Law of Crime Sec 11

CLAT 2019
Law of Crimes
General Exceptions to Crime
Law of Crimes Session 11

CLAT 2019
11 GENERAL EXCEPTIONS TO CRIME

Every definition of an offence,
provision and illustration should be
understood subject to the exceptions
containted in the Chapter titled
“General Exceptions”
CLAT 2019
11 GENERAL EXCEPTIONS TO CRIME
• An “Offence” becomes a “Non-

Offence”
• Obviates repetition in every penal
clause a number of limitations
CLAT 2019
11.1 Act done by a person bound, or by mistake of fact believing

himself bound, by law
Nothing is an offence which is done by a person

who is, or who by reason of a mistake of fact and
not by reason of a mistake of law in good faith
believes himself to be, bound by law to do it.

CLAT 2019
Illustrations:
(a) A, a soldier, fires on a mob by the order of his

superior officer, in conformity with the commands of
the law. A has committed no offence.
(b) A, an officer of a Court of Justice, being ordered by
that Court to arrest Y, and, after due enquiry, believing
Z to be Y, arrests Z. A has committed no offence.
CLAT 2019
11.2 Act of Judge when acting judicially:
Nothing is an offence which is done by a

Judge when acting judicially in the
exercise of any power which is, or which in
good faith he believes to be, given to him
by law.
CLAT 2019
11.3 Act done pursuant to the judgment or order of

Court:
 Nothing which is done in pursuance of, or which is
warranted by the judgment or order of, a Court of Justice;
if done whilst such judgment or order remains in force, is
an offence, notwithstanding the Court may have had no
jurisdiction to pass such judgment or order, provided the
person doing the act in good faith believes that the Court
had such jurisdiction.
CLAT 2019
11.4 Act done by a person justified, or by mistake of

fact believing himself justified, by law:
Nothing is an offence which is done by any

person who is justified by law. or who by reason
of a mistake of fact and not by reason of a
mistake of law in good faith, believes himself to
be justified by law, in doing it.
CLAT 2019
Illustrations:
A sees Z commit what appears to A to be a murder. A,

in the exercise, to the best of his judgment exerted in
good faith, of the power which the law gives to all
persons of apprehending murderers in the fact, seizes
Z, in order to bring Z before the proper authorities. A
has committed no offence, though it may turn out that
Z was acting in self-defense.
CLAT 2019
11.5 Accident in doing a lawful act:
Nothing is an offence which is done by accident

or misfortune, and without any criminal intention
or knowledge in the doing of a lawful act in a
lawful manner by lawful means and with proper
care and caution.
CLAT 2019
Illustrations:
A is at work with a hatchet; the head flies off

and kills a man who is standing by. Here, if
there was no want of proper caution on the
part of A, his act is excusable and not an
offence.
CLAT 2019
Ex-1 Principle : Nothing is an offence, which is done by accident or

misfortune, and without any criminal intention or knowledge in the
doing of a lawful act in a lawful manner by lawful means and with
proper care and caution.
Facts: : 'A takes up a gun, not knowing whether it is loaded or not,

points it playfully at 'B' and pulls the trigger. Consequently, 'B' falls
dead.
(a) B's death is accidental, as 'A' did not have the knowledge that the gun is loaded.
(b) B's death is not accidental, as there was want of proper care and caution on the
part of 'A'.
(c) B's death is accidental, as 'A' had no intention to kill 'B'.
(d) B's death is accidental, as 'A' was just pointing the gun playfully at 'B'
CLAT 2019
Ex-1 Answer: (B)

 Explanation:
The principle mentions that an act is not an offence if
(1) it is done by accident or misfortune:
(2) there is no mala fide intention/knowledge;
(3) it was done in doing of a lawful thing in a lawful manner with proper
care and caution.
In this case, although 'A' did not know whether the gun was loaded or
not, 'A' pulled the trigger. We can assume that 'A' had no bad intention
and the act was done by accident but there he did not take proper care
and caution which is also one of the conditions which needs to be
fulfilled. Hence option (b) is the most appropriate answer.
CLAT 2019
11.6 Act likely to cause harm, but done without criminal

intent, and to prevent other harm (Defence of
Necessity):
Nothing is an offence merely by reason of its being

