Law and You > Criminal Laws > Indian Penal Code > Introduction to General Exceptions Under IPC
In this article, let us discuss meaning of General Exceptions under IPC and its use as defense.
List of Sub-Topics:
- Introduction
- Section 6 IPC
- Sections of Code Related to General Exceptions
- Excusable Defense and Justifiable Defense
- Section 105 of the Indian Evidence Act
When a person proved with the commission of an offence, and ought to have been punished by law, if he is exempted from such legal punishment under special conditions stipulated in the law, it is known as General Exception. Chapter IV of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 deals with the “General Exceptions” which a person, accused of an offence under the code or any special or local law can plead. This chapter exempts certain acts from criminal liability. The principles enunciated in Chapter 4 are in fact rules of evidence carrying either conclusive or rebuttable presumptions. They deal with the circumstances which preclude the existence of ‘Mens rea’. They are the principles “Condition of non imputability” or “condition of exemptions from criminal liability”. If the existence of facts, or circumstances bringing the case within any of the exemptions is proved, negatives the existence of ‘Mens rea’ necessary to constitute the offence and thereby furnishes a ground for exemption from criminal liability.
Click Here to go to Sub-Topic List
Section 6 IPC:
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:
(a) 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.
(b) A, a police-officer, without 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”.
In Illustration (a), 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 Code, a person is liable for punishment who wrongfully confines someone or restrains his way. But in the Illustration (b), 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.
Case Laws:
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 defense 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.
The Indian Penal Code (IPC) provides certain exceptions or defences, which absolves the accused from criminal liability. These exceptions are covered from section 76 to section 106 of the IPC. The exceptions can be classified into the following seven categories:
- Juridical acts (Ss. 77 and 78)
- Mistake of fact (Ss. 76 and 79)
- Accident (S. 80)
- Absence of criminal intent (Ss. 81-86 and 92-94)
- Consent (Ss. 87 and 90)
- Trifling acts (S. 95)
- Private defence to person or property (Ss. 96 -106)
Click Here to go to Sub-Topic List
Sections Covering General Exceptions:
| Section No. | Particulars |
| 76 | Act done by a person bound, or by mistake of fact believing himself bound, by law |
| 77 | Act of Judge when acting judicially |
| 78 | Act done pursuant to the judgment or order of Court |
| 79 | Act done by a person justified, or by mistake of fact believing himself justified, by law |
| 80 | Accident in doing a lawful act |
| 81 | Act likely to cause harm, but done without criminal intent, and to prevent other harm |
| 82 | Act of a child under seven years of age |
| 83 | Act of a child above seven and under twelve of immature understanding |
| 84 | Act of a person of-unsound mind |
| 85 | Act of a person incapable of judgment by reason of intoxication caused against his will |
| 86 | Offence requiring a particular intent or knowledge committed by one who is intoxicated |
| 87 | Act not intended and not known to be likely to cause death or grievous hurt, done by consent |
| 88 | Act not intended to cause death, done by consent in good faith for person’s benefit |
| 89 | Act done in good faith for benefit of child or insane person, by or by consent of guardian |
| 90 | Consent known to be given under fear or misconception |
| 91 | Exclusion of acts which are offences independently of harm caused |
| 92 | Act done in good faith for benefit of a person without consent |
| 93 | Communication made in good faith |
| 94 | Act to which a person is compelled by threats |
| 95 | Act causing slight harm |
| 96 | Things done in private defense |
| 97 | Right of private defense of the body and of property |
| 98 | Right of private defense against the act of a person of unsound mind, etc. |
| 99 | Acts against which there is no right of private defense |
| 100 | When the right of private defense of the body extends to causing death |
| 101 | When such right extends to causing any harm other than death |
| 102 | Commencement and continuance of the right of private defense of the body |
| 103 | When the right of private defense of property extends to causing death |
| 104 | When such right extends to causing any harm other than death |
| 105 | Commencement and continuance of the right of private defense of property |
| 106 | Right of private defense against deadly assault when there is risk of harm to innocent person |
Click Here to go to Sub-Topic List
Excusable Defenses and Justifiable Defenses:
Chapter IV of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 deals with two broad classes of exception a) Excusable Defences and b) Justifiable Defences. They cover following offences
Excusable Defences:
Excusable Defences are those where act committed is excused for want of necessary requirement of ‘Mens rea’ In such cases the act is not criminal because the intention was not criminal.
Thus, an excusable act is the one in which though the person has caused harm, it is held that a person should be excused because he cannot be blamed for the act by reason of an honest mistake of fact, infancy, insanity or intoxication. There must be a disability to cause the condition that excuses the conduct.
- Mistake of fact (Ss. 76-79 IPC)
- Accident (S. 80 IPC)
- Incapacity – Infancy (Ss. 82 and 83) and Insanity (S. 84)
- Intoxication (Ss. 85 and 86)
Justifiable Defence:
A justified act is a one which otherwise, under normal conditions, would have been wrongful but the circumstances under which the act was committed make it tolerable and acceptable. The person fulfills all the ingredients of the offence but his conduct is held to be right under the circumstances.
- Juridical acts (Ss. 77 and 78)
- Absence of criminal intent (Ss. 81 and 92-94)
- Consent (Ss. 87 and 90)
- (Ss. 88 – 89)
- Private defence to person or property (Ss. 96 -106)
These exceptions being defenses available to an accused to absolve himself from criminal liability, the onus of proving them lies upon him.
Click Here to go to Sub-Topic List
Section 105 of the Indian Evidence Act:
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. Illustrations
(a) A, accused of murder, alleges that, by reason of unsoundness of mind, he did not know the nature of the act. The burden of proof is on A.
(b) A, accused of murder, alleges, that by grave and sudden provocation, he was deprived of the power of self-control. The burden of proof is on A.
(c) Section 325 of the Indian Penal Code, (45 of 1860), provides that whoever, except in the case provided for by section 335, voluntarily causes grievous hurt, shall be subject to certain punishments. A is charged with voluntarily causing grievous hurt under section 325. The burden of proving the circumstances bringing the case under section 335 lies on A.
Case Laws:
In Samuthram alias Samudra Rajan v. State of Tamil Nadu, (1997) 2 Crimes 185 (Mad) case, the Court held that when the prosecution has established its case, it is incumbent upon the accused, under section 105 to establish the case of his private defence.
In Rizan v. State of Chhattisgarh, AIR 2003 SC 976 case, the Court held that the burden of establishing the plea of self-defence is on the accused and the burden stands discharged by showing preponderance of probabilities in favour of that plea on the basis of material on record.
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.
Click Here to go to Sub-Topic List
Conclusion:
Chapter IV of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 deals with the “General Exceptions” which a person, accused of an offence under the code or any special or local law can plead. This chapter exempts certain acts from criminal liability. Section 6 of the Code lays down that 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. If the existence of facts, or circumstances bringing the case within any of the exemptions is proved, negatives the existence of ‘Mens rea’ necessary to constitute the offence and thereby furnishes a ground for exemption from criminal liability.