IPC 2022 General Exceptions

GENERAL EXCEPTIONS (C HAPTER 4: SECTION 76-106)

Defences which absolve the accused from any criminal Liability.

Even if the Accused does not plead for these defences but it is clear by the evidence that
any of them are applicable the court will ‘suo motu’ apply them on his case.

Divided into 7 Categories-

1. Mistake of Fact (Section 76 and 79)
2. Juridical Acts (Section 77 and 78)
3. Accident (Section 80)
4. Absence of Criminal Intent (Sections 81-86, 92-94)
5. Consent (Section 87-91)
6. Trifles (Section 95)
7. Private Defence of Person or Property (Section 96 – 106)

MISTAKE OF FACT
Section 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 not by reason of a mistake of law, in good faith believes
himself to be, bound by law to do it.
Mistake of Fact’- Misconception about the existence or nonexistence of fact in
someone’s mind.
The Acts of subordinate officer is protected under this Section.
Illustration: 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.

Ignorantia facti excusat, ignorantia juris non excusat.

(Ignorance of the fact excuses; ignorance of the law excuses not.)

M.H George V. State of Maharashtra (1965)

M.H. George was not an Indian Citizen and was trying to smuggle gold through India,
India recently passed a law prohibiting to carry that much gold through India.
M.H. George was hiding the Gold in his jacket, that too 34 kg of gold.
Court said that even if M.H. George didn’t know the law he is supposed to know it
Ignorance of law is no excuse and he was held liable under the relevant provision.

YG LAW 1
IPC 2022 General Exceptions

Section 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 mistake of law in
good faith, believes himself to be justified by law, in doing it.
State of Andhra Pradesh v. Venu Gopal (1994)
Police (one sub inspector, one head constable and a constable) arrested
a person on suspicion that he had received some stolen property and is
involved in house breaking.
Later the person was found dead with injuries on his body.
The prosecution alleged the police for wrongful confinement and torture
for taking out a confession out of him.
Trial court convicted the police
High court acquitted giving them the defence of Section 79 – whatever
policeman do during investigation is justified by law
Supreme court said that ‘this view of High court is wholly unwarranted in
law’ beating and torturing has absolutely no relation to the process of
investigation.

Note: The difference between Sec. 76 and Sec 79 is that in 76, it is legal
Compulsion and in 79 it is legal Justification which the doer of the act believed
he had.

JURIDICAL ACTS
Section 77. Act of Judge when acting judicially.
Nothing is an offence which is done by a Judge when acting judicially, in
good faith believes to be given to him by law.
Section 78. Act done pursuant to the judgment or order of Court.
Nothing is an offence, which is done in pursuant of a judgement or
order, where the Court may have had no jurisdiction to pass such
judgment or order, in good faith believes that the Court had such
jurisdiction.

YG LAW 2
IPC 2022 General Exceptions

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.
Jageshar v. Emperor (1923)

There is no defence of accident available when the original act which was
being done while the accident happened is in itself illegal

ABSENCE OF CRIMINAL INTENT

Necessity
Section 81. - Act likely to cause harm, but done without criminal intent,
and to prevent other harm.
Nothing is an offence if is done with the knowledge that it is likely to
cause harm, but done without any criminal intent to cause harm, and in
good faith for the purpose of preventing other harm to person or
property.
Illustration: A in great fire pulls down houses to prevent firefrom spreading.
He did this to prevent the fire in good faith, he is not guilty of the offence.

Quad necessitas non habet leegem

(Necessity knows no law)

Regina v Dudley & Stephen (1884)

Dudley and Stephens (defendants) murdered a fellow young

seaman (Parker) to save their own lives from starvation when they
were stuck in between sea storm. The 5 Judges Queen’s Bench laid
down that necessity is no defense for murder, and they were
found guilty of murder which was later reduced into life
imprisonment.

YG LAW 3
IPC 2022 General Exceptions

Young Mind
Section 82. Act of child under 7 years, is not an offence.
doli incapax
(Incapable of committing an offence)

Section 83. Act of a child between 7-12 years, of immature understanding.

Nothing is an offence which is done by a child above 7 years and under

12. It is presumed that they have not attained the sufficient maturity to
judge of the nature and consequences of his conduct.
In case there is no evidence to prove ‘immature
understanding’ court will assume that the child above seven
and below 12 understood the nature of his acts.
Ulla Mahapatra v. the King (1950)
The boy below 12 years shouted ‘I will cut you to pieces’ and did so
to the victim, He was convicted under Section 302.