done with the knowledge that it is likely to cause
harm, if it be done without any criminal intention to
cause harm, and in good faith for the purpose of
preventing or avoiding other harm to person or
property.
CLAT 2019
Illustrations:
(a) A, the captain of a steam vessel, suddenly and without any fault or negligence on his part,
finds himself in such a position that, before he can stop his vessel, he must inevitably run down
boat B, with twenty or thirty passengers on board, unless he changes the course of his vessel,
and that, by changing his course, he must incur the risk of running down boat C with only two
passengers on board, which he may possibly clear. Here, if A alters his course without any
intention to run down the boat C and in good faith for the purpose of avoiding the danger to the
passengers in the boat B, he is not guilty of an offence, though he may run down boat C by
doing an act which he knew was likely to cause that effect, if it be found as a matter of fact that
the danger which he intended to avoid was such as to excuse him in incurring the risk of running
down boat C.
(b) A, in a great fire, pulls down houses in order to prevent the conflagration from spreading. He
does this with the intention, in good faith, of saving human life or property. Here, if it be found
that the harm to be prevented was of such a nature and so imminent as to excuse A's act, A is
not guilty of the offence.
CLAT 2019
Ex-2 Principle : Nothing is an offence merely by reason of its being done with the
knowledge that it is likely to cause harm, if it be done without any criminal
intention to cause harm, and in good faith for the purpose of preventing or
avoiding other harm to a person or property.
Facts: : Mr. Sharman, the Captain of a steam vessel, suddenly and without any fault or
negligence on his part, finds himself in such a position that, before he can stop his vessel,
he must inevitably run down a boat B, with twenty or thirty passengers on board, unless he
changes the course of his vessel, and that, by changing his course, he must incur the risk of
running down a boat C with only two passengers on board and which he may possibly clear.
(a) Sharman has committed no offence because this was done out of necessity
(b) Sharman can be held responsible for the act of criminal negligence
(c) Sharman can be held responsible for culpable homicide
(d) This is a clear case of accident so Sharman cannot be held responsible
CLAT 2019
Ex-2 Answer: (A)
 Explanation:
The principle gives out the essentials required for the defence of necessity
under Tort law. The defence is available if the act causing damage:
i) is done without criminal intention
ii) is done in good faith
iii) and for the purpose of preventing or avoiding other harm
In the given facts, it is stated that Mr. Sharman had to change the course of
the ship with twenty or thirty passengers without any fault or negligence on
his part. This was the key part here as it shows that it was necessary for him
to incur the risk of running the other boat with two people in order to save the
people on his ship. Hence, option (a) is the most appropriate answer
CLAT 2019
11.7 Act of a child under seven years of age:
Nothing is an offence which is done by a

child under seven years of age

CLAT 2019
11.8 Act of a child above seven and under twelve of

immature understanding:
Nothing is an offence which is done by a child above

seven years of age and under twelve, who has not
attained sufficient maturity of understanding to judge
of the nature and consequences of his conduct on
that occasion.
CLAT 2019
Ex-3 Principle : Nothing is an offence which is done by a child under twelve years of
age, who has not attained sufficient maturity of understanding to judge the
nature and consequences of his conduct on that occasion.
Facts: : Himesh, 11 years old boy, picks up a gold ring worth Rs 5000/- lying on a table in his
friend's house and immediately sells it for Rs 2000/-, and misappropriates the money.
(a) Himesh would be protected under the principle stated above because his acts show that
he was not sufficiently mature to understand the nature and consequences of his conduct.
(b) Himesh would not be protected under the principle stated above because his acts show
that he was sufficiently mature to understand the nature and consequences of his conduct.
(c) Himesh would not be protected under the principle stated above because, irrespective of
the age, stealing is an offence.
(d) Himesh would be protected under the principle stated above because he is below 12
years of age.
CLAT 2019
Ex-3 Answer: (B)
 Explanation:
The principle herein mentions that an act committed by a child is not an
offence if
(1) the child is below 12 years of age;
(2) and he is not mature enough to understand the nature of his act;
As per the given facts, Himesh picked up the gold ring worth Rs.5000
from his friend's house, sold it for Rs.2000 and misappropriated the money.
His act shows that he had the requisite mental element to understand the
nature of his act. Hence, even if he was below the age of 12 years, the
presence of requisite mental element makes him liable for his act.

