GENERAL

EXCEPTIONS
(PART II)
DISCUSSION ON THE EXCEPTIONS
GIVEN IN PART IV OF IPC
76-106
Class 7
Only 4 Months
Remaining!
Law Entrance Exam 2021
 Kriti Bhatnagar

● B.A LLB, NLIU Bhopal (2019)

● LLM, GNLU Gujarat (2020)
● Cleared UGC NET (2020)
● CLAT - All India Rank 339
Vast Syllabus vs Limited Time
5+ Subjects
Board Exams
20+ Books
Limited Time
New Pattern
Exclusive CLAT Batches
The Unacademy Advantage
 Subscribe Now
and Get 10%
Extra Off!
Apply Code:
KRITIB

KRITIB
Question for revision

● Necessity is under which section?

● Question
● 8 people on a boat of 12 people decided to
throw 4 people in the ocean as the boat
was sinking due to heavy weight. Is this
necessity?
Duress
94. Act to which a person is compelled by threats.—
Except murder, and offences against the State
punishable with death, nothing is an offence which is
done by a person who is compelled to do it by
threats, which, at the time of doing it, reasonably
cause the apprehension that instant death to that
person will otherwise be the consequence; provided
the person doing the act did not of his own accord,
or from a reasonable apprehension of harm to
himself short of instant death, place himself in the
situation by which he became subject to such
constraint.
Duress

Explanation 1.—A person who, of his own accord, or by reason of a threat of

being beaten, joins a gang of dacoits, knowing their character, is not entitled to
the benefit of this exception, on the ground of his having been compelled by his
associates to do anything that is an offence by law.
Duress

● Explanation 2.—A person seized

by a gang of dacoits, and forced,
by threat of instant death, to do a
thing which is an offence by law;
for example, a smith compelled to
take his tools and to force the
door of a house for the dacoits to
enter and plunder it, is entitled to
the benefit of this exception.
Maxim

actus me invito (factus) non est mens

actus, ie,

“an act which is done by me against my

will is not my act and hence I am not
responsible for it”
EXCEPTIONS

The defence is subject to two exceptions, namely,

murder and waging war against the Government
of India, where compulsion cannot be pleaded as
a defence to a criminal act. The exemptions are
based on the ground that no one has a right to
take another’s life in order to save his own, and
that the State has a right to ensure its own
preservation by providing deterrent penalties.
QUESTION

The appellant was a member of a commune that

occupied a house in Trinidad. On the direction of the
head of the commune, the appellant, with others,
took an active part in the brutal killing of a young
woman. He pleaded duress as an excuse. Appellant
is liable for-
a. Murder
b. Not liable
QUESTION

The two accused, Hudson and Taylor were charged

and convicted with perjury for giving false evidence
at a criminal trial. They pleaded that a man named
Farrell was present at the trial at which the false
evidence was given who threatened to cut them up
unless evidence was given as directed.
Can duress be pleaded?
a. Yes
b. No
infancy

82. Act of a child under seven years of age.—

Nothing is an offence which is done by a child
under seven years of age.
83. 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.
DOLI INCAPAX

An infant is incapable of distinguishing

between right and wrong and so no
criminal responsibility could be
fastened in regard to his deeds.

Incapable of crime

Theft vs Murder
Unsound mind

● 84. Act of a person of unsound

mind.—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.
What is insanity?

● Unsoundness of mind or insanity, according to medical

science, is a disease of the mind, which impairs the
mental faculty of man. In law, insanity means a disease of
mind which impairs the cognitive faculty, namely, the
reasoning capacity of a man to such an extent as to
render him incapable of understanding the nature and
consequences of his act.
Ingredients