Unsound Mind
Section 84. Act of a person of unsound mind

Nothing is an offence which is done by a person who, at the time of commission of the crime
by reason of unsound mind is incapable of knowing the true nature of the act, or that, what
he is doing is either wrong or contrary to law.

R v M’Naughten Case (1843)

Daniel M’Naughten suffered from a delusion and killed Edward
Drummond (Secretary of PM). Medical evidence also showed that he
was delusional which carried him away from self-control over his
acts. He was acquitted which attracted criticism by public. Principles
Devised from this case are-
- Every person would be assumed sane until contrary is
proved.
- The rule generally is being presented as a standard to
determine whether the accused at the time of doing the
act, knew the difference between right and wrong.

YG LAW 4
IPC 2022 General Exceptions

Drinking Or Intoxication
Section 85. Involuntary Intoxication: Nothing is an offence done by an
intoxicated person, incapable of knowing the nature of the act.

Section 86. Voluntary Intoxication: This section says that if you are
intoxicated voluntarily, you will be taken as a person who has the same
knowledge as a normal person (who is not intoxicated) But this section
does not assumes that you have the same intention as a normal person
while intoxicated.
So, if you are voluntarily drunk and stab your friend then it will be
assumed that you had knowledge that it will kill him, but if you
can prove that you didn’t have intention at that time then you
might be given less harsher punishment (say for culpable
homicide instead of murder)
R v Meade (1909)

The accused had brutally beaten the deceased woman in a drunken state.

Lord Coleridge J held that he was drunk, he could not have the intention
requisite for the murder but confirmed his conviction for murder on the
ground that he was not so drunken to kill someone.

Attorney General for Northern Ireland v Gallachen (1961)

The accused, a psychopath, after forming the intention to kill his wife,
took to drinking (also brought a knife) and killed her.

Lord Denning J (House of Lords) held that this case does not fall under
the exceptions as the intention was formed prior to intoxication. If he
had changed his mind before drinking, he could have been excused
and thus, was held liable for murder.

Basudev v State of Pepsu (1956)

In a wedding party, the accused was intoxicated asked a young boy to

leave the seat for him to which boy refused. The accused took his
pistol and shot him dead. The court ruled three circumstances

Here, the court talked about varying degrees of intoxication and held
that the accused was not intoxicated to such an extent to be
incapable of forming necessary intent- Held liable for murder.

YG LAW 5
IPC 2022 General Exceptions

Act Done in Good Faith/Threat

Section 92. Act done in good faith for benefit of a person without
consent.
Only if the circumstances are such that
1. It is impossible for that person to signify consent,
2. The person is incapable of giving consent
3. No guardian or other person in charge of giving
consent is available
Provided
First. -That this exception shall not extend to the intentional causing
of death or the attempting to cause death;
Secondly. -That this exception shall not extend to the doing of
anything which the person doing it knows to be likely to cause death,
for any purpose other than the preventing of death or grievous hurt,
or the curing of any grievous disease or infirmity;
Thirdly. -That this exception shall not extend to the voluntary causing
of hurt, or to the attempting to cause hurt, for any purpose other
than the preventing of death or hurt;
Fourthly. -That this exception shall not extend to the abetment of any
offence, to the committing of which offence it would not extend.

Section 93. 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.

Section 94. Act to which a person is compelled by threats. -

Except murder, and offences against the State punishable with
death,
There should be apprehension that instant death to that person
will otherwise be the consequence:
The person should not place himself in the situation by which he
became subject to such constraint.
Joining a group of Dacoits voluntarily and then doing something is
not covered under this Section

YG LAW 6
IPC 2022 General Exceptions

CONSENT IS GIVEN
Section 87. Act not intended and not known to be likely to cause death or
Grievous hurt, done by consent.
This section gives immunity to a person who causes any harm to who
takes the risk of it or giving consent to it. Provided that-
1. The Act is not intended and is not likely to cause death or grievous
hurt.
2. The person consenting must be 18 years or above (consent can be
express or implied).

‘Volenti non fit injuria’ - He who consents to an act has no right

to claim damages for the injury caused to him by that act.