CLAT 2019
11.9 Act of a person of unsound mind (Defence of

Insanity):
Nothing is an offence which is done by a person

who, at the time of doing it, by reason of,
unsoundness of mind, is incapable of knowing the
nature of the act, or that he is doing what is either
wrong or contrary to law.
CLAT 2019
Ex-4 Principle : Nothing is an offence which is done by a person who, at the time of
doing it, by reason of unsoundness of mind, is incapable of knowing the nature
of the act, or that he is doing what is either wrong of contrary of law.
Facts: A takes his son B who is three years old, for a bath to the well. He throws his son
inside the well so that he could have a good bath. After 10 minutes he also jumped in the
well to take bath and take his son out of the well. Both were rescued by the villagers but his
son was found dead.
(a) A has committed culpable homicide not amounting to murder

(b) A has committed murder
(c) A has done no offence as he can plead the defence of unsoundness of mind
(d) A's family should be responsible for this incident to let him to take child to the well.
CLAT 2019
Ex-4 Answer: (C)
 Explanation:
Firstly, the question is a little ambiguous. The Principle stipulates that one
can use the defence of insanity/unsoundness of mind, provided at the time of
doing of the offence the person is
i) Incapable of knowing the nature of the act, or
ii) Not aware that what he is doing is either wrong or contrary to law
In the given facts, A takes his three year old for a bath and 'throws his
son' inside the well. Although it is nowhere mentioned in the facts that A was
of unsound mind, we can assume the same as no prudent man would throw
a three year old into the well for a bath. This should have been taken as a
hint and hence option (c) becomes the most appropriate answer.
CLAT 2019
11.10 Act of a person incapable of judgment by reason of

intoxication caused against his will (Defence of Intoxication):
 Nothing is an offence which is done by a person who, at

the time of doing it, is, by reason of intoxication, incapable
of knowing the nature of the act, or that he is doing what
is either wrong, or contrary to law; provided that the thing
which intoxicated him was administered to him without his
knowledge or against his will.
CLAT 2019
5.11 Communication made in good faith:
No communication made in good faith is an offence

by reason of any harm to the person to whom it is
made, if it is made for the benefit of that person.

CLAT 2019
Illustrations:
A, a surgeon, in good faith, communicates to a patient his opinion

that he cannot live. The patient dies in consequence of the shock.
A has committed no offence, though he knew it to be likely that the
communication might cause the patient's death.

CLAT 2019
11.12 Act causing slight harm:
 Nothing is an offence by reason that it causes, or that it is

intended to cause, or that it is known to be likely to cause,
any harm, if that harm is so slight that no person of
ordinary sense and temper would complain of such harm.
 Please note: Besides the abovementioned defenses there
are various other defenses provided under the Indian
Penal Code.
CLAT 2019
12
RIGHT OF PRIVATE DEFENCE
 Whoever has a reasonable apprehension that, there is

imminent threat to his body or property or, the body or
property of any other person, he shall have a right to use
reasonable/reciprocal force to avoid such threat.

CLAT 2019
Ex-5 Principle : Self defence is considered as a universal exception for intentionally

causing harm.
Fact: The robbers, armed with knives and crowbars, broke the access door of a house
and entered into it. The owner of the house took out his gun and threatened to shoot
them. The robbers ran out of the house and started pelting stones. The owner opened
the fire. Having heard the gun shot, the police rushed to the place and announced that
the owner must stop firing. The owner suspecting mischief, continued to fire and a
policeman was injured by a shot. The robbers meanwhile fled away. The owner was
sued for attacking the public servant on duty
(a) The owner shall be liable for causing harm, in excess of what is necessary for self defence.
(b) The owner shall not be liable for attacking the public servant as such, though he may be held
liable otherwise.
(c) The owner's action is justified by the consideration of self defence.
CLAT 2019
Ex-5 Answer: (A)
 Explanation:
The owner is liable for causing harm. It is given to us in the facts that the
owner took out his gun and threatened to shoot the robbers. As a
consequence of that, the robbers ran out of the house. The key part here is
that he continued firing the shots even after the robbers had left the house
and also even after he was asked to stop, by the police. This is for sure in
excess of what is necessary for self defence. Although, one can argue that
the robbers were still pelting stones it would not be sufficient to conclude that
the owner was still using his right to self defence by shooting at them.