Section 84 embodies two different mental

conditions to claim exemption from criminal
liability, namely:
(i) the accused was incapable of knowing the
nature of the act, owing to unsoundness of mind,
or
(ii) the accused was precluded by reason of
unsoundness of mind from understanding that
what he was doing was either wrong or contrary
to law.
Ingredients
The first case covers two situations, namely, involuntary actions and mistake of
fact on account of unsoundness of mind. For instance, if a mad man cuts off the
head of a person, whom he found sleeping on the road, because he thinks it
would be fun to watch him looking about for his head when he wakes up, the
act shows that that he did not know the nature and quality of his act. In fact, he
had no idea that his fun would be lost, the moment the head is separated from
the rest of the man’s body and the man would never recover consciousness.
The second case covers those situations where a man by reason of delusion is
unable to appreciate the distinction between right and wrong. For instance, in a
case where the accused killed his uncle, by cutting his head and neck with a
sword, and shouted “victory to kali” and thereafter, attempted to strike others
including his father, it was held that the accused’s case fell within the latter part
of the section. It was found that the accused was suffering from a fit of insanity
when he attacked the deceased with the sword and was by reason of
unsoundness of mind, incapable of knowing that he was doing an act which
was wrong or contrary to the law and hence, was acquitted of the charge of
murder.
Intoxication
85. Act of a person incapable of judgment by reason of intoxication
caused against his will.—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.
86. Offence requiring a particular intent or knowledge committed by
one who is intoxicated.—In cases where an act done is not an
offence unless done with a particular knowledge or intent, a person
who does the act in a state of intoxication shall be liable to be dealt
with as if he had the same knowledge as he would have had if he
had not been intoxicated, unless the thing which intoxicated him was
administered to him without his knowledge or against his will.
What to establish under intoxication?

● must establish that he was

(i) incapable of knowing the nature of the act, or
(ii) that he was doing what was either wrong or contrary to
law, and
(iii) that the thing which intoxicated him was given to him
without his knowledge or against his will.
example

If A, a man, who had consumed too much of liquor, takes a

knife from his house and goes along the road shouting his
intention to kill B, with whom he had quarreled earlier, and
kills C, who tried to pacify him, is A liable for murder or he
can claim exception?
Question
The appellant Bas Dev, a retired military Jamadar, was
charged with the murder of a young boy named Maghar
Singh, aged about 15 or 16 years. Both of them alongwith
others went to attend a wedding.
The marriage party seems to have made itself very merry
and much drinking was indulged in. The appellant
Jamadar boozed quite a lot and he became very drunk and
intoxicated.

Voluntarily intoxicated man is presumed to have the same

knowledge as that of a sober man
Consent
87. Act not intended and not known to be likely to cause death or
grievous hurt, done by consent.—Nothing which is not intended to
cause death, or grievous hurt, and which is not known by the doer to
be likely to cause death, or grievous hurt, is an offence by reason of
any harm which it may cause, or be intended by the doer to cause,
to any person, above eighteen years of age, who has given consent,
whether express or implied, to suffer that harm; or by reason of any
harm which it may be known by the doer to be likely to cause to any
such person who has consented to take the risk of that harm.

Illustration A and Z agree to fence with each other for amusement.

This agreement implies the consent of each to suffer any harm
which, in the course of such fencing, may be caused without foul
play, and if A, while playing fairly, hurts Z, A commits no offence.
Section 88
88. Act not intended to cause death, done by consent in good
faith for person’s benefit.—Nothing which is not intended to
cause death, is an offence by reason of any harm which it may
cause, or be intended by the doer to cause, or be known by the
doer to be likely to cause, to any person for whose benefit it is
done in good faith, and who has given a consent, whether
express or implied, to suffer that harm, or to take risk of that
harm. Illustration A, a surgeon, knowing that a particular
operation is likely to cause the death of Z, who suffers under a
painful complaint, but not intending to cause Z’s death, and
intending, in good faith, Z’s benefit, performs that operation on Z,
with Z’s consent, A has committed no offence.
Section 89

89. Act done in good faith for benefit of child or insane

person, by or by consent of guardian.—Nothing which is
done in good faith for the benefit of a person under twelve
years of age, or of unsound mind, by or by consent, either
express or implied, of the guardian or other person having
lawful charge of that person, is an offence by reason of any
harm which it may cause, or be intended by the doer to
cause or be known by the doer to be likely to cause to that
person:
SAMEERLIVE
KRITIB