General Exceptions in IPC
📖 General Exceptions in IPC
The General Exceptions are provided under Sections 76 to 106 of the IPC. These protect individuals from criminal liability if their act, though apparently an offence, falls under certain justified circumstances.
1. Mistake of Fact (Sec. 76 – 79)
Sec. 76 – Act done by a person bound or by mistake of fact believing himself bound by law
Example: A soldier firing on a mob under orders of a superior officer in good faith.
Case: Chirangi v. State (1952) – A man killed his son believing him to be a bear. The court held it was a mistake of fact, hence excusable.
Sec. 77 – Act of a Judge
A judge acting in judicial capacity is not liable even if his judgment is incorrect.
Sec. 78 – Act done in pursuance of a judgment/order of court
Example: An officer carrying out the order of a judge.
Sec. 79 – Act done by a person justified or by mistake of fact believing himself justified by law
Example: A police officer arresting the wrong person believing him to be a criminal.
Case: State of Orissa v. Ram Bahadur Thapa (1960) – Nepali watchman killed a woman thinking she was a ghost. Held: Protected under mistake of fact.
2. Judicial and Executive Acts (Sec. 77 – 78)
Judges and officers executing court orders are exempted from liability if acting in good faith.
3. Accident (Sec. 80)
Act done by accident or misfortune, without criminal intention, while doing a lawful act in a lawful manner.
Case: Tunda v. Rex (1950) – While wrestling, one died accidentally. Held: No offence, protected under Sec. 80.
4. Absence of Criminal Intention (Sec. 81)
Act likely to cause harm but done without criminal intent, in good faith, to prevent other harm.
Case: R v. Dudley & Stephens (1884) – Though not Indian, often cited. Sailors killed a boy to save themselves. Not protected as it was not done in good faith.
5. Infancy (Sec. 82 – 83)
Sec. 82: Children under 7 years – absolute immunity.
Sec. 83: Children between 7–12 years – immunity if lacking sufficient maturity.
Case: Krishna Bhagwan v. State (1954) – Child below 12 years acquitted due to lack of maturity.
6. Insanity (Sec. 84)
Act of a person of unsound mind who cannot understand the nature or consequences of his act.
Case: McNaughton’s Rule (1843, English case) – Basis of Sec. 84.
Case: Surendra Mishra v. State of Jharkhand (2011) – Insanity must be proven at the time of offence, not before or after.
7. Intoxication (Sec. 85 – 86)
Sec. 85: Involuntary intoxication – no liability.
Sec. 86: Voluntary intoxication – liable unless incapable of forming intent.
Case: Basdev v. State of Pepsu (1956) – Accused shot a person under voluntary drunkenness; held guilty.
8. Consent (Sec. 87 – 89, 92)
Acts done with consent are not offences, if:
Consent is by a person above 18 years.
Act is not intended to cause death or grievous hurt.
Sec. 89: Consent on behalf of children or insane persons by guardians.
Sec. 92: Acts done in good faith for benefit, without consent, in emergencies.
Case: Poonai Fattemah v. Emperor (1869) – Consent of guardian considered valid.
9. Communication (Sec. 93)
Communication made in good faith is not an offence.
Example: A doctor warning a patient about his illness.
10. Duress (Sec. 94)
Acts done under compulsion (except murder and waging war against the state).
Case: R v. Dudley & Stephens (distinguished: necessity not a defence to murder).
11. Trifling Acts (Sec. 95)
Acts causing slight harm, which a person of ordinary sense would overlook, are not offences.
12. Private Defence (Sec. 96 – 106)
Right to protect body and property against offences.
Cannot be used for retribution.
Sec. 100: Extends to causing death if there is apprehension of death, grievous hurt, rape, etc.
Case: Darshan Singh v. State of Punjab (2010) – Right of private defence must be judged considering imminent danger.
Case: Wassan Singh v. State of Punjab (1996) – Private defence available only till the threat continues.
📊 Summary Table – General Exceptions in IPC
| Section | Provision | Essence | Case Law |
|---|---|---|---|
| 76–79 | Mistake of fact / lawful authority | Acts under mistaken belief of law or bound by law | Chirangi v. State (1952), Ram Bahadur Thapa (1960) |
| 77–78 | Judicial/official acts | Judges & officers protected | – |
| 80 | Accident | No intent + lawful act | Tunda v. Rex (1950) |
| 81 | Absence of criminal intent | Act to prevent harm | R v. Dudley & Stephens |
| 82–83 | Infancy | <7 years absolute immunity; 7–12 relative | Krishna Bhagwan v. State (1954) |
| 84 | Insanity | Unsound mind, no knowledge of act | Surendra Mishra v. State (2011) |
| 85–86 | Intoxication | Involuntary excused, voluntary not | Basdev v. State of Pepsu (1956) |
| 87–89, 92 | Consent | Consent of adult/guardian, good faith | Poonai Fattemah v. Emperor (1869) |
| 93 | Communication | Good faith communication | – |
| 94 | Duress | Under compulsion (except murder, war) | – |
| 95 | Trifling acts | Slight harm ignored | – |
| 96–106 | Private Defence | Protection of body & property | Darshan Singh v. State (2010) |
RELATED Blog
0 comments