CLAT 2019
Ex-6 Principle : A person is entitled to protect his property by using lawful means.
Facts: Ramlal is growing valuable vegetables and fruits in his farm and he has fenced
the farm to prevent the cattle from entering in to it. In addition he has kept a ferocious
dog to chase away intruding urchins and cattle. Some children were playing in a nearby
playground and the ,ball slipped into the farm. A boy running after the ball came near
the fence and shouted for the ball. But when there was no response, he managed to
creep into the farm to get the ball. The dog which was surreptitiously waiting attacked
the boy and badly mauled him. The boy's parents filed a suit against Ramlal.
(a) Ramlal is not liable, since the fence and the dog are lawful means of protecting the
property.
(b) Ramlal is not liable for the boy trespassing and getting badly injured in that process.
(c) Ramlal is liable, since an ordinary barking dog would have sufficed for the purpose.
CLAT 2019
Ex-6 Answer: (C)
 Explanation:
This is a tricky one as far as reasoning is concerned. The principle states that if a
person is using lawful means, he is entitled to protect his property. In the first reading,
it seems that there is nothing wrong with what Mr. Ramlal did and hence he should
not be made liable for his actions. However, this will be an incorrect interpretation of
the situation. Ramlal had kept a 'ferocious' dog to chase away intruding urchins and
cattle. We consider the word 'ferocious' as a hint. The facts further state that the dog
was 'surreptitiously waiting' and it attacked the boy and badly mauled him. The facts
clearly take us to option (c) which states that Ramlal is liable, making it the most
appropriate answer. Option (a) cannot be the answer as it mentions only a dog
whereas in the facts it is given that he had kept a 'ferocious dog'. Option (b) cannot
be the answer as the principle nowhere talks about trespassing as a wrong.
CLAT 2019
Ex-7 Principle : The law permits citizens to use force only for protection when
necessary against imminent attack.
Facts: P with the intention of committing theft entered the house of Q. Q, on seeing
him entering, struck him with a lathi and P fell down unconscious. Thereafter, Q gave
him another blow, with the lathi, on his head which caused his death. On being
prosecuted for murder, Q took the plea of private defense. Which of the following
arguments is valid?
(a) Since Q was acting in the exercise of right of private defense of his property, he had taken a valid
defence.
(b) Since in the defence of one's property one cannot cause death of the intruder, Q has no defense.
(c) Q has used excessive force as once P fell unconscious; there was no need for the second blow.
Hence, Q's plea of right of private defence will not succeed.
(d) If P committed house breaking in the night, Q has the right to cause death in defense of his property,
and thus Q's plea should prevail.
CLAT 2019
Ex-7 Answer: (C)
Explanation:
The Principle mentions use of force for protection is allowed
only under imminent attack. In the present case, the first blow
by Q to P could be said to be proper as per the principle and
hence covered. But when the thief fell unconscious after the first
blow, there was no imminent threat to Q's life or property, thus
the second blow is clearly unreasonable. The right of self
defence seized to exist once the thief fell unconscious.
CLAT 2019
Ex-8 Principle : The law permits citizens to use force only for protection when
necessary against imminent attack.
Facts: X's farm house in the outskirts of Delhi was attacked by a gang of armed robbers. X,
without informing the police, at first warned the robbers by firing in the air. As they were
fleeing from the farm, he fired and killed one of them. At the trial
I. X can avail the right of private defence as he was defending his life and property.
II. X cannot avail the right as he failed to inform the police.
III. X cannot avail the right as he caused more harm than was necessary to ward off the
danger.
IV. X can avail of the right as at first he only fires in the air.
(a) I and IV
(b) II only
(c) II and III
(d) IV only
CLAT 2019
Ex-8 Answer: (C)
Explanation:
The Principle states use of force for protection is only allowed
under imminent attack. In this case, it is clearly mentioned, in
the facts, that X, without informing the police, started firing on
his own and he also killed one of the robbers when they were
fleeing. Here right of 'private defence' cannot be claimed as this
is excess amount of use of force and there was no imminent
danger to the property. However as none of the options cover
this scenario singularly, option (c) is the best choice.
CLAT 2019
Principle : (1) If a person commits an act by which death is caused to another
Ex-9 person and the act is done with the intention of causing death, that person is
liable for murder.
(2) A person has a right of self-defence to the extent of causing death to another
provided he apprehends death by the act of the latter.
Facts: Shiva went to a hardware shop owned by Anup. Bargaining on some item led to
altercation between the two and Shiva picked up a sharp object and hit at Anup. When
Anup started bleeding, his wife Mridula intervened and she was also hit by Shiva and she
became unconscious. Finding himself totally cornered, Anup delivered a severe blow to
Shiva with a sharp object. Shiva died instantly.
Possible decisions:
(a) Anup murdered Shiva.
(b) Anup killed Shiva with the intention of killing to save himself and his wife.
(c) Anup killed Shiva without any intention to do so just to save himself and his wife.

