General Exceptions under

IPC
By: Hifajatali Sayyed
 Introduction
 Chapter IV of IPC, comprising sec 76-106, exempts
certain acts from criminal liability.

 Though the act of an accused prima facie falls within the

terms of an offence, does not constitute an offence if it is
covered by the exceptions given under this chapter.

 A wrongdoer, who has committed an offence may

escape the liability because he has general exception
to offer as an answer to prosecution.
 Object of General Exceptions
 Every penal clause is subject to number of limitations
and no offence can be absolute without any
exceptions.

 An act committed by a child cannot be treated as

same as committed by an adult person.

 In order to avoid repetition, all the exceptions are

codified in a single chapter.

 This can be inferred from sec 6 of IPC.

 Object of General Exception
 Sec 6 of IPC states that

• 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.
 Burden of Proof
 Fundamental Principle of criminal law is that a person
is innocent until proved guilty.

 The prosecution has to prove the guilt of accused

beyond reasonable doubt.

 But if the accused claims any defence available under

general exception than the burden shifts on the
accused to show that his case falls under one of the
section given under Chapter IV of IPC. (Sec 105 Evidence
Act)
 Burden of Proof
 Section 105 of Indian Evidence Act places the burden on the
accused to prove that the case falls within one of the general
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 IPC, is upon him, and the Court shall
presume the absence of such circumstances.”

• Eg: 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.
 Applicability of this Chapter
 Sec 40 para 2 of IPC defines the word “offence” as
denoting a thing punishable under IPC as well as
under a special or local law.

 By reading sec 40 along with sec 6 of IPC it is clear that the

chapter of general exception is applicable not only to IPC
but also to the penal provision in special and local
laws.

 The title “General Exceptions” is therefore adopted to convey

that these exceptions are available to accused of all offences.
Types of General Exceptions
 Types of General Exceptions
1. Excusable Act:
• This is the first category of general exceptions where
the law excuses certain acts even though it constitutes
an offence.
• Here the act is excused for want of requirement of
mens rea.
• It treats the actus reus as non-criminal because of the
absence of mens rea.
• Eg: Act of infant or insane person.
 Types of General Exceptions
2. Justifiable Act:
• This is the second category of General Exceptions where the
acts committed, though are offences, are held to be
justifiable under certain circumstances.
• Act done is justified on account of some other
meritorious considerations neutralising the
corresponding liability.
• Eg: Act done out of necessity, act done in private defence.
 Mistake of Fact
 Based on the maxim “Ignoratia facit doth excusat, ignoratia juris
non excusat.”
 There are three ingredients for a mistake to be an excusable act.

1. The mistake must be of such a nature, that if the things as

claimed is supposed to be true, it would excuse the act
done.

2. Mistake must be a reasonable one.

3. Mistake must pertain to fact and not law.

 Sec 76 (Bound by law) and sec 79 (Justified by law) of IPC deals with
mistake of fact.
 Bound by Law
 Sec 76 of IPC gives immunity from criminal liability to a
person who is bound by law.

 It states that 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.

 Eg: 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.
 Bound by Law
 Ingredients of sec 76:
1. The person was bound by law or has the belief that he
was bound by law to do the act.
2. Such belief must be by reason of mistake of fact and
not by reason of mistake of law.
3. Such belief must be in good faith.

(Sec 52 defines good faith as nothing is said to be done

or believed in “good faith” which is done or believe
without due care and attention)
 Bound by Law
 State of West Bengal vs Shew Mangal Singh
(AIR 1981 SC 1917)
In this case, the police officers were on their patrol duty
and they were suddenly attacked by some persons. So the
Deputy Commissioner of Police gave the order to open
fire. As a result of which the victim suffered injuries and
died. Here the court held that as the order given by the
superior officer was justified, so the accused gets the
benefit u/s 76 of IPC and were acquitted.
 Bound by Law
 Charan Das vs. State [ILR (1950) 1 P&H 354]
• In this case, information was received that gambling
was going on in a tent, so the tent was surrounded by Police.

• Order was given by the officer to the Constables to fire

because of which one person died.

