General

Exceptions
The exceptions to offences under IPC
Section 76-106 IPC
Class 6
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
INTRODUCTION
Burden of Proof

Prosecution or Accused?
MISTAKE OF FACT
76. 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.
Illustration
(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 the due inquiry, believing Z to be
Y, arrests Z. A has committed no offence.
MISTAKE OF FACT
79. 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.
Illustration
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 act, 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 defence.
LEGAL MAXIMS

● ignorantia facti excusat

● ignorantia juris not excusat

● Difference – bound by law vs justified by

law
Question

● A, a police officer, Carrying out the orders

of a superior in good faith believing to be
bound by law, shot 2 people on a road. A
is-
a. Liable as he killed 2 people
b. Liable as he under police authority cannot
kill people
c. Not liable as he is exempted under section
76
d. Not liable as he is a police officer and they
are immune to everything
Question

● A thinking that a tiger was behind the bush shoots

B, his son, who was standing behind the bush. A is
–
a. Liable, as murder cannot be exempted
b. Not liable, as he is excepted under section 79
c. Liable as he ignored his son, which he should have
checked
d. Not liable as he checked thoroughly and he couldn’t
have seen his son.
Question

Fennell’s son was involved in a fight and was

arrested by the prosecutor, a police officer. Fennel
pressed the officer to release his son and he
struck the officer who was on the point of taking
his son to the police station. Fennel is-
a. Liable as he can only save his own life
b. Not liable
c. Cannot say
d. Liable as there was no imminent danger to the
son under police custody
Question
● The accused was charged for committing murder of
his father. The relations between father and mother
were strained, and his father frequently used to
quarrel with his mother one night there was a
quarrel between the accused’s father and mother
and the mother called out “murder”, and the father
forced the mother to the top of stairs and
threatened to knife her. The accused shot and
killed his father. There was no evidence that the
father had a knife.
● Accused is liable or not?
Judicial Act

77. 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.
78. 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.
Section 77

If a magistrate assumes on an erroneous reading of

the law that he had the jurisdiction to decide a
particular case, he is not criminally liable for exceeding
his jurisdiction, though it turns out to be that he had no
authority to conduct the case. The privilege does not
extend to acts when a judge knowingly exceeds his
authority or does something contrary to law. For
instance, if a judge assaults or abuses a man, he is as
much liable as an ordinary man would be for his acts.
Section 78

● if a magistrate who is authorised under section 5 of

Gambling Act 1867, to issue a search warrant on
credible information only, issues a warrant to arrest
a person without any such information, the police
officer, who arrests the man in pursuance of such an
order is not liable for committing an offence. As the
arrest was made under the direction of a court, the
police officer is protected from conviction in spite of
the fact that the warrant was defective in law and,
consequently, illegal.
ACCIDENT – Section 80

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.
Illustration
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.
ACCIDENT – Essential ingredients
1. The act done should be by accident or
misfortune. It happens ‘out of the ordinary
course of things’ and is unexpected.
2. Without any criminal intention or knowledge.
Acts that are criminal but without the criminal
intent, lacking men’s rea, are not penalized.
“Mens rea” is one of the necessary ingredients
to make an individual liable for his acts.
3. While legally doing a lawful act by lawful means.
The original act should be lawful.
4. The person should exercise due care and
caution. If any harm is caused without it no
defense shall be given.
Question

Accused persons travelling in truck allegedly causing

death of deceased travelling in jeep and injuring other
persons by hitting right side of truck to jeep. Tyre marks
in photographs of incident indicating application of
brakes to avoid accident.
Accused persons not armed with deadly weapons.

Accident or murder?
Question

The accused and the deceased were friends who were

wrestling fans and were engaged in a wrestling bout.
While the wrestling head accidentally came in contact
with a concrete platform resulting in injuries to the skull
and eventual death.

Accident or murder?
Necessity – Section 81
Act likely to cause harm, but done without criminal
intent, and to prevent other harm.—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.
Explanation.—It is a question of fact in such a case
whether the harm to be prevented or avoided was of
such a nature and so imminent as to justify or excuse
the risk of doing the act with the knowledge that it
was likely to cause harm.
Illustration
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 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 risk of running down a
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 the
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 the boat C.
Illustration

(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 and 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.
Three conditions of section 81

(i) the act must have been committed in order to avoid other harm;
(ii) the harm to be avoided must be such as to Justify the risk of doing an act
likely to cause harm; and
(iii) the act must have been committed in good faith without any criminal intention
to cause harm
Question

three adults and one minor were cast adrift in

a ship following a shipwreck without food and
water. Their food ran out 7 days before the
storm and they had no water for 5 days.
Dudley suggested sacrificing the minor boy as
he was too weak so without the consent of
Brooks killed the boy, all three fed on the boy
and were rescued four days later.Are the
respondents liable?
SAMEERLIVE
KRITIB