General Exceptions

Sections 76 to 106 of the Code deal with "general

exceptions.The
General Exceptions can be grouped as follows
(a) Mistake of Fact (ss.76 & 79)
(b) Judicial Acts (ss. 77& 78)
(c) Accident (s. 80)
(d) Necessity (s. 81)
(e) Infancy (s. 82 & 83)
(f) Insanity (s. 84)
(g) Drunkenness (ss. 85& 86)
(h) Consent (ss. 87,88, 89, & 90)
(i) Good Faith (ss. 92 & 93)
(j) Compulsion (s. 94)
(k)Trifles (s. 95)
(I) Private Defence (ss. 96 to 106)

When a person commits a prohibited act, he is liable to

be punished under the Indian Penal Code. If he can show
that his act comes within any one of the above stated
general exceptions, he is not liable to be punished. This
principle is evident from section 6 of the IPC. Section 6 of
the Code provides that throughout the 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 "General Exceptions", though those
exceptions are not repeated in such definition, penal
provision or illustration.

Mistake of Fact
Mistake of Fact is a good defence in a criminal
prosecution. Sections 76 and 79 of the Code deal with
mistake of fact.

By s. 76 of the Code, an act done by a person is not an

offence if it was done by him under the following
circumstances:
(i)There was mistake of fact,
(ii)Though there was mistake of fact, he in good faith
believed that he is bound by law to do it.
(iii) The mistake should not be of law.

Example 'A' is a police officer. The court issued a

warrant to arrest X. The police officer after due enquiry
arrested Y, instead of X. The police officer has not
committed any offence since he acted under a mistake
of fact. Moreover, he believed in good faith that he is
bound by law to arrest X.

By s. 79 of the Code, an act done by a person is not an

offence if it was done by him under the following
circumstances
(1) There was mistake of fact
(2) Though there was mistake of fact, he in good faith,
believed that he will be justified by law for the acts
done by him.
(3) The mistake should not be of law.

Example A and B were travelling in a train from

Trivandrum to Quilon. Both of them were in possession
of umbrellas of same manufacturer.They placed these
umbrellas on the berth. When the train reached Quilon,
by mistake A took B's umbrella and B took A's umbrella.
'A', when taking B's umbrella, believed in good faith that
the umbrella which he was taking belong to him. Same
is of the case of B. Here 'A or 'B has not committed any
offence.

Difference between sections 76 and 79

In order to get defense under s. 76, the accused has to
show that he acted under the belief that he must act. In
other words, he must show that he believed in good faith
that he was bound by law to do it.
In order to get defense under s. 79, the accused has to
show that he acted under the belief that he is justified by
law. His act should be in good faith.
Under ss. 76 and 79 there should be mistake of fact and
not mistake of law. In both the cases the act of the
accused should be in good faith.

Judicial Acts
By s. 77 of the Code, a judge is not criminally liable for
his acts if the following conditions are satisfied.

1 He should have done the act judicially. In other words

he should have done the act in the discharge of his
duties.
(ii) He must have done the act in good faith.
(iii) He should have believed in good faith that he is
empowered to do the act by law.

Example
A judge sentences an accused person to death. He had
no jurisdiction to sentence the accused to death. If he
had acted in good faith believing that such a power is
given to him, he is not liable for any offence under the
Indian Penal Code.

By S. 78 of the Code, an act done by a person in

pursuance of Judgement or order of a court is not
criminally liable if the following conditions are satisfied.

(i) He should have acted pursuant to the judgement

or order of a court of justice,
(ii) (ii) He should have acted while such judgement
or order remains in force,
(iii) He should have acted in good-faith.
(iv) He should have believed in good faith that the court
which passed the judgement or order has jurisdiction
although it has not.
Thus a judge who acting judicially sentences an
accused person to death is protected unders. 77 and
the hangman who acts in pursuance of the order of
such judge is exempted from liability for such act
under s. 78 of the Code.

Accident
Section 80 of the Code deals with the defence of
accident. The term 'accident is derived from Latin verb
accidere. It means 'a be-fall or 'a happening by chance'
or 'a misfortune'.

Accident is an event that occurs against one's

expectation. It is an event which occurs all of a sudden
and no man of ordinary prudence could anticipate it. A
man is not criminally responsible for unintended and
unknown consequences of his lawful acts performed in
a lawful manner by a lawful means with proper care
and caution.
By virtue of section 80 of the Code, the consequential
result of an act is not an offence if the following
conditions are satisfied:

(1) The person should have engaged in a lawful act.

(2) He should have done it in a lawful manner by lawful
means and with proper care and caution.
(3) He should not have any criminal intention or
knowledge.
(4) The result of his act should be accident or
misfortune.

Necessity
Section 81 of the Code deals with the defense of
compulsion by necessity. Section 81 permits the
infliction of lesser evil in order to prevent greater evil.
By virtue of s.81 of the Code, a harmful act is not an
offence if it was done under the following circumstance;

(1) The act should have been done in good faith.

(2) The harmful act must be done for the purpose of
preventing or avoiding other harm to person or property.
(3)The person who has done the harmful act should not
have criminal intention to cause harm.

If all the above conditions are satisfied, the person who

has done the harmful act is not liable for his harmful act
even though he had done it with knowledge that his
act would result in harm.

Infancy
Sections 82 and 83 of the Indian Penal Code deal with
the defense of infancy. A child is not criminally liable for
his acts if he is below 7 years of age. If he is above 7
years and below 12 years, the liability depends upon
his mental maturity. If he has attained sufficient mental
maturity to judge what is right or wrong, he is liable. If he
has not attained the sufficient mental maturity to judge
what is right or wrong, he is not liable. In the case of a
child above 12 years, he is criminally liable.

By s. 82 of the Code, an act done by a child under

seven years of age is not an offence. lt is a presumption
that a person of such age is absolutely incapable of
distinguishing between right and wrong. He is absolutely
doli incapax. If a child is accused of an offence under
the
Code, proof of the fact that he was at that time below 7
years of age is ipso facto an answer to the prosecution.
Thus there is an irrebuttable presumption of law that a
child below seven years of age is not capable of
committing a crime.
Section 82 confers absolute immunity to a child below
seven years from being punished for his wrongful acts.

By s. 83 of the Code, an act done by a child above

seven years of age and under 12 years is not an offence
if he has not attained sufficient mental maturity to judge
the nature and consequence of the conduct on that
occasion. If the child above seven years of age and
under 12 years has attained sufficient mental maturity to
judge the nature and consequence of his conduct on
that occasion, he or she is liable to be punished for the
crime. Section 83 of the Code confers only a limited
immunity to a child above seven years of age and
under twelve from being punished for his wrongful acts.