Tunda v R (1950)

Two persons agreed to wrestle with each other, and an accidental injury was
caused to one. The court held that when they agreed to wrestle these were
implies consent on their part to suffer consequential injuries.

Held- Not Liable.

Section 88. Act not intended to cause death, done by consent in good faith
for person's benefit: This section extends the operation of consent to all cases
except intentional causing of death. Provided that-
1. The Act should not intend to cause death.
2. Act must be for the benefit of that person and done in good faith.
3. It should be with the persons consent (express or implied)

Illustration: A-Surgeon who operates on B and knows that the operation

is likely to cause death but still operates in good faith to cure B shall not
be held liable for any injury caused to B.

Section 89. Act done in good faith for benefit of child or insane person by
consent of guardian. –

Nothing is an offence which is done, in good faith for the benefit of a person under 12
years of age, or of unsound mind, by either express or implied consent of the lawful
guardian. This section extends the operation of section 88 to minors < 12 years and of
unsound mind when consent is given by the guardian.

YG LAW 7
IPC 2022 General Exceptions

Provisos

Firstly - Does not extend to intentional causing of death or attempt to cause

death.
Secondly - Can be extended only for the purpose of preventing of death/
GH/curing of any grievous disease/infirmity- RISK OF DEATH ALLOWED.
Thirdly - That this exception shall not extend to the voluntary causing of GH
or attempting to cause GH, unless it be for the purpose of preventing death
or GH, or the curing of any grievous disease or infirmity.
Fourthly - That this exception shall not extend to the abetment of any
offence.
Illustration: A, in good faith, for his child's benefit without his child's consent, has his
child cut for the stone by a surgeon. Knowing it to be likely that the operation will
cause the child's death, but not intending to cause the child's death.

Section 90 (Defines Consent Negatively)

Consent is not defined in IPC general Definition part: Section 90 defines
Consent in Negative-
A Consent is not consent if:
- Given under Fear of Injury
- Or Misconceptions of the facts
- Or given by a person of unsound or intoxicated mind
- Or by a person <12 Years of age.

Section 91. Exclusion of acts which are offences independently of harm

cause.
The exceptions in sections 87, 88 and 89 do not extend to acts which are
offences independently of any harm which they may cause, or be
intended to cause, or be known to be likely to cause, to the person
giving the consent, or on whose behalf the consent is given.
There is an Act (Miscarriage)
– It causes some harm to the woman, if the woman even consents for
the harm it WONT BE COVERED UNDER 87,88,89 because Causing
Miscarriage is also an offence against the child. So the act is
independently an offence other than the harm caused which was
consented.

YG LAW 8
IPC 2022 General Exceptions

The illustration under IPC gives the exception where Miscarriage is

necessary to save the woman’s life but after ‘Medical Termination of
Pregnancy Act,1971’ other exceptions are also there apart from ‘saving
the life of the woman’.
Other Acts on which defences of 87,88,89 do not extend are offences
affecting public health, safety, convenience, decency, morals etc.
Like publication of obscene material even with the consent of the
concerned person is an offence because it is independently an offence
for reasons other than the harm caused to the consenting person.

TRIFLES (Section 95)

Section 95. Act causing slight harm – Nothing shall be an offence which is done by
a person that no ordinary person would have complaint of that slight harm.

De Minimis Non Curat Lex

Trifles are not to be treated as crime.

YG LAW 9
IPC 2022 General Exceptions

RIGHT TO PRIVATE DEFENCE (Section 96-106)

Section 96. Nothing is an offence which is done in the exercise of the right of
private defence.
Munney Khan V. State (1971)
All Sections (96-106) all read together to know the scope and limitation of
this defence. The following limitations will apply to this defence:
- Not your right to exercise if there is sufficient time for recourse to
public authorities.
- The force used and harm caused should be only as much as reasonably
necessary.
- There should be reasonable apprehension of hurt, grievous hurt or
death to the person or damage to the property.

Rafiq v. State of Maharashtra (1979)

The deceased was attacking the accused with a lathi but the accused
took out a knife and stabbed him to death. The medical reports
showed that the wound was deep and the knife pierced through the
heart with great force resulting in death because of pouring out of
blood from the heart.
It was held that it was self-defence but the Accused used excessive
force so he is liable for ‘culpable homicide not amounting to murder’

Section 97. Right of private defence of the body and of property.

