SECTION 6, IPC
Every definition of an offence, every penal
provision, and illustration should be
understood subject to the exceptions
contained in the Chapter titled “General
Exceptions”.
GENERAL EXCEPTIONS
○ Sections 76 to 106 of IPC
○ An ‘offence’ becomes a ‘non-offence’
○ Obviates repetition in every penal clause a number of limitations
GENERAL EXCEPTIONS
√ Mistake of fact (S.76, 79)
√ Judicial acts (S.77 and S. 78)
√ Accident (S.80)
√ Absence of criminal intent (Ss.81-86 & 92-94)
√ Consent (Ss.87- 90)
√ Trifling acts (S.95)
√ Private defence (Ss.96-106)
ONUS OF PROOF
S.105, INDIAN EVIDENCE ACT:
A person accused of an offence bears the
burden of proving the existence of circumstances
to bring the case within any of the General
Exceptions. The court shall presume the absence
of such circumstances.
MISTAKE
MISTAKE OF FACT
‘Ignorantia facti doth excusat’- Mistake of fact is
excusable
• Mistake as an honest and reasonable belief
• In the existence of circumstances,
• Which, if true,
• Would make the act an innocent one
Not applicable if the fact itself is illegal-
R. v. Prince, 1875- Man was held guilty
for abducting a girl below 16 under the
belief that she was above 18.
MISTAKE OF LAW
‘Ignorantia juris non excusat’- Mistake of law
is not excusable
• Legal presumption that everyone knows the law
of the land
• Often untrue as a matter of fact
• But needed for the purpose of expediency of
the law
• Applicable even for recent statutes
• Not necessary that law should be
published
MISTAKE OF FACT AS A DEFENCE
√ If the state of things as claimed is actually true, it
would justify the act done
√ Mistake must be reasonable, and
√ Mistake must relate to ‘fact’ and not to ‘law’.
JUDICIAL ACTS
S. 77
• If a Judge does an act
• In the exercise of power given by law
• Which in good faith he believes to be
Eg: Judge sentencing a prisoner to death,
even wrongly
S.78
• Act done
• By virtue of a judgment or order of a Court
• While in force
• Even if Court had no jurisdiction, but person in good faith
believes Court had jurisdiction
Eg: Hangman who hangs the prisoner pursuant to order.
ACCIDENT S.80
√ Act done by accident or misfortune
√ Without any criminal intention or knowledge
√ While doing a lawful act in a lawful manner by
lawful means
√ With proper care and caution
“Accident”- Happens ‘out of the
ordinary course of things’
and is unexpected
Neither wilfully nor negligently caused.
ABSENCE OF CRIMINAL INTENTION
• “Criminal Intention”- Purpose or design of doing an
act forbidden by criminal act without just cause or
excuse
• Acts which are criminal but without the criminal
intent, lacking mens rea, are not penalised. They
include:
○ACT DONE TO AVOID OTHER HARM S.81
√Act done with knowledge to cause harm
√ In good faith
√ Without any criminal intention to cause harm
√ To prevent or avoid harm to person or property
– In a sudden and extreme emergency, if two evils are
inevitable, direct events so that the smaller one occurs.
– A crime cannot be committed in order to avoid a greater
harm-
Dudley v. Stephens, 1884- A man to save himself
from starvation kills another person for the purpose
of feeding on his flesh
○ACT OF CHILD S.82
√ Act done by a child
√ Under seven years of age
– Absolute incapacity for crime under
seven years of age.
Presumption of law- Doli Incapax-
A child has no discretion to distinguish right
from wrong, thus criminal intention does not arise
○ACT OF CHILD S.83
√ Act done by a child
√ Between 7-12 years of age
√ Has no sufficient maturity of understanding
√ To judge the nature and consequences of his
conduct
– Malitia Supplet Oetatem- Malice Supplies Age
If proven to have sufficient maturity of
understanding, liability arises.
