General Exceptions under IPC
According to the Indian Penal Code, Mens rea and actus reus are the two essential components of the commission of crime. Within this article, I have enumerated Chapter IV of IPC i.e. Exceptions. This article deals with the nature and the categories of the protection given to the criminal to make his offence a non-offence. I have also enumerated several case laws along with a brief explanation of the general defences. Sections 76 to 106 provide for the right of the people to protect their own life and limb and also of others. This provision gives a chance to accuse to prove himself non-guilty.
Introduction
The general exceptions/defences contained in Section 76-106 make a violation a non-violation. These are the defences which absolve the accused from any violation liability. This part has been framed to remove the repetition of exceptions in every penal clause and the legislature by S.6 IPC, 1860 enacted that all the definitions must be considered because of the exceptions.
Application of Exceptions
The court shall presume that there is not any presence of chances and it has to be proved by the accused. Because it is given in Section105 of the Indian Evidence Act that when a human has done any kind of violation, the pressure of showing the existence of scenarios of exceptions or within any special exception or proviso is upon him i.e., accused and the court shall assume the absence of such circumstances.[1]
Investigation shall not confine merely to the acts done by a person. Depending on the facts and circumstances of each case, many other relevant facts have to be investigated in the light of expressions contained in “General Exceptions”. Then only will be able to confirm whether this act carried out by a human is a violation of law or not. The General Exceptions are discussed below:
Mistake of Fact
S.76 and 79 are based on the expression that Ignorance of fact is an excuse but ignorance of law is not an excuse. The characteristics are;
- A crime must be done by a person
- He must do that act by mistake of fact
- He must do it in good faith
Queen v. Tolson[2]
In this case, the petitioner tied the knot of marriage in 1880. In 1881, her husband went missing. Then believing her husband to be dead, she tied the knot of marriage with another male. Now, 11 months later her previous husband turned up and filed a case against her for the violation of bigamy.
It was assumed that the belief of the death of her husband was a mistake of fact by the appellant and thus, she would not be charged with an offence of bigamy.
Reg v. Fredrick Jones
In this case, a loaded gun was not known to be loaded by the person handling it and he pressed a trigger. But, due to a gun being loaded a person died. It was held that it was a mistake of fact that the gun was not in a loaded situation with the knowledge of the person handling it. So, he was not held liable under Section 302 IPC.
M.H.George v. State of Maharashtra[3]
India recently passed a law prohibiting carrying that much gold through India. He was hiding the gold in his jacket, that too 34 kg of gold. It was held that even if M.H. George didn’t know the law it was no excuse, he was supposed to know it. Ignorance of law is no excuse and he was held liable under the relevant provision.
State of Andhra Pradesh v. Venu Gopal[4]
In this case, police arrested a person on suspicion that he had received some stolen property and was involved in housebreaking. The prosecution alleged the police for wrongful confinement and torture for taking out a confession by him. The trial court convicted the police. High Court acquitted giving them the defence of Section 79. Supreme Court said that ‘this view of High Court is wholly unwarranted in law’. Beating and torturing have no relation to the process of investigation.
S.76 talks about bound by law and Section 79 talks about justified by law. But, in both sections, there must be bonafide intention i.e., good faith.
That means, S.76 says about legal compulsion and Section 79 says about legal justification. Good Faith = Due care + attention.
Judicial Acts
Section 77 provides two types of protection to the judge. First, he is protected if he proceeds irregularly in the exercise of a power which the law gives him. A special immunity is provided to judges for the sake of fearlessness and independence of administration of justice. To avail of this immunity, the act must have been done by a judge in the discharge of his official duty, the deed done must be within his jurisdiction and the act must be performed in good faith.
Accident
The main objective for providing this defence is that there is no criminal intention (men’s rea) in the Accident if these 5 conditions are fulfilled:
- The act is done by accident or misfortune (An accident is such an incident that can’t be interpreted by an ordinary prudent man whereas misfortune is such an accident with harmful consequences).
- Lawful act is to be done
- Lawful acts must be done in a lawful manner
Jageshwar v. Emperor[5]
The accused was hitting the victim with his fists but accidentally hit his wife who was holding her 2-month-old child. The blow hit the head of the child which resulted in his death. It was held that even though the child was hit by accident, the act was not lawful. Thus, the accused would not be given protection under Section 80 IPC.