CLAT 2019
Ex-9
Probable reasons for the decision:
(i) If a person kills another instantly on the spot, the intention to kill is
obvious.
(ii) Anup used force apprehending death of himself and his wife.
(iii) Anup used disproportionate force.
(iv) There was nothing to show that Shiva wanted to kill Anup or his wife.
Your decision with the reason:

(a) (a) (i)
(b) (a) (iii)
(c) (c) (ii)
(d) (b) (i)
CLAT 2019
Ex-9 Answer: (C)

 Explanation:
Principle 2 entitles a person the right to self defence to the extent of causing death to
another provided he apprehends death. In this case, the altercation between the two led to
Shiva picking up a sharp object and hitting Anup. Shiva didn't stop there and went on to hit
Anup's wife Mridula as well. It is also given that the blow was so powerful that she fell
unconscious. It was only after this, that Anup delivered a severe blow to Shiva with a sharp
object, which led to Shiva's death. After looking at the facts, we can safely assume that the
actions of Anup were only to save him and his wife as he apprehended death. Even the
death of a person would not be an offence if it is proved that it was for self-defence.
Option (b) is not the correct answer as first, the principle does not emphasise on the
proportionality at all. Second, even if we still consider it, it is clear from the facts that the
force used by Anup was proportional as he apprehended death and what he did was only
to save himself and his wife.

Law of Crime Sec 11

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Description:

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Law of Crime Sec 11

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

CLAT 2019

Law of Crimes Session 11

11 GENERAL EXCEPTIONS TO CRIME

11 GENERAL EXCEPTIONS TO CRIME

• An “Offence” becomes a “Non-

11.1 Act done by a person bound, or by mistake of fact believing

Nothing is an offence which is done by a person

Law of Crimes Session 11

(a) A, a soldier, fires on a mob by the order of his

11.2 Act of Judge when acting judicially:

Nothing is an offence which is done by a

11.3 Act done pursuant to the judgment or order of

11.4 Act done by a person justified, or by mistake of

Nothing is an offence which is done by any

A sees Z commit what appears to A to be a murder. A,

11.5 Accident in doing a lawful act:

Nothing is an offence which is done by accident

A is at work with a hatchet; the head flies off

Ex-1 Principle : Nothing is an offence, which is done by accident or

Facts: : 'A takes up a gun, not knowing whether it is loaded or not,

Ex-1 Answer: (B)

11.6 Act likely to cause harm, but done without criminal

Nothing is an offence merely by reason of its being

Ex-2 Answer: (A)

11.7 Act of a child under seven years of age:

Nothing is an offence which is done by a

Law of Crimes Session 11

11.8 Act of a child above seven and under twelve of

Nothing is an offence which is done by a child above

Ex-3 Answer: (B)

Law of Crimes Session 11

11.9 Act of a person of unsound mind (Defence of

Nothing is an offence which is done by a person

(a) A has committed culpable homicide not amounting to murder

Ex-4 Answer: (C)

11.10 Act of a person incapable of judgment by reason of

 Nothing is an offence which is done by a person who, at

5.11 Communication made in good faith:

No communication made in good faith is an offence

Law of Crimes Session 11

A, a surgeon, in good faith, communicates to a patient his opinion

Law of Crimes Session 11

11.12 Act causing slight harm:

 Nothing is an offence by reason that it causes, or that it is

 Whoever has a reasonable apprehension that, there is

Law of Crimes Session 11

Ex-5 Principle : Self defence is considered as a universal exception for intentionally

Ex-5 Answer: (A)

Law of Crimes Session 11

Ex-6 Answer: (C)

Ex-7 Answer: (C)

Ex-8 Answer: (C)

Law of Crimes Session 11

Your decision with the reason:

Ex-9 Answer: (C)

You might also like