Law and You > Criminal Laws > Indian Penal Code > Importance of Section 6 in Chapter of General Exceptions
In the last article, we have studied Section 5 of the Code, which deals with the applicability of certain laws overriding the IPC. In this article, we shall study Section 6 of IPC, which deals with definitions in the Code to be understood subject to exceptions. When reading the code Chapter II on General Explanation and Chapter IV on General Exceptions are very important. Acceptance of satisfactory terminology is of the first importance for securing workable rules. The law must have the same meaning for all persons. All Acts contain an interpretation clause which defines and explains the leading terms used in the Act to avoid any mistake of meaning. It is necessary that a word which occurs more than once in the same Act must be given the same meaning throughout the Act.
The definitions and every other provision of the Code including illustration must be read subject to the exceptions provided for in the Chapter of the Code entitled “General Exceptions”. The exceptions, though not specified in the definition of the offence in question, shall be deemed to be incorporated therein; in other words, it shall have effect as if it had been so specified.
Section 6 of IPC:
S. 6: Definitions in the Code to be understood subject to exceptions:
Throughout this Code every definition of an offence, every penal provision, and every illustration of every such definition or penal provision, shall be understood subject to the exceptions contained in the Chapter entitled “General Exceptions”, though those exceptions are not repeated in such definition, penal provision, or illustration.
Illustrations:
The sections, in this Code, which contain definitions of offences, do not express that a child under seven years of age cannot commit such offences; but the definitions are to be understood subject to the general exception which provides that nothing shall be an offence which is done by a child under seven years of age.
A, a police officer, without a warrant, apprehends Z, who has committed murder. Here A is not guilty of the offence of wrongful confinement; for he was bound by law to apprehend Z, and therefore the case falls within the general exception which provides that “nothing is an offence which is done by a person who is bound by law to do it”.
Section 105 of Evidence Act, 1872:
Burden of proving that case of accused comes within exceptions:
When a person is accused of any offence, the burden of proving the existence of circumstances bringing the case within any of the General Exceptions in the Indian Penal Code, (45 of 1860), or within any special exception or proviso contained in any other part of the same Code, or in any law defining the offence, is upon him, and the Court shall presume the absence of such circumstances.
In K. M. Nanavati v. State of Maharashtra, AIR 1962 SC 605 case, Appellant Nanavati, a Naval Officer, was put up on trial under Ss. 300 and 304 Part I of the Indian Penal Code for the alleged murder of his wife’s paramour. Appellant took defence of the first exception of Section 300 of IPC. the Court held that if the accused pleads exception, there is a presumption against him, and the burden to rebut the presumption lies on him.
A separate Chapter IV of General Exception is given in the Code and it should be referred every time when applying the definition of the offence or provisions of punishment or an illustration to the act performed by the accused. If any provision of Chapter IV applies to the act of accused then it is not an offence. Thus the Code is to be used considering General Exceptions. Thus there is a universal application of Chapter IV of the Code (Sections 76 – 106). It is not repeated again and again with every offence for the sake of brevity of expression.
In Illustration 1, the use of this section is explained. Many offences are defined in the Code. Nowhere in the Code other than Chapter IV, it is mentioned a child under seven years of age cannot commit such offences. A child below 7 years is still in his growing years and till that age does not attain that level of maturity where he can make rational decisions. Therefore, on the basis of a mere act committed by him, that is criminal in nature, he cannot be held liable for punishment. Any act that is committed by a child below the age of 7 years does not make him criminally liable for the offence.
According to the Penal Code, a person is liable for punishment who wrongfully confines someone or restrains his way. But in the second Illustration, it is stated that a police officer without a warrant arrests a person who has committed murder. In this case, the situation is different. The police officer arresting the person is bound by the law to do so and shall not be held guilty for causing wrongful confinement. Also, It depends on the matter to matter whether the offence committed is bailable or not. The person bound by the law shall not be held liable for causing wrongful confinement.
In Shankar Narayan Bhadolkar v. State of Maharashtra AIR 2004 SC 1966 case, the appellant allegedly shot Pandurang Varambale (deceased ) dead with a gun when the deceased was in his house in response to his invitation to attend a marriage celebration. The Appellant took the defence of S. 80 included in Chapter IV General Exceptions. Court held that the General exceptions are part of every offence contained in the Code, but the burden to prove their existence lies with the accused.
In Shibu v. State of Kerala, 2013 (4) KLT 323 (DB) case, the Court held that before filing the charge sheet investigating officer has to confirm that such acts will still constitute the alleged offence under IPC, despite what is contained in the General Exceptions. The investigating officer is bound to investigate and confirm that despite what is contained in “General Exceptions”, acts committed by the accused shall constitute an offence under IPC. This shall be done, by virtue of Section 6 of IPC.
Conclusion:
The purpose of Section 6 Indian Penal Code is to make the terms of a section easy to understand. It leaves no bar that could later create confusion on the scope of a particular section. The aim of this section is to extend the ambit of other sections of the code through definitions, provisions, and illustrations. Illustrations provided are also inclusive of the offences as well as the exception to the provision thereto.