General Exceptions under IPC - Part II

The article discusses the provisions under chapter IV of the IPC i.e. General Exceptions chapter. It discusses provision from 76 to 90 in detail. The other sections will be adding soon.

For reader’s benefit the author has divided the sections into headings which will provide a structure to the article.

GOOD FAITH AND CRIME

76. Act done by a person bound, or by mistake of fact believing himself 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.”

Main Ingredients:

1.     Mistake of fact

For example - A, an officer of a Court of Justice, being ordered by that Court to arrest Y, and after due enquiry, believing Z to be Y, arrests Z. A has committed no offence.

In the above example A was bound by law to perform the task of arresting Y.

A before arresting Z enquired about him and only after due enquiry, he arrested Z believing that Z is Y.

A committed no offence because had A known that Z is not Y and yet he had arrested Z wrongfully and therefore, Z would have the reason to file a complaint against such police officers.

Here if any person who mistakenly does something that might be punishable by the IPC, the person shall be given the defence under section 76 of IPC.

The decision of the court would depend on the mistakenly believed fact instead of actual fact i.e. while analysing the case, the judge will thence consider the facts which were believed by the accused instead of what actually happened.

One of the important things is to note that the mistake of fact has to be: -

·       Justified and Reasonable;

·       The mistaken fact should not be forbidden by law;

For example: If I was planning to kill Y but I mistakenly killed Z because I thought Z was Y. Under such situation, though the act was a mistake of fact but the act was prohibited by law and therefore no defence would be given to the offender.

·       Strictly speaking, it should be a mistake of fact and not a mistake of law.[1]

2.     Mistake of Law

Mistake of law is when a person claims to be unaware of the existing laws. For example: If I don’t know that theft is an offence in India, and after stealing a gold bar I claim mistake of law. The offender shall not be given defence in such a situation.

3.     Bound by law and in Good Faith

For example, 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. Here A was bound by law to respect the commands of his superiors and in good faith fired on the mob and therefore is not liable. But in case of a superior officer would have told him to perform certain illegal task say smuggling of guns, then the act would not have been a defence.

Important Case laws: A K Chaudhary v State of Gujarat, 2006 Cr LJ 726 (Guj).

If a legal complaint was filed against the actions of an employee by an employer on account of his actions. The employee committed suicide. Here the employer would not be held liable for abetment. He was bound by law and his actions were in good faith.

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.

This section literally provides a defence to every action of the judiciary performed in good faith; however, this defence is NOT an absolute defence. For example, if a judge passes an order of capital punishment in the case of insult where he has not been given the power to grant such punishment then the act of the judge would not be considered as in good faith. Unless proved otherwise, every judicial action in exercise of their powers is presumed to be in good faith and for the welfare of the society.

This section protects judges from a criminal process similar to the Judicial Officers Protection Act, 1850, that protects them from civil suits. Judicial Officers’ Protection Act protects them under two conditions:

1.     When he acts within his court’s jurisdiction;

2.     When he acts outside the jurisdiction of his court in good faith believing that he had jurisdiction to order.[2]

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.

This section is merely a corollary to section 77.[3] It provides protection for officers who act in accordance with the court judgment/decree or order. This section provides protection for officers who follows the order of the court that does not have any jurisdiction whereas under section 77 the Judge must be acting within his jurisdiction to be protected by it.[4]

79. Act done by a person justified, or by mistake of fact believing himself 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.

Main Ingredients:

1. Person justified by law;
2. Mistake of fact;
3. NOT mistake of law;
4. Good faith

For example, if a person B sees a man Z climbing a terrace of A who is Z’s relative, to surprise A on his birthday. A’s son knew about the whole surprise. B who is A’s neighbour sees Z and assumes him to be a thief. B grabs Z and locks him in the store-room where Z dies out of an asthma attack.

B can claim defence under this section because his actions are justified under law since he mistakenly believed that Z was a thief and he in good faith to protect people and other citizens, seized Z. Hence, B can claim defence under this section.

The difference between section 76 and 79 occurs in the terminology that differentiates between persons bound by law and justified by law.

Person bound by law is a person who has a duty to compulsorily form certain tasks as stated under the law. Whereas persons justified by the law are people who act in pursuance of protection of people in accordance with the law.  

Important Case laws: Satyavir Singh Rathi v State Thr. CBI, AIR 2011 SC 1748 – Fake encounters by police in accordance with superior authority’s order will not be able to claim defence.