• Here the constable was charged with murder.

• He pleaded the defence that he acted upon the order of

superior officer.
 Bound by Law
 Charan Das vs. State [ILR (1950) 1 P&H 354]
• Here the Court held that the information received was not relating
to a serious offence. The information was merely relating to
gambling. No violent mob had gathered there.

• Under these circumstances the order of the superior officer

was illegal and he was not bound to follow such order.

• A soldier is not protected where the order, as in the present case, is

grossly and manifestly illegal.

• So the court convicted him.

 Bound by Law
 Emperor vs. Gopalia Kallaiya [(1924) 26 Bom LR
138]
• A, a police officer, was ordered to arrest a wrong-doer. A
warrant was issued on the name of wrong-doer. The police
officer made reasonable inquiries and arrested the
complainant, believing in good faith that he was the wrong-
doer.
• The complainant filed a case against the officer alleging that
he was wrongfully confined. The Court held that the police
officer was protected under Sec. 76.
 Justified by Law
 Sec 79 of IPC gives immunity from criminal liability to a
person who is justified by law.
 It states that 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.
 Eg: A sees Z committing murder. A acting in good faith seizes
Z in order to bring Z before the proper authorities. A has
committed no offence, though it may turn out that Z was
acting in self-defense.
 Justified by Law
 Ingredients of sec 79:

1. The person was justified by law or has the belief

that he was justified by law in doing it.

2. Such belief must be by reason of mistake of

fact and not by reason of mistake of law.

3. Such belief must be in good faith.

 Justified by Law
 R. vs. Tolson (1889 23 QBD 168)
• The appellant married in Sept 1880. In Dec 1881 her husband
went missing. She was told that he had been on a ship that was
lost at sea. Six years later, believing her husband to be dead,
she married another. 11 months later her husband turned up.
She was charged with the offence of bigamy.
• Held: She was afforded the defence of mistake as it was
reasonable in the circumstances to believe that her husband
was dead.
 Justified by Law
 Harbhajan Singh vs State of Punjab (AIR 1966 SC 97)
In this case, the accused published a statement regarding the
son of the then Chief Minister of Punjab, stating that he is the
leader of smuggler and is responsible for large number of
crimes. He was prosecuted u/s 500 of IPC for defamation.

Here the court relying on the evidence given by accused

acquitted him and held that the accused made the statement
in good faith and for public good.
 Judicial Acts
 Sec 77 and sec 78 of IPC gives immunity from criminal
liability to Judges and its staff.

 The object of protection to Judges is to ensure the

independence of the Judges and to enable them to
discharge their duties without any fear of the
consequences.

 The function of Judges creates a feeling of revenge in

the mind of convicted person. So the Judges are given
immunity from criminal liability.
 Judicial Acts
 Sec 77 provides that:

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.
 Judicial Acts
 Ingredients of sec 77:

1. The act must be done by a Judge.

2. The Judge must be acting in exercise of power which is

given to him by law; or

3. The Judge must be acting in exercise of power which in

good faith he believes to be given by law.

Eg: Death sentence given by a Judge is protected under this

section.
 Judicial Acts
 Sec 77 protects acts which are done by a Judge.

• The word Judge is defined u/s 19 of IPC as not only

the person who is officially designated as a Judge, but
also a person who is empowered by law to give a
definitive judgment in any civil or criminal proceeding.

• Eg: A Collector is empowered to hear the matters

relating to land revenue.
 Judicial Acts
 The Judges (Protection) Act, 1985.