Every person has a right, subject to the restrictions contained in section
99, to defend his body, others body, his property, other persons
property

Section 98- Right to Private Defence against unsound mind person

When an act, which would otherwise be a certain offence, is not that offence
If done by any of these persons-
- When a person is acting under Mistake of Facts (76,79)
- Child protected under Doli Incapax (82)
- Child of immature understanding (83)
- Insane person (84)
- Person not voluntarily intoxicated (85)
They are committing no offence because they are protected, but if you Protect
yourself from this attack, it will be treated as if you are protecting yourself
from someone who is committing an offence

YG LAW 10
IPC 2022 General Exceptions

Section 99- When a person cannot exercise his Right to Private Defence.
- If you had sufficient time to reach to the Public Authorities.
- If the force used and harm caused was not Reasonably Necessary.
- If there is no reasonable apprehension of Hurt/GH/Death to the person or
damage to property.
Act done by Public Servant
There is no right of private defence against an act which does not
reasonably cause the apprehension of death or of grievous hurt, if done, or
attempted to be done, by the direction of a public servant acting in good
faith under colour of his office though that direction may not be strictly
justifiable by law.
Note: The person should know that act is done by public servant. And should
be shown the authority proof if demanded. Like a policeman searching a house
should show the search warrant.

Section 100 - Private Defence to Body- When you can cause death.
There are 7 situations prescribed:
- Assault with the apprehension of DEATH.
- Assault with the apprehension GREVIOUS HURT.
- Assault with the apprehension COMMITTING RAPE.
- Assault with the apprehension Gratifying UNNATURAL LUST.
- Assault with the apprehension KIDNAPPING/ABDUCTION.
- Assault with the apprehension WRONGFULLY CONFINING a person
when he knows that he will not reach to Public Authorities in time.
- An Act of throwing or attempting to throw Acid which may reasonably
cause the apprehension of GH or Death. (Added by Criminal Amendment
Act 2013 – Nirbhaya Act)

Section 101 - When such right extends to causing any harm other than death.
The right of private defence of the body does not extend to the voluntary
causing death to the assailant, but does extend under the restrictions
mentioned in section 99.

Section 102 - Commencement and Continuance of Right to Private Defense.

Till the person have reasonable apprehension of any Harm/Death, he can
exercise his right to private defense.

YG LAW 11
IPC 2022 General Exceptions

3 Situation when a person can cause death while exercising his right to
Private Defense of Property (103-105)

Section 103: Private Defense to Property when you can cause Death.
- Robbery.
- House Breaking by Night.
- Mischief By Fire- Committed on any Building, Tent, Vessel or if these are
used as Human Dwelling.
- Theft- Mischief- House Trespass- which may cause the reasonable
Apprehension of Death/GH.

Section 104 (Residuary to Section 103)

These right does not extend to the voluntary causing of death, but does
extend, subject to the restrictions mentioned in section 99, to the voluntary
causing to the wrong-doer of any harm other than death.

Section 105. Commencement and continuance of the right of private defence of

property.
The right of private defence of property commences when a reasonable
apprehension of danger to the property commences.

The right of private defence of property against theft continues till the
offender has affected his retreat with the property or either the assistance
of the public authorities is obtained, or the property has been recovered.

The right of private defence of property against robbery continues as long

as the offender causes or attempts to cause to any person
death/hurt/wrongful restraint or as long as the fear continues.

The right of private defence of property against criminal trespass or

mischief continues as long as the offender continues in the commission of
criminal trespass or mischief.

The right of private defence of property against house-breaking by night

continues as long as the house-trespass which has been begun by such
house-breaking continues.

YG LAW 12
 IPC 2022 General Exceptions

Can you cause harm to an innocent person in process of Self Defence?

Section 106. Right of private defence against deadly assault when there is risk of
harm to innocent person.
If in the exercise of the right of private defence against an assault which
reasonably causes the apprehension of death, the defender be so situated that
he cannot effectually exercise that right without risk of harm to an innocent
person, his right of private defence extends to the running of that risk.

Be part of YG Law Community and make studying law easier.

YouTube: YG Law; Instagram: YGLaw.in

Facebook: YGLaw.in; Twitter: YGLaw_in

Click here to view my courses

YG LAW 13
Protect pdf from copying with Online-PDF-No-Copy.com