Necessity
Section 81 IPC is based on the doctrine of jus necessitates. The ingredients of Section 81 are the act must have been done under good faith and there must not be men’s rea. It is to be noted that there is no intention but knowledge and it is a question of fact whether the harm to be prevented or avoided was of such a nature and so imminent as to justify the risk of doing the act with the knowledge that it was likely to cause harm.
R v. Dudley & Stephens[6]
In this case, three seamen and a minor cabin boy were the crew of an English vessel. when they had no food and no water, Dudley and Stephens without the consent of Brook killed the boy and fed on the flesh and blood for four days to survive. On the 4th day, they were picked up by a passing vessel and subsequently, they were prosecuted for the offence of murder of the boy. The accused pleaded the defence of necessity.
Infancy
Section 82 is based on the Doctrine of Doli incapax. This section says that if a child under age has done any act will not be an offence. In India, a child below 7 years of age is said to be held Doli incapax and cannot be held guilty of any offence. It is to be noted that it gives absolute immunity.
Section 83 is based on the doctrine of Doli Capax. According to this section, a child above 7 years of age and below 12 years of age can plead for the defence under this section if they commit any offence.
Kakoo v. State of Himachal Pradesh[7]
In this case, Kakoo, a child of 13 years of age was convicted of raping a 2-year-old girl and was sentenced to 4 years of imprisonment.
It is to be noted that the children who are held liable for committing a crime under Section 83 are not treated the same way the adults are treated when it comes to punishment. It is usually at the discretion of the judge hearing the case such that it brings a positive change in their behaviour and thoughts so that they can lead a socially and morally purposeful life ahead.
Insanity
The ingredients of Section 84 are; that he must be of unsound mind; he must be incapable of knowing the nature of the act and do not know what is wrong or contrary to the law. This section is based on McNaughton’s Rule. It is to be noted that legal insanity must be proved not medical insanity.
Shrikant Anand Rao v. State of Maharashtra
In this case, the husband (appellant) hit his wife with a grinding stone on her head and was dead. The accused pleaded for insanity and a family history as his father suffered from the same disease. Hereditary plays a role. He suffered from Paranoid Schizophrenia, in which he was taken to the doctor 25 times in 6 months. He also committed the crime in the daytime and did not attempt to hide or to run away. Thus, he was acquitted.
Intoxication
The ingredients of Section 85 are that a person must be incapable of knowing the nature of the act, he must not know what is wrong or contrary to and he must be intoxicated without his knowledge or against his will. S.86 talks about voluntary intoxication, when an intoxicated thing is taken by a person voluntarily and under the influence of that thing, he does an offence which requires a particular intention.[8]
R v. Lipman
In this case, Lipman and the deceased girl were drug addicts. One evening, Lipman had consumed a quantity of drugs at her flat and began to suffer from hallucinations. He had the illusion of being at the centre of Earth and was being attacked by snakes. He attacked the girl with two blows and she died. The accused pleaded for intoxication but was held liable for murder and thus, self-intoxication is no defence at all.
Private Defence
Sections 96 to 106 of the IPC state the law relating to the right of private defence of person and property. The basic principle underlying the doctrine of the right of private defence is that when an individual or his property is encountered with danger and no immediate help can be sought from the State machinery, then that person can use the defence for his protection. That means reasonable apprehension of death or grievous hurt should be proved. It is to be noted that the onus of establishing a plea of right of private defence is on the accused and it is purely preventive and not punitive or disciplinary.
Conclusion
The above-discussed general exceptions are available to the accused to escape liability. The reason for these provisions provided in the Indian Penal Code, of 1860 is that the accused should also have the right to be heard given maintaining the democratic character of our nation and the principle of natural justice.
[1] General Exceptions under Indian Penal Code https://www.legalserviceindia.com
[2] (1889) 23 QBD 168(H)
[3] 1965 AIR 722 1965 SCR (1) 123
[4] 1964 AIR 33, 1964 SCR (3) 742
[5] AIR 1929 All 932
[6] (1884) 14 QBD 273
[7] AIR 1976 SC 1991, 1976 CriLJ 1545, (1976) 2 SCC 215
[8] General Exceptions under the Indian Penal Code https://blog.ipleaders.in
Written By:-
Mansi Arya