability. These defences are based on the premise that though the person committed the offence, he cannot be held liable. General exceptions are explained under Sections 76 to 106 of the Indian Penal Code,1860.
These are the defences which absolve the accused from any criminal liability. Even if the accused does not plead for these defences but it is clear by the evidence that any of them are applicable the Court will suo moto apply them to his case.
The object of Chapter IV of the IPC includes exceptional circumstances in which an individual can escape reality. Section 76 to 106 covers these defences which are based on the presumption that a person is not responsible for the commission of a crime.
These defences depend upon the circumstances prevailing at the point of time, mens rea of person and reasonability of action of that accused.
What Are General Exceptions under the IPC (Indian Penal Code)?
General exceptions are divided into two categories:
1. Excusable acts
Excusable defences are those where the act committed is excused as mens rea is necessarily required. In such cases, the act is not a criminal act because the intention of the person was not criminal.
Example: If a crime is committed by a person of unsound mind, he cannot be held liable for that because he was not having criminal intent. The same thing applies to involuntary intoxication, insanity, infancy or honest mistake of fact.
- Mistake of fact (Section 76 and 79)
- Accident (Section 80)
- Infancy (Section 82 & 83)
- Insanity (Section 84)
- Intoxication (Section 85 & 86)
2. Judicially justifiable acts
In the case of justifiable defences the act committed is not excused but is justified on account of some considerations neutralizing the liability otherwise incurred.
Example: A captain of a ship turned the direction of a ship of 100 people in order to save their lives, but harmed the lives of 30 people on 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 small harm can be caused to avoid greater harm.
- Acts of judge and act warranted by judgment (S. 77&78)
- Necessity (S.81)
- Consent ( S. 87-92)
- Communication in good faith (S.93)
- Acts done under threats (S. 94)
- Trivial acts (S. 95)
- Private defense (S. 96-106)
Burden of proof
As per the general rule, the prisoner’s guilt is to be proved by the prosecution. But if a general exception is used in defence, the burden of proof is on the accused.
According to Section 105 of Indian Evidence Act,
When a person is accused of any offence, the burden of proving the existence of circumstances bringing the case within any of the General Exceptions in the Indian Penal Code, (45 of 1860), or within any special exception or proviso contained in any other part of the same Code, or in any law defining the offence, is upon him, and the Court shall presume the absence of such circumstances.
Mistake of fact
Section 76 is related to Mistake of fact which is bound by law and section 79 is related to the mistake of fact justified by law.
These provisions are based on the common law maxim, Ignorantia facti excusat, ignorantia legis neminem excusat. It means ignorance of fact is an excuse, and ignorance of the law is no excuse.
Ingredients of Section 76:
- By a person
- By a reason of a mistake of fact
- And not by the reason of a mistake of a law
- In good faith believing himself to be bound by law to do it.
Ingredients of Section 79:
- By any person
- 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.
Judicial acts ( Section 77&78)
Section 77 of the IPC provides protection to the Judge while acting judicially.
Ingredients of Section 77:
- The Judge must be acting judicially
- Act must be within his Jurisdiction
- The act must be performed in good faith
Section 78 is a corollary to Section 77. The provision under Section 78 provides protection to the officers acting under the authority of a judgment, or order of a Court of Justice. Mistake of law can be pleaded as a defence under this section.
Accident (Section 80)
The main object for providing this defence is that there is no criminal intention (mens rea) in accidents, if these 5 conditions are fulfilled it will be obvious that there was no criminal intent and the person would get protection under section 80.
- The act is done by accident or misfortune
- An act done was lawful
- It is done in a lawful manner
- By lawful means
- It is done with proper care and caution.
Necessity – the absence of criminal intent (Section 81)
Section 81 excuses the doing of evil so that good may result. It permits the infliction of a lesser evil in order to prevent a greater evil.
Ingredients of Section 81
- There must be no Mens rea
- The act must be done in good faith
- To prevent or avoid other harm
Bentham categorised 3 situations in which this Section is applied:
- The harm was done to prevent a greater evil.
- Other means were less effective
- That the means employed were more efficient.
Infancy (Section 82&83)
Section 82 provides defence to children below 7 years of age. A child below 7 years of age is considered to be doli incapax (incapable of committing an offence) and therefore cannot be held guilty of any offence. There is absolute incapacity for a crime under 7 years of age.
Presumption of law- A child has no discretion to distinguish right from wrong, thus criminal intention does not arise.
Example: If a child below 7 years of age presses the trigger of the gun and caused the death of his father, then, the child will not be liable.
According to Section 83 of IPC,it amounts to no offence, if
- Act is done
- By a child who is between 7-12 years of age
- Has no sufficient maturity for understanding
- To judge the nature and consequence of his conduct.
Malitia Supplet Oetatum- Malice supplies age.
If proven to have sufficient maturity of understanding, liability arises.
Insanity (Section 84)
A man who by reason of mental disease is prevented from controlling his own conduct, and a man who is deprived, by disease affecting the mind, of the power of passing a rational judgment on the moral character of the act he meant to do, is entitled to the benefit of Section 84.
Ingredients of Section 84 of IPC
- A person of unsound mind must do the act
- The person must not be capable of knowing the nature of the act.
- It must be due to unsoundness of mind
- Incapacity should exist at the time of doing the act.