Sec 3 (1) of the above act states that no court shall

entertain or continue any civil or criminal
proceeding against any Judge or any act, thing or
word committed, done or spoken by him when, or in
the course of, acting or purporting to act in the
discharge of his official or judicial duty or function.
 Judicial Acts
 Acting Judicially:
An important element of sec 77 of IPC is that it should not only be
an act of Judge, but it should be done by him in the course of
discharging his judicial powers.
Ram Pratap Sharma vs Dayanand (AIR 1977 SC 809).
In this case, a Judge of Punjab and Haryana High Court while
addressing the members of the bar, criticised the government policy
and openly attacked the government. The members wrote a letter to
the President regarding the conduct of the Judge. So the High Court
issued a notice of criminal contempt against the members of the bar.
The members issued an apology. Later the matter was before the
Supreme Court, which held that it is not part of the duty of the
Judge to address a meeting on political matters. So a Judge does not
gets Immunity u/s 77 of IPC.
 Judicial Acts
 Daya Shankar vs High Court of
Allahabad (AIR 1987 SC 1469)
In this case, a judicial officer was found copying while
writing his first semester LLM examination. The
Supreme Court held that the conduct of the petitioner
was unworthy of judicial officer. Here the person is not
liable to get immunity u/s 77 of IPC. So the Court upheld
the dismissal of the petitioner as judicial officer.
 Judicial Acts
 Sec 78 protects the members who executes the orders of
the court.

 If such immunity is not given than it would be impossible

to execute or implement the orders of the court.

 The protection extends even if the court does not have

jurisdiction to issue such order, provided that the person
executing the order believes in good faith that the court
has jurisdiction to issue such order.
 Accident
 Sec 80 exempts a person from liability if the act is done
accidentally, without any criminal intention or
knowledge.

 It states that 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.
 Accident
 Ingredients of sec 80:
1. The act must be done by accident or misfortune.
2. It must be done without any criminal intention or
knowledge.
3. It must be;
i. In doing a lawful act.
ii. In lawful manner.
iii. By lawful means.
4. It must be done by proper care and caution.
 Accident
 To bring an act within the meaning of the word ‘accident’
used in sec 80, an essential requirement is that the
happening must be one to which human fault does not
contribute.
 It means an unintentional or unexpected act.
 An act is called accident when it is unintentional and the
consequences of the act is not so probable that a person
of ordinary prudence, under those circumstances would
take reasonable precautions against it.
 Accident
 Tunda vs Rex (AIR 1950 Allah 95).
In this case, there were two friends who were fond of wrestling
participated in a wrestling match. One of them sustained
injuries which resulted in his death. The other person was
charged u/s 304-A of IPC. The High Court held that when
both agreed to wrestle with each other, there was an implied
consent to suffer accidental injuries. In the absence of any foul
play, it was held that the act was accidental and case comes
within sec 80 of IPC.
 Accident
 Jogeshwar vs Emperor (1923) 24 CrLJ 789.
• In this case, while A was beating B, B’s wife interfered
taking the baby with her.

• A hit the woman but the blow struck the child in his head
because of which the child died.
 Accident
 Jogeshwar vs Emperor (1923) 24 CrLJ 789.
• Here the Court held that A was not protected u/s 80
because though baby was hit by accident, but at that time
A was not doing lawful act. Here A was convicted.
 Accident
 Bhupendrasinh A. Chudasama vs State of Gujarat [1998
CrLJ 57 (SC)]
In this case a constable shot another Head Constable while on the patrol
duty. He took the defence by stating that, “I was doing patrolling duty
with the service rifle, and at about 7.45 P.M. when it was absolute dark I
came near the bridge for proceeding towards the valve tower. Then I
saw a flame near the tower and saw somebody moving. I suspected that
some miscreant was about to commit mischief with fire on the valve
tower. As I could not identify the moving person due to want of light I
shouted at him to stop. But there was no reply. So I proceeded further
and repeated the shout, and still there was no reply. I had to open fire in
discharge of my duties.”
 Accident
 Bhupendrasinh A. Chudasama vs State of Gujarat
Cont…..
Here the court rejected the plea of the accused stating that the
accused has acted without due care and attention and will not be
able to claim immunity u/s 80 of IPC.
 Accident
 Sita Ram vs State of Rajasthan [(1998) CrLJ 287 (Raj)]
In this case, the accused was digging the earth with a
spade. The deceased came to collect the mud. The spade
hit the deceased on the head and he died. The accused
pleaded that it was an accident. The High Court held that
the accused was aware that other workers would come to
pick up the mud. The accused did not take proper care
and caution and he was convicted u/s 304-A of IPC.