General Exceptions under Indian Penal Code (Ss 76 to 106)

1
General exception inIndian penal code
Sandeep Kulshrestha Amity Law School Amity
University, MP
2
General Exceptions

• Section 6 of I.P.C.
• Throughout this Code every definition of an
  offence, every penal provision and every
  illustration of every such definition or Penal
  provision, shall be Understood subject to
  exceptions contained in the chapter entitled
  General Exceptions

3
Burden of Proof

• General Principle
• Prosecution has to prove its case beyond
  reasonable doubt against the accuse

• Before enactment of Indian Evidence Act 1882,
  Prosecution had to prove that the case doesnt
  fall in any of the general exceptions, but
  section 105 of Evidence Act shifted the burden on
  claimant.

In General Exceptions As per section 105 of
Evidence Act it A claimant of General has to
prove the existence of situation of general
exceptions
4
Burden of Proof in General Exceptions

• Lies with the Accused
• K.M. Nanawati Vs. State of Maharashtra 1962
  AIR(SC) 605
• Dayabhai Chhaganbhai Thakkar Vs. State of
  Gujrat 1964 AIR(SC) 1563
• Vijayveersingh Vs. State of Uttar Pradesh 1990
  AIR(SC) 1459

5
Bound by Law or
By Mistake of fact
Not by mistake of Law
In good faith
Believes himself
Bound by Law
6
Done by a Judge
When Acting Judicially
In Exercise of Power
Conferred upon him or
In good faith he believes
To be given to him
7
Section 77 Act of Judge

• Collector while exercising power under Land
  Acquisition Act is neither a judge nor acting
  judicially
• Surendra Kumar Bhatiya Vs. Kanhaiya Lal
  Others AIR 2009 SC 1961

8
judgment or order of a court
Must be in force
Act done in compliance of
Passed within jurisdiction
Or In good faith he believes
The Court has Jurisdiction
9
Jutified by Law or
By Mistake of fact
Not by mistake of Law
In good faith
Believes himself
Justified by law
10
Section 79 Justified by Law

• In Uphar Cinema Case Element of Good faith was
  lacking as the accused did not act with proper
  care Caution required by law
• Susheel Kumar Ansal Vs. State through
  C.B.I. 2014 (6) SCC 173

11
By Accident or misfortune
Without
Criminal Intention or Knowledge
Doing of a Lawful act
In a Lawful manner
With proper care and Caution
12
Done with the Knowledge
Without Criminal Intention
In Good Faith
To preventing other harm
To person or property
13
Act done by an Infant
Below 7 years of Age
14
Act done by a child
Above 7 and under 12 years
Immature to understand
To judge the nature
The nature and consequences
15
Person of Unsound Mind
Incapable of knowing
Nature of the act
Either wrong or
Contrary to Law
16
Section 84 Act of person of unsound mind

• A person is exonerated on the ground of
  unsoundness of mind, if he at the time of doing
  the act, is either incapable of knowing the
  nature of the act, or that he is doing what is
  either wrong or contrary to law.
• Every person who is mentally diseased, is not
  ipso facto exempted from criminal liability --
  Legal insanity has to be distinguished from
  mental insanity -- Accused is required to legal
  insanity arising out of Section 105 of Evidence
  Act -- Burden is not so onerous, as is on
  prosecution to prove the guilt of the accused,
  instead, same may be equated to burden of proof
  is rests on a plaintiff -- Factually Courts
  below, held that Section 84 had no application --
  No occasion found to interfere with those
  findings
• Hari Singh Gond Vs. State of M.P 2009 AIR(SC) 31

17
Section 84 Act of person of unsound mind

• Plea of insanity -- Doctrine, 'furious nulla
  voluntus est' and 'actus non facit reum nisi mens
  sit rea' -- Burden of proof -- Mental disorder,
  'epileptic psychosis' or 'epilepsy -- What would
  generally an offence, would not be so if
  ingredients of Section 84 are satisfied, mens rea
  is generally taken to be an essential element of
  a crime -- Doctrine, 'furious nulla voluntus est'
  postulates that, a person who is suffering from a
  mental disorder cannot be said to have committed
  a crime as he does not know what he is doing --
  For committing crime, intention and act both are
  taken to be the constituents of the crime, 'actus
  non facit reum nisi mens sit rea' -- But a person
  alleged to suffering from any mental disorder
  cannot be exempted ipso facto -- Onus would be on
  accused to prove by expert evidence that he is
  suffering from such a mental disorder or mental
  condition that he could be expected to be aware
  of the consequences of his act -- Once a person
  is found to be suffering from mental disorder or
  mental deficiency, which takes within its ambit
  hallucinations, dementia, loss of memory and self
  control, at all relevant times by way of
  appropriate documentary and oral evidence, the
  person concerned would be entitled to seek
  recourse to general exception.
• State of Rajasthan Versus Shera Ram _at_ Vishnu
  Dutta AIR2012 SC 1

18
Person incapable of knowing
Nature of the act
Wrong or Contrary to Law
Due to Intoxation
Administered against his will
19
Requires particular knowledge
shall presume, he had that
Even if he is intoxicated
Unless
Administered against his will
20
Person consented to take risk
Express of implied
Not intended to cause harm
Both were aware of the risk
No offence Constitute
21
Person consented to take risk
Express of implied
Not intended to cause harm
Done in good faith
For the benefit of the vicitim
22
Guardian consented to take risk
Of child or insane
Not intended to cause harm
Done in good faith
For the benefit of child or insane
23
Consent is not a valid consent
If, given under fear of injury
Or misconception of fact
And the person doing act knows
Or has reason to believe
It given under fear or misconception
24
Exception is not applicable
Under section 87, 88 and 89
Act is an independent offence
Independent of the harm caused
Causing abortion itself is offence
25
Act done without consent
For benefit, in good faith
His Consent can not be obtained
Or no guardian is available
Does not Constitute an offence
26
Any Communication causes harm
Made in good faith
For the benefit
To the person whom it was made
Does not Constitute an offence
27
If any person compelled to do
By threat of instant death
Reasonably cause the apprehension
Act is not an offence, Except
Offence of ch. 6 of Capital Punishment
Or Murder
28
Causes slight harm
De minims non curat lex
Law doesnt take account of trifles
Act fall within letter of Penal law
Are not within spirit
29
Right of private deffence
30
Section 96 Things done in Private Defense

• Nothing is
• an offence
• which is done
• in the exercise of
• the right of
• private defense

31
(No Transcript)
32
Right of Private defense When Available ?
33
Private defense is available against
Immature youth
Person of unsound mind
Person introxicated
As applicable against act of others
34
(No Transcript)
35
(No Transcript)
36
Does not extend to cause death
Not of any description of S. 100
Does not extend to cause death
But to cause any other harms
Under restrictions of section 99

37
Commences with apprehension of danger
From an attempt or threat of offence
Even the offence not committed
Continues as apprehension continues
Till the apprehension continues

38
(No Transcript)
39
(No Transcript)
40
Section 105 Commencement and continuance of
Right
41
Existence of apprehension of danger
Right of Private defense is available
Even the offence not committed
Defender can not effectuate the right
Without risk of harm to innocent
Right extends to take such risk
42

• So, the Right of Private Defense is a right
  available to a person to save himself from the
  offender, may extend even to cause death of
  offender in certain circumstances and even
  extended to cause harm to an innocent person if
  situation warrants.
• The General exceptions are exceptions to rule,
  so applicable only exceptional circumstances as
  provided in the chapter.

43

• Thank You