○ACT OF AN INSANE PERSON S.84
√ Act done
√ Due to unsoundness of mind- no free will- born idiot,
temporary failure, mad man, unconscious, intoxicated
√ Incapable of knowing the nature of the act, or that it is
wrong or contrary to law
Ahmed v. King, 1949- Accused killed his son by thrusting a
knife in his throat under the delusion and in pursuance of a
command by someone in paradise, given in his dream. Not
held liable.
Tests:
– At the time of commission of offence
– State of mind before and after
– Only organic or natural incapability, not uncontrollable
impulses, weak intellect, or eccentric behaviour
ACT OF AN INTOXICATED PERSON S.85
√ Act of a person
√ Incapable of judgment
√ Due to intoxication
√ Caused without his knowledge or against his will.
Mirza Ghani Baig v. State of Andhra Pradesh, 1997-
Voluntary drunkenness is no excuse for commission of a
crime
○ACT OF AN INTOXICATED PERSON S.86
√ Offence requiring a particular intent or knowledge
√ Committed by an intoxicated person
√ Presumption of knowledge, unless proves intoxicated without his knowledge or against his will.
Basdev v. State of Pepsu, 1956
○BONA FIDE ACT FOR ANOTHER’S
BENEFIT S.92
√ Act causing harm to person for whose benefit is
done
√ In good faith
√ Even without person’s consent
√ Under emergent circumstances
Eg: A is carried off by tiger. D fires at tiger
knowing it might hit A, but not intending the
same. D bullet gives A a mortal wound.
○COMMUNICATION MADE IN GOOD FAITH
S.93
√ Communication made to a person
√ In good faith
√ For his benefit
√ Even if it causes harm
○ACT DONE UNDER COMPULSION OR THREAT S.94
√ Act done under compulsion
or threat
√ Of instant death
Eg: If threatened with a dagger
in hand to cause hurt to another
person.
– Cannot cause murder or offence against State punishable.
with death
– Did not put on his own accord into such constraint.
ACT DONE BY CONSENT
Ss. 87-91
Acts done with the consent of the
victim which do not amount
to an offence.
S.87
√ Act intended or known .
√ To cause death or grievous hurt.
√ Causes harm to person above
18 years.
√ On consent, to suffer
Proceeds from volenti non fit
injuria- he who consents
cannot complain.
S.88
√ Act done
√ With no intention to cause death
√ In good faith
√ For victim’s benefit
√ With victim’s consent
√ Surgeons
S.89
√ Act done
√ In good faith
√ For benefit of child or
insane person
√ By or by consent of
guardian.
S.90
What is not consent?
√Given under fear of injury or misconception of fact.
√ Given from unsoundness of mind or intoxication.
√ Given by person under 12 years of age.
TRIFLING ACTS, CAUSING SLIGHT HARM
S.95
– ‘De minimis non curat lex’-
The law takes no account of trifles
• A harm
• Even with intention or knowledge
• Is so slight that a person of ordinary sense and temper would not complain.
PRIVATE DEFENCE (S.96-106)
Right inherent in man, which is the duty to
help himself.
√ Right is exercised when there is real and immediate
threat
√ If life is threatened by grave danger, need not wait for State aid, unless aid is available .
√ Right is protective or preventive and not punitive.
√ Not for self-gratification.
√ Should not be deliberate or for retaliation of past injurym
√ Right commences as soon as reasonable apprehension of danger arises and continues till the apprehension continues.
√ The protective measures must be proportionate to injury or
threat
√ The right ends with the necessity for it
State of UP v. Ram Swarup, 1974- The person exercising the right need not chase the feeling attacker and then beat him.
√ Need not weigh the arguments for and against an attack in
golden scales
√ The aggressor cannot claim the right to self-defence
√ No private defence against private defence
Deo Narain v. State of UP, 1973- One who goes to beat the other cannot claim the right
√ Even if private defence is not claimed, court may consider the plea based on material on record.
