General Exception under Indian penal code

Introduction

The General rule of crime is that the accused will be punishable for the offence he has committed but it is subject to some exceptions. General exceptions are the defences available to a person accused of committing an offence. If the court is satisfied that the circumstances of the accused come under the general exception, then he will not be liable or punishable by law.

Indian Penal code provides General explanations under Chapter IV (Section 76 to 106) such as mistake of fact, Accident, or Necessity. These Exceptions protects the accused from criminal liability due to some circumstances which are though unlawful but justified under law. The Burden of proof lies on the accused to prove that his case comes within the scope of general exception.

General Exceptions under Indian penal code

1. Mistake of Fact (Section 76 and 79)

If a person does any act under mistake of fact in good faith believes himself to be bound by law or justified by law, they are exempt from criminal liability. The Mistake should be only of fact and not of law. 

Example: - A, a police officer ordered by the court to arrest C nut A arrest B believing him to be C. A has committed no offence.

Maxim: - Ignorantia Facti Excusat, Ignorantia Juris non Excusat

• Ignorance of fact is excusable, but ignorance of law is not excusable

Case law: - R Vs Prince

Held: - The Accused took an unmarried girl under the age of 16 years out of possession, and against her will of her father. The Defence of the accused was that the Bonafide and unreasonably believed that the girl was older than sixteen years. It was held that as the taking of the girl was unlawful, the defence was bad.

2. Judicial Acts/ Justifiable Acts (Section 77 and 78)

An Act done by a judge acting judicially in the exercise of any power in good faith is not an offence and Act done in pursuance of judgment or order of court of justice in good faith believes that the court passing the judgment has jurisdiction is also not an offence.

Example: - Hangmen hang the accused to death in pursuance of judgment or court has committed no offence.  

3. Accident (Section 80)

If a person does any lawful act in lawful manner by lawful means and with proper care and caution but offence has been committed by accident or misfortune, having no criminal intention or knowledge, they are exempt from criminal liability.

Example: - A person has a Pistol in his pocket, the pick-pocketer puts hand inside the pocket and trigger gets pulled and that person dies. He has committed no offence and got defence under this section.

Maxim: - Actus non facit reum nisi mens sit rea

• The act itself does not make a man guilty unless his intentions were so.

Case law: - Tunda Vs State

Held: - In this case, The accused and deceased were engaged in a wrestling bout. While wrestling, the deceased got injured on his head which resulted into his death. It was held that the injury was caused by accident having no criminal intention or knowledge. In addition to that the court held that there was an implied consent of the deceased in taking any risk during wrestling.  

4. Necessity (Section 81)

If a person does any act which the knowledge that it is likely to cause harm but done without having any criminal intention in good faith for the purpose of preventing other harm to person or property.

Maxim: - Necessitas non habet legem

• Necessity knows no law.

Case law: - Queen Vs Dudley & Stephen

Held: - It was held in this case that a person who kills another person to consume his flesh to save themselves from starvation is guilty of murder. no defence of necessity available to the accused.

5. Infancy (Section 82 and 83)

An act done by a child under 7 years of age or above 7 years of age and under 12 years of age, not attained sufficient maturity of understanding to judge nature and consequence of the committed act, has committed no offence.

Example: - A, a child of 5 years who committed theft, has committed no offence

Maxim: - Doli Incapax

• Age is total Defence.

6. Unsound Mind (Section 84)

An Act done by a person who is by reason of unsoundness of mind at the time of doing it, incapable of knowing that nature of act, or the act is wrong or contrary to law, has committed no offence. Insanity should be legal insanity not medical insanity.

Case Law: - M’ Naughten Rule

Held: - In this case, it was held that Legal insanity is quite different from medical insanity.

7. Intoxication (Section 85 and 86)

An act done by a person who is by reason of involuntary intoxication at the time of doing it incapable of knowing the nature of act or what he is doing is wrong or contrary to law, has committed no offence.

There are two types of intoxication, the first is involuntary intoxication and the other is voluntary intoxication. When the intoxication is involuntary or against his will, the person will not be held liable but when it is voluntary then it shall be presumed that he had the same knowledge as he would have had if he had not been intoxicated.

Case Law: - Basdev Vs state of Pepsu AIR 1956

Held: - If offence was committed under intoxication but it was voluntary done and he was incapable of knowing the nature of act then in such cases intention cannot be presumed but knowledge will be presumed and accused will be held liable for the offence.

8. Consent (Section 87 – 91)

If the act is done with the consent of the person harmed and such consent is free and lawful, then he may be exempt from criminal liability. The consent should not be under fear of injury or misconception of fact. Consent can also be taken from the guardian in case of a child or insane person.

Example: - A, a surgeon knowing that a particular operation is likely to cause the death of z who supports the painful complaint but not intending to cause Z death, in good faith for Z's benefit, performs the operation with his consent. He has committed no offence

Maxim: - Volenti non fit injuria

• to a willing person it is not a wrong

9. Duress (Section 94)

An Act done under compulsion which reasonably causes the apprehension of instant death to that person, has committed no offence except murder or offence punishable with death.

10. Trifles (Section 95)

An Act intended to cause or likely to cause slight harm that no person of ordinary sense and temper wood complain of such harm is not an offence.

Example: - A gives a slight cut on B’s hand, A cannot go to court for this slight harm

Maxim: - De minimis non curat lex

• law does not take notice of trifles

11. Private Defence (Section 96 – 106)

Things done in private defence of body and property of himself or other person is not an offence.

Example: - A has attempted to commit rape on B, B on her defence stabbed A once with a knife, will get the benefit of private defence

Case Law: - Munney khan Vs State (1971)

Held: - The Supreme court observed, "the right of private defence is codified in section 96 to 106 IPC, which all have to be read together in order to give a proper grasp of the scope and limitations of the right."

Conclusion

Indian penal Code provides several general exceptions under Sec 76 to 106 that safeguard individuals from criminal liability who may have acted under unavoidable circumstances without any criminal intention or guilt and in good faith. These exceptions are rooted in principles of natural justice. Justice does not only mean to punish the accused but also to protect the innocent. Courts plays an important role in applying these exceptions in different cases depending on facts and evidence.