General Exceptions under IPC
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…