Chirangi v. State, 1952- The accused mistook his own son as a tiger and killed him. The accused was given the defence under this section.

80. 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.

Main Ingredients:

1. Accident

An accident is the act which is done without intention and its consequences could not have been foreseeable by any ordinary prudent man in any ordinary situation.[5]

2. Misfortune
3. WITHOUT criminal intention or knowledge
4. In pursuance of lawful act in lawful manner
5. Proper care and caution[6]

For example: if I own a mining well and there are 300 workers under me. The process and work are taken care of with all the precautions as per the rules and regulations of mining. But due to an unexpected earthquake mining plant got disrupted and a worker got stuck in the mining area and died. Under certain conditions, I can claim defence under this section.

For example: A patient who died on the operation table. The doctor did not have any intention to kill the patient, it was a misfortune that the patient had a heart attack during surgery and he died. The doctor is not liable as he is protected under this section. He was performing his operation in a lawful manner with the consent of the patient himself and hence could not have been held liable.

81. Act likely to cause harm, but done without criminal intent, and to prevent other harm.

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.

Explanation—It is a 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 knowledge that it was likely to cause harm.

Imagine (strictly hypothetical) you are in a situation where you have to either kill your neighbour or you have to blast a whole school with 3500 children and teachers in it. What will you do? Of course, you will protect the 3500 children and teachers. This is what this section says. When such a situation is faced by an offender that he cannot escape its consequences unless he does something which is not acceptable by law.

For example, A cruise with 300 people sails in the sea. They are moving towards an iceberg. To avoid colliding with the same, they need to turn either right or left. On right there is a boat with 2 people coming and on left there is a boat with 30 people coming. They need to turn else the 300 people would die due to the collision. What should the sailor of the cruise choose?

Let’s assume he chooses to run over the boat with two people, he would be given defence under this section because though he had knowledge about the consequences of his actions but he did not have any criminal intent to harm the two persons and hence acted in good faith to protect the larger number of people.

Another example can be if A is experiencing electric shock and B comes to his rescue and hits him with a wooden bat in order to interrupt the shock connection. He is surviving the electric shock but due to the wooden bat hits his head and dies. B can claim defence under section 81 of good faith.

Main Ingredients:

1. Good faith
2. Without any criminal intention – Absence of mens rea (Click Here to read our previous article of essential elements of crime to understand Mens Rea in detail).
3. Prevention of greater harm

Good faith has been defined under section 52 of the IPC which states,

Nothing is said to be done or believed in “good faith” which is done or believed without due care and attention.

Good faith can be quite subjective and it depends majorly on the facts of the case. If I shot a man to protect a girl from getting raped, I can claim the defence of good faith and right to self-defence.

There are two important things to understand under good faith:

1.     Act should be done with due care and caution

2.     The defence of good faith is given in accordance with the circumstances and facts of an individual case.

For example, A person accidentally killed B while drinking and driving.[7] The person in such a case would not be presumed to take due care and caution since he was intoxicated. Although he could be given defence under conditions like when a person who had a drink in a limited amount or even if he would have been sober, he wouldn’t have been able to avoid the accident.

Important case law: Dudley v. Stephens, 1884- A man to save himself from starvation kills another person for the purpose of feeding on his flesh. Here in accordance with the facts, there was no such necessity since they had already killed and man before the boy for feeding themselves. To read the full case Click Here.

AGE AND CRIME

82. Act of a child under seven years of age.

Nothing is an offence which is done by a child under seven years of age. This defence is an absolute defence under IPC. Any criminal act done by seven years of a child is NOT an OFFENCE.

IPC presumes that a child of such an age is incapable of forming any criminal intention for an offence. Since he cannot form an intention the necessary element of crime i.e. mens rea could not be construed for the act and therefore no crime can be assumed.

Maxim Doli Incapax is applied by the present provision which literally means ‘incapable of doing any harm’ which is assumed for children under 7 years of age in IPC.

To prove the application of this maxim and defence the age of the child has to be proved.[8]

83. Act of a child above seven and under twelve of immature understanding.

Nothing is an offence which is done by a child above seven years of age and under twelve, who has not attained sufficient maturity of understanding to judge of the nature and consequences of his conduct on that occasion.

Malitia Supplet Aetatem – Malice supplied age is applied in this provision.[9]

The principle of Doli Incapax (incapable of crimes) is presumed in cases when the accused is a child but it can be argued that the child has sufficient maturity of understanding in the performance of the act. In cases where it is proved that the child has attained sufficient maturity, the presumption can be rebutted and the child may not be given absolute defence under this section.

