Section 76

It is an act done by a person by mistake of fact in good faith

and he/she thinks that he is bound by law to do it. Mistake of
law is not a defence. If the act is done in good faith in the
existence of facts, which if they do not exist, would make an
act of the person innocent in law. Thus it is clear that an act
will not be an offence, if it is committed in a bona fide manner
by a person who by mistake a fact believes himself to be bound
by law.
Illustration: Ram, a soldier in the army, fires on a crowd by the
order of his superior, in conformity with the commands of law,
here Ram is not liable for the fire on the crowd because it was
mistake of fact and he thought himself to be bound by law.
Essentials of Section 76:
1. Person does the act by mistake of fact.
2. Act is done in good faith.
3. Person thinks that he is bound by the law to do it.

Section 79
It is applied when an act done by a person under a mistake of
fact in good faith and he thinks himself to be justified by law to
do it. Mistake of law is not a defence. Thus it is clear that an
act will not be an offence, if it is committed in a bona fide
manner by a person who by mistake a fact believes himself to
be justified by law.
Illustration: Ram sees Vansh and Amit commit what appears to
Ram to be a conspiracy. Ram, in good faith, uses the power
which the law gives to all person of apprehending conspiracy,
in order to bring Vansh and Amit before the proper authorities.
Ram has committed no offence, though it may turn out that
Vansh and Amit were discussing a movie.
Essentials of Section 79:
1. Person does the act by mistake of fact.
2. Act is done in good faith.
3. Person thinks that he is justified by the law to do it.

State of Orissa vs  Bhagaban  Barik

The accused and the victim did not have good relations. When
the victim returned home after the recital of Bhagvat Gita,
after that huge cry was there at the house of accused. People
ran to the house of the accused and saw the victim in the pool
of blood and the family members of the accused were cleaning
the blood. The victim was alive till that time and told that
accused had beaten him. Accused told that he believed victim
to be a thief and blow a lathi at him. The court held that it was
not done in good faith, moreover relations between them were
not good. It was proved that accused was already waiting for
the victim to come so that he could blow lathi at him and no
occasion showed that accused believed him to be a thief.
Therefore, it was not mistake of fact.

R v Rose
The relations between the father and mother of the accused
were not good. Father used to quarrel his mother. One night
between the fight mother shouted murder and father
threatened her with the knife. Accused shot his father and he
died. The court held that when he fired the shot accused really
believed that the life of mother is in danger and therefore that
shot was justified
to save her life. Law excused him.

State of Andhra Pradesh v N  Venugopal 

Three policemen(accused) arrested the victim for house
breaking and stolen property. After some days victim was
found that with multiple injuries. The prosecution pointed out
that the person was wrongfully confined and tortured to take
statement from him. When policemen got afraid of his injuries,
they threw his body. The High court held that policemen were
justified while the Supreme court reversed the judgement of
High court and held that beating, confining and throwing the
body was not justified and part of investigation.

Section 80- ACCIDENT

It is an act which is caused and is not done with the intention
of causing it and its occurrence as a consequence of such act is
not so probable. An accident in generally means an event that
occurs without one’s knowledge and beyond expectation. It
rather means an unintentional, an unexpected act. It implies
the idea of something not only unintended but something
which was so little expected that it came as a surprise.
For example, Vansh is at work with an axe, the head loses and
flies off, which causes injury to Avni. Here if there was no want
of proper question on the part of Vansh, his act is excusable
and not an offence. Thus, causing it to be an accident.

Essentials of Accident are as follows:

1. Act is caused without the intention of causing it.
2. Result of the act is beyond the expectation.

M. P. v. Rangaswami AIR 1952
The accused and his co-employees went to shoot the hyena
which they believed have reappeared. That day due to drizzling
of rain visibility was poor. With the belief that moving object is
hyena he shot and it was found that he shot at a human being
who died on spot. The court held that the accused is not guilty.

State Of Orissa vs Khora Ghasi 

The accused shot arrow with the believe that he was shooting
at the wild bear which was damaging his crop field. Also, it was
a dark night and moon was not visible and it was drizzling as
well. Witnesses confirmed that field is surrounded by the forest
and bears were common there. The deceased was wearing a
black blanket which appeared to be bear to the accused.
Accused had no intention to kill the victim and they did not
have bad relations. The court held that the case comes under
Section 79 or 80 and therefore accused is not liable.

Section 81- NECESSITY

The regulation must be broken to obtain an extra good. An act

which might in any other case be a crime can also additionally
in a few instances be excused if the character accused can
display that it changed into finished best with a purpose to
keep away from effects which couldn't in any other case be
avoided, and which, in the event that they had followed, might
have inflicted upon him or upon others whom he changed into
sure to defend inevitable and irreparable evil, that no extra
changed into finished than changed into moderately important
for that purpose, and that the evil inflicted with the aid of using
it changed into now no longer disproportionate to the evil
avoided.
For example, Ram, in an incredible fire, pulls down homes so
as to save it from spreading. He does this with the purpose in
good faith of saving human lifestyles or property. Here, if it be
certain that damage to be averted became of this type of
nature and so an forthcoming as to Rams act. Ram isn't
responsible of the offence as it is necessity.

Essentials of Necessity are:

1. Act cause harm.
2. Act was done without criminal intention.
3. To prevent greater harm.