CHANAKYA NATIONAL LAW UNIVERSITY, PATNA

Criminal Law – I
Indian Penal Code, 1860, The Sexual Harassment of
Women at Workplace (Prevention, Prohibition and
Redressal) Act, 2013 & The Prevention of
Corruption Act, 1988
Semester III
Academic Year 2020-21

Course Teacher:

© PREETY ANAND
Ms. Preety Anand
Assistant Professor (Law)
Chanakya National Law University, Patna.
© PREETY ANAND
 GENERAL EXCEPTIONS

• Chapter IV, section 76-106, IPC

• Based on ‘actus non facit reum nisi mens sit rea’

• For the sake of convenience, the framers chose to put all the general
exceptions at one place under the IPC rather than repeating them
everywhere in the code. Section 6 of the code sheds light on the same.

• Scope of General Exceptions: Not only the IPC but all the other
legislations forming part of the substantive criminal law.

• Burden of Proof when an accused claims to be falling under any of the

© PREETY ANAND
general exceptions. (Section 105, Indian Evidence Act, 1872)
 GENERAL EXCEPTIONS

GENERAL
EXCEPTIONS

EXCUSABLE JUSTIFIABLE
ACTS ACTS

MISTAKE OF FACTS JUDICIAL ACTS

NECESSITY
ACCIDENT
CONSENT
INFACNCY
DURESS & COMPULSION
INSANITY

© PREETY ANAND
COMMUNICATION
INTOXICATION TRIFLES
PRIVATE DEFENCE
 MISTAKE OF FACT
SECTION 76
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.
An Act would not be an offence:
 The person is either bound by
law, or
 The person believes himself to
be bound by law
• By the reason of MOF and
not MOL
• In Good Faith
SECTION 79
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.
An Act would not be an offence:
 The person is either justified
by law in doing it, or
 The person believes himself
to be justified by law
© PREETY ANAND
• By the reason of MOF
and not MOL
• In Good Faith
Leading cases:
 State of West Bengal v Shew Mangal Singh, 1981
 Chirangi v State, 1952
 State of Maharashtra v Mayer Hans George, 1965

© PREETY ANAND
 JUDICIAL ACTS
SECTION 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.
An Act would not be an offence:
 Done by a judge.
 Acting judicially in the exercise of
powers
• Given to him by law, or
• which he believes in good
faith is given to him by the
law
(Section 52: Nothing is said to be done
or believed in “good faith” which is
done or believed without due care
and attention.)
SECTION 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.
An Act would not be an offence:
 That is done in pursuance of/ warranted by
any order or judgment of the court.
 Must be done while the said order or
judgement is in force.
© PREETY ANAND
 The court’s jurisdiction to pass the order or
judgement is irrelevant.
 However, the person doing the act must
believe in goof faith that the court had
jurisdiction.
 ACCIDENT
 Section 80 of the IPC: 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.

 Ingredients of Section 80:

1. LAWFUL ACT
2. LAWFUL MANNER NO OFFENCE.
HENCE, NO
3. LAWFUL MEANS
CRIMINAL
4. NO CRIMINAL INTENTION OR KNOWLEDGE LIABILITY.
5. EXERCISE OF PROPER CARE AND CAUTION

© PREETY ANAND
 NECESSITY

 Section 81: 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.
 It is 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

© PREETY ANAND
knowledge that it was likely to
cause harm.
R v Dudley and Stephens, [1884] 14 QBD 273 DC

It was found that:

1. The men would have died but for eating Parker.
2. Parker, being in a much weaker condition, would
probably have died first.
3. At the time of the killing, there was no reasonable
prospect for being saved unless they fed upon
Parker or themselves.
4. There was no greater necessity for killing Parker
than any of the other three men.

 Who is to be the judge of this sort of

necessity?
 By what measure is the comparative
value of lives to be measured?
 Strength, or Intellect, or what is

© PREETY ANAND
should be considered?
 Should it be the one who is to profit
by it to decide who is to be killed?
Was it more necessary to kill Richard
Parker than one of the grown men?
 INFANCY

Act of Child

Above 7 and 12 or more than

Under 7 years of
under 12 years 12 years of age
age
of age but less than 18.
• Section 82 of the IPC • Section 83 of the IPC • “Child” is considered to
• Absolutely no criminal • Criminal liability is based on be same as a “minor”
liability level of maturity and not on • Conclude on the basis
• Basis: Doli Incapax his age. of combined reading of
• It is a conclusive • Basis: Doli capax
section 82 and 83.
presumption. • It is a rebuttable presumption.
• If found to be having sufficient • Criminal liability is
• Excusable act under
imposed when found

© PREETY ANAND
the criminal law. maturity level and capability
• Children used as of understanding the nature guilty .
innocent agents in and consequences of the act, • Basis: Doli capax
commission of crime is made liable. • Tried as per the
• Tried as per the Juvenile Laws, Juvenile Laws.
are protected too.
however.
 INSANITY
• Section 84 of the IPC states “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.
• Basis:
 actus non facit reum nisi mens sit rea
 furiosis nulla voluntas est
 furiosus absentis low est
 furiosus furore sui puniter
• Unsoundness of mind ---- Inability of knowing the nature of
the act, or that it is either wrong or contrary to law

© PREETY ANAND
• Presumption of sanity
• Burden of Proof on the defence
Test of insanity: M'Naghten rules

1. Every person is presumed to be sane and possesses sufficient

degree of reason to be responsible for his crimes until the contrary
is established
2. The person must be insane to not know the nature and quality of
the act, or if he did know then the act was a wrong that he was
doing at the time of committing the act.
3. The test of wrongfulness of the act is in the power to distinguish
between wrong and right, not in general but in respect to the
particular act committed.

© PREETY ANAND
 INTOXICATION

INTOXICATION

INVOLUNTARY VOLUNTARY
(section 85) (section 86)
Section 85 of the IPC: 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

© PREETY ANAND
contrary to law; provided that the thing which
intoxicated him was administered to him without his
knowledge or against his will.”
Intoxication as a General Exception

1. Intoxication must be involuntary. (without Knowledge and

against his will)
2. Incapable of knowing that
• The nature of the act, or
• The act is wrong, or
• The act is contrary to law.
3. Incapability is by the reason of Intoxication.
4. Incapability must persist at the time of committing the act.

© PREETY ANAND
“qui pecat ebris luat sobrius”
 Self- Intoxication : Not a valid Defence: Presumption of
knowledge

• Section 86: 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.
• Self-Intoxication is no Defence
• There will be a rebuttable presumption of knowledge.
• Bas Dev v State of Pepsu AIR 1956 SC 488.
• However, it extends protection to accused in cases where there is a
requirement of a particular knowledge or intent. Protection here means
that the law would not presume presence of mens rea.

© PREETY ANAND
Example: when a person uses a weapon which is not dangerous and the
attack results in death, even though drunkenness is no excuse, a
presumption of mens rea will not be drawn.
 THANK YOU.

© PREETY ANAND