General Defences Under Ipc And Judicial Interpretation
πΉ I. Categories of General Defences under IPC
| Category | Relevant Sections | Description |
|---|---|---|
| Mistake of Fact | Sec 76β79 | Act done under a mistake of fact (not law). |
| Judicial Acts | Sec 77β78 | Acts done under judicial authority or pursuant to court orders. |
| Accident | Sec 80 | Acts done without intention and through misfortune. |
| Absence of Mens Rea | Sec 81β86 | Acts done without criminal intent or knowledge. |
| Consent | Sec 87β89, 92 | Acts done with consent or for benefit without consent in certain cases. |
| Communication | Sec 93 | Acts done in good faith to convey a message. |
| Insanity | Sec 84 | Mental incapacity or unsoundness of mind. |
| Intoxication | Sec 85β86 | Involuntary intoxication may exempt liability. |
| Compulsion (Duress) | Sec 94 | Acts done under threat to life. |
| Trifles | Sec 95 | Acts causing slight harm, not intended as an offence. |
| Private Defence | Sec 96β106 | Right to protect person or property from unlawful harm. |
πΉ II. Detailed Explanation with Key Case Laws
β 1. Mistake of Fact (Section 76 & 79)
Section 76: βAct done by a person bound, or by mistake of fact believing himself bound, by law.β
Section 79: βAct done by a person justified, or by mistake of fact believing himself justified, by law.β
Mistake must be of fact, not law.
π Case: State of West Bengal v. Shew Mangal Singh (1981)
Facts: Police officer shot a person mistaking him for a wanted criminal.
Held: If the mistake was honest and reasonable, the officer is protected under Section 76.
π Case: Chirangi v. State (1952)
Facts: A man killed his son under hallucination, thinking he was a ghost.
Held: Court accepted mistake of fact as a defence.
β 2. Unsoundness of Mind (Section 84)
"Nothing is an offence if the person, at the time of doing it, by reason of unsoundness of mind, was incapable of knowing the nature of the act, or that it was wrong or contrary to law."
π Case: Dahyabhai Chhaganbhai Thakkar v. State of Gujarat (1964)
Held: The burden of proving insanity lies on the accused under Section 105 of the Indian Evidence Act, but this is only to the extent of raising a reasonable doubt.
π Case: Surendra Mishra v. State of Jharkhand (2011)
Held: Mere abnormal behavior or past mental illness is not enoughβmust be proved that the accused was of unsound mind at the time of the offence.
β 3. Intoxication (Section 85 & 86)
Section 85: Protects acts done under involuntary intoxication.
Section 86: Does not excuse offence if intoxication is voluntary, especially for offences requiring only general intent.
π Case: Director of Public Prosecutions v. Beard (1920) (English case, often cited)
Held: If intoxication prevents formation of specific intent, it can be a defence.
π Case: Basudeo v. State of Pepsu (1956)
Held: Voluntary drunkenness not a defence to a charge of murder unless it negates mens rea.
β 4. Accident (Section 80)
"Nothing is an offence which is the result of an accident or misfortune, without any criminal intention or knowledge, and done in a lawful manner."
π Case: Tunda v. Rex (1949)
Facts: During friendly wrestling, one person died.
Held: It was a pure accident, and no criminal liability arose.
β 5. Private Defence (Sections 96β106)
Law permits a person to use reasonable force to protect life or property from unlawful aggression.
Section 96: Right of private defence not an offence.
Section 100: Can extend to causing death if assault leads to fear of death or grievous hurt.
π Case: State of U.P. v. Ram Swarup (1974)
Held: When a person faces an immediate threat to life, he need not wait to be attacked first.
π Case: Darshan Singh v. State of Punjab (2010)
Held: Person must not exceed the proportionality of force used in private defence.
β 6. Consent (Sections 87β89, 92)
Section 87: Act not an offence with consent if not intended to cause death or grievous hurt.
Section 92: Act done in good faith for a personβs benefit without consent in emergency.
π Case: Poonai Fattemah v. Emp. (1869)
Held: When a doctor performed surgery without consent, but in good faithβit was protected under Section 92.
β 7. Compulsion or Duress (Section 94)
A person is excused from liability if he commits an offence under threat of instant death, except for murder and offences against the state.
π Case: Queen v. Tolaram (1884)
Held: Accused acted under immediate threat to life. Court applied Section 94 but emphasized it does not apply to murder.
πΉ III. Summary Table of Key Defences & Cases
| Defence Type | Relevant Section | Landmark Case(s) | Principle Established |
|---|---|---|---|
| Mistake of Fact | Sec 76β79 | Chirangi, Shew Mangal | Honest mistake of fact, not law, excused |
| Unsoundness of Mind | Sec 84 | Dahyabhai, Surendra Mishra | Burden on accused to prove incapacity at the time |
| Intoxication | Sec 85β86 | Basudeo, Beard | Involuntary intoxication may excuse; voluntary usually not |
| Accident | Sec 80 | Tunda v. Rex | No intention or knowledge = no offence |
| Private Defence | Sec 96β106 | Ram Swarup, Darshan Singh | Force must be proportional and immediate |
| Consent | Sec 87β89, 92 | Poonai Fattemah | Consent or good faith action for benefit is defence |
| Duress | Sec 94 | Tolaram | Compulsion excuses offence, except murder |
πΉ IV. Conclusion
The general defences under IPC offer protection to individuals who commit acts under exceptional circumstances where mens rea (guilty intent) is absent, or where the act is justified by law, necessity, good faith, or compulsion.
Courts have repeatedly emphasized that:
Proof of circumstances (such as insanity, mistake, or threat) lies on the accused, though not beyond a reasonable doubt.
These defences are not absolute, and must be interpreted strictly and narrowly.
Judicial interpretation plays a vital role in refining these principles based on facts of each case.
RELATED Blog
0 comments