The test for checking maturity is whether the child knew about the grievousness of his actions and the consequences of the same. Running away from the crime scene would not in itself construct criminal intention. A child would run away from a teacher or a parent in cases of scolding as well. This act alone would not question the presumption of Doli Incapax. [10]

CAPACITY AND CRIME

84. Act of a person of unsound mind.

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.

Main Ingredients:

1. Person should be of unsound mind while committing the act
2. He should not have any knowledge nor intention

Furiosi nulla voluntas est – the maxim literally means that any person who is mentally impaired persons cannot validly sign their will. Such a person who is barred from signing his own will is assumed that he cannot commit a crime.

This section provides protection to people who are of unsound mind and therefore cannot consent to their actions and hence cannot commit crimes.

How to construct an unsound mind?

This defence of insanity was developed by the house of lords and was established under R v Daniel McNaughten.[11] The five questions were analyzed under this case and were simultaneously replied on 19th June 1843, and they were construed as McNaughton's rules.

The following are the main points of McNaughton's rules:

1. Every man is to be presumed to be sane and to possess a sufficient degree of reason to be responsible for his crimes, until the contrary be proved.
2. An insane person is punishable “if he knows” at the time of crime.
3. To establish a defense on insanity, the accused, by defect of reason or disease of mind, is not in a position to know the nature and consequences.
4. The insane person must be considered in the same situation as to responsibility as if the facts with respect to which the delusion exists were real.
5. It was the jury's role to decide whether the defendant was insane.[12]

These rules stress upon the question of right and wrong, intentional unintentional and most importantly the capacity of a person to commit a crime.[13]

The unsoundness of mind has to be proved by the accused himself.[14] However, the accused is given a benefit of doubt when he has a history of insanity.[15] And such a benefit of the doubt should be cleared for claiming punishment for the accused.

The onus that lies on the accused can be discharged by analysing the act of the accused immediately before the criminal act and immediately after its commission.[16] If the after and before facts of a criminal act shows that a person not insane then the court may consider such facts and held the accused guilty. For example, if a person was planning to murder B for which he collected all the weapons and drafted a plan. But he claims that it was only due to the timely insanity that he blew the victim with his sword. But the after facts of the crime states that the accused cut his body into parts and threw him in different rivers of a state. It took him 7 days of a train journey and bus journey to dispose off the victim’s body. Can in this situation the accused claim defence. No. Until proved otherwise that his insanity is absolute and forever, the accused shall be held liable strictly according to these facts because here the accused before actually murdering B was planning to murder him and after murdering him roamed around a person’s body for 7 days and therefore cannot claim defence under this section.

Until proved or challenged otherwise every person is presumed to be of sound mind and to know the consequences of his/her act.[17]

What persons are said to be of unsound mind? [18]

(1)   an idiot;

Black’s Law defines it as, “A person afflicted with profound mental retardation.” They are persons with low intelligence. The test can be people who are unable to count till twenty, or who cannot tell the number of days.

(2)   one made non compos by illness;

non compos mean any person who is insane or not in one’s right mind. If any disease has influenced a person to commit the crime then he shall not be held liable for such an offence.

(3)   a lunatic or a madman; and

Black’s law dictionary defines it as, “A person of deranged or unsound mind; a person whose mental faculties are in the condition called "lunacy"; one who possessed reason, but through disease, grief, or other cause has lost it. May mean all insane persons or persons of unsound mind, sometimes including and sometimes excluding idiots.”

A "lunatic" is different from an "Idiot" in the sense that a lunatic has some intervals where he is sane or lucid, while the idiot has naturally no power of mind completely.

(4)   one who is drunk.

Any of these persons are said to be incapable of committing a crime with the intention if they are unsound mind at the time of commission and therefore are exempted from the punishment. (Facts play a major role).[19]

85. 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 contrary to law: provided that the thing which intoxicated him was administered to him without his knowledge or against his will.

Similar to the above section, an intoxicated person is of unsound mind and therefore cannot give consent to his actions and hence cannot be given punishment. But this section provides certain specifications to this rule.

1. The intoxication should be without the knowledge or will of the accused
2. The person should not have the knowledge or intention by the reason of intoxication.