M’Naghten case – House of Lords
Daniel M’Naughten suffered from a delusion and killed Edward Drummond (Secretary of
PM). Medical evidence also showed that he in fact was delusional which carried him away from self-control over his acts.
He was acquitted, which attracted criticism from the public.
Principles devised after this case which is followed for Section 84 of IPC:
- Every person would be assumed sane until the contrary is proved.
- It must be clearly proved that at the time of the commission of the crime the person was so insane that he did not know the nature and quality of his act, or if he knew, he did not know that he was doing wrong.
Intoxication (Section 85 & 86)
Voluntary intoxication is not a defence under sections 85 and 86 of the code. The provision on involuntary drunkenness is contained in Section 85. It affords the same protection to an accused as section 84 to a person of unsound mind.
Essentials to claim defence of Section 85:
- The accused must be intoxicated at the time of the commission of the crime.
- Because of intoxication, he was not in a condition to know the nature of his own act.
- Intoxicants must have been administered to him without his consent or against his will. (Voluntary intoxication is no defence)
Section 86 talks about the cases where a person is voluntarily intoxicated and due to intoxication is unable to form a particular intention and does some offences which require particular intention.
In Sarthi v. State of Madhya Pradesh
Three drunken accused persons had rendered the deceased unconscious by rough handling. They had thus, the specific intent to cause grievous hurt then, but the question regarding the intent became dubious when the accused person hanged him from the ceiling without taking step towards ascertaining whether he was dead or alive.
Held: The recklessness and gross negligence on the part of these accused, under a state of intoxication, gave the accused benefit to be charged with culpable homicide not amounting to murder.
Consent (Section 87-92)
Section 87 to 92 explains about the provisions of consent. When a person willfully consents to an injury he cannot blame the person who inflicted the injury.
Section 87 is based on the principle volenti non fit injuria which means he who consents suffers no injury. It is important to note that the person giving the consent must be above eighteen years of age. Also, this section does not justify the intentional causing of death or grievous hurt, or where the doer knows the death or grievous hurt is likely to result in one giving consent.
Section 88 condones the infliction of any harm as it is for the benefit of the person to whom it is caused. To avail of the benefit under the section, it is necessary to show that the act was done for the benefit of the person.
Ingredients of section 88
- Act not intended to cause death
- Act must be for the benefit of that person and done in good faith
- It should be with the person’s consent ( expressed or implied)
Section 89 offers protection to guardians as well as to other persons acting with the consent of the guardian of a person under 12 years of age, or of unsound mind. Under section 89 the consent is of the guardian or other person having lawful charge of the infant or insane.
Ingredients of Section 89
In order to avail the defence under section 89, the following conditions must be fulfilled:
- The act must be done for the benefit of a person who is under the age of 12 years or of an unsound mind.
- The act must be done in good faith
- Ac must be done by the guardian or by the consent of the guardian or other person having lawful charge of the infant or insane.
- The consent may either be expressed or implied.
Section 90 does not define consent but describes what is not consent. Consent in order to be a defence must be a valid consent i.e, it must be given by a person who is capable of giving a good and valid consent and it must be given freely by such person.
Consent is not a free consent under this section, if:
- Consent is given under fear of injury
- Consent is given under misconception of fact
- A child under 12 years of age gives the consent
- A person of unsound mind gives consent.
- Consent is given by an intoxicated person.
Section 91 lays down that if the act done, is an offence independently of the harm which it has caused then the doer will not be protected by the consent given. This section is an exception to the general exceptions contained in sections 87, 88 and 89 of the code.
There is an act – Miscarriage
- It causes some harm to the woman
- If the woman even consents to the harm
- It won’t be coerced under sections 87,88 or 89
- Because causing a miscarriage is also an offence against the child.
- So the act is independently an offence other than the harm caused which was consented.
Section 92
Ingredients of Section 92:
- The act must be done for the benefit of the person
- The act must be done in good faith
- The act must be reasonable in the circumstance of the case.
- The act must be done without that person’s consent or without the consent of some other person on his behalf.
Communication (Section 93)
As per section 93, no communication is an offence, though it causes harm to the person to whom it is made if it is made in good faith and for the benefit of that person.
Duress (Section 94)
According to Section 94, no amount of mental compulsion arising out of the threat of injury can under any circumstances excuse the causing of death or causing of any offence against the State punishable with death.
In order to justify an act under Section 94, three points must be proved:
- That the person did not voluntary expose himself to the constraint
- That the fear which prompted his action was the fear of instant death
- That the act itself was done at a time when he was left with no option or in do or die situation.
Trifles (Section 95)
This section is based on the maxim de minimis non curat lex which means that the law takes no account of trifles. No reasonable man complains of mere trifles.
This section covers the following acts:
- Where a person takes husk, seed vessels almost valueless from a tree standing on Government wasteland
- Where the accused committed theft of a cheque of zero value
Private defence (Section 96-106)
A State is under obligation to protect life, limb and property of its subject. But a state can never extend its help to all at all times and in all cases.
So in a situation of danger, a person is entitled to stay and overcome the threat and can use the force that is just required to counter the danger.
This is the right of private defence and the provisions related to it are provided under sections 96 to 106 of IPC.
Like This Post? Checkout More