For example: if a person drinks a lot at a party and then drives his car back home. While driving back home he accidentally kills a person. He would not get the defence under this section if he took the alcohol all by himself. For instance, if the first glass of alcohol was given to him by a friend and the rest was taken by himself, in such a case also the accused shall not be given a defence under this section. But he was intoxicated without his will then he can claim defence in accordance with the facts.[20]

Important case law: Mirza Ghani Baig v. State of Andhra Pradesh, 1997- Voluntary drunkenness is no excuse for the commission of a crime.

In cases where man is intoxicated without his knowledge fraudulently, the person doing it shall be held responsible/liable.[21]

In Bablu v State of Rajasthan[22],  the Court stated three propositions as to the scope of the section:

1. “the insanity whether produced by drunkenness or otherwise is a defence to the crime charged;
2. evidence of drunkenness which renders the accused incapable of forming the specific intent essential to constitute the crime should be taken into account with the other facts proved in order to determine whether or not he had this intent; and
3. the evidence of drunkenness falling short of a proved incapacity in the accused to form the intent necessary to constitute the crime and merely establishing that his mind is affected by drink so that he more readily gave to some violent passion, does not rebut the presumption that a man intends the natural consequences of his acts.”[23]

86. Offence requiring a particular intent or knowledge committed by one who is intoxicated.

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.

This section provides that when a person is intoxicated, he would be considered to have the same knowledge he would have if not intoxicated.

Knowledge before intoxication = Knowledge after voluntary intoxication.

If I have the knowledge that murder is a crime before intoxication i.e. when I am sober, it would be presumed that I have knowledge that murder is a crime even when I am intoxicated.

Criminal intention can be different in both the cases and would be construed differently in both the cases, but knowledge remains to be same unless the intoxication was involuntary.

A drunken man cannot claim defence under this section after throwing a burning lamp on his wife. Since the drunken man had the knowledge of its consequences, he will be held liable in accordance with the specific facts.[24]

INTENTION AND CRIME

87. Act not intended and not known to be likely to cause death or grievous hurt, done by consent.

Nothing which is not intended to cause death, or grievous hurt, and which is not known by the doer to be likely to cause death or grievous hurt, is an offence by reason of any harm which it may cause, or be intended by the doer to cause, to any person, above eighteen years of age, who has given consent, whether express or implied, to suffer that harm; or by reason of any harm which it may be known by the doer to be likely to cause to any such person who has consented to take the risk of that harm.

I give consent to go to do sky diving. After jumping from the chopper suddenly clouds covered the half of the city and lighting struck my parachute and I died. Can the sky diving company be held liable? Strictly speaking in accordance with these facts, the company cannot be held liable because I consented to it. Assuming that sky diving company would have made the client aware of the risks involved and even after knowing the risks I went for it therefore I consented for whatever would happen next and hence they would not be held liable.  

Volenti non fit injuria is one of the most known maxims which states that any action of the doer if is without criminal intention and without knowledge that may cause harm then if a person consents to the act and faces injury due to the same, then the doer shall not be held liable.

For example, I went to see a car racing game. The fences were rationally high in order to protect the pavilion area where the crowd watched from. But three cars collided and the collision destroyed 1/12 of the part of the pavilion which was occupied by 39 people. Ten died and the rest faced serious injuries. Can the organizers claim defence under this section?

Yes, they can. Because there was a reasonable caution taken that constructs no intention and no knowledge about likely damages and most importantly the people who came to watch gave their consent to it.

Similarly, in a bullfight show, if a person dies due to the rage of the bulls then the organizers can claim defence under this section.

88. Act not intended to cause death, done by consent in good faith for person's benefit.

Nothing, which is not intended to cause death, is an offence by reason of any harm which it may cause, or be intended by the doer to cause, or be known by the doer to be likely to cause, to any person for whose benefit it is done in good faith, and who has given a consent, whether express or implied, to suffer that harm, or to take the risk of that harm.

The simplest example is when a doctor tells the patient to get operated else, he would die. And with this suggestion, he consents for the operation and then dies during the operation due to loss of blood. Surgeons shall not be held liable.

89. Act done in good faith for benefit of child or insane person, by or by consent of guardian. Provisos.

“Nothing which is done in good faith for the benefit of a person under twelve years of age, or of unsound mind, by or by consent, either express or implied, of the guardian or other person having lawful charge of that person, is an offence by reason of any harm which it may cause, or be intended by the doer to cause or be known by the doer to be likely to cause to that person:

Provided— Provisos.

First—That this exception shall not extend to the intentional causing of death, or to the attempting to cause death;

Secondly—That this exception shall not extend to the doing of anything which the person doing it knows to be likely to cause death, for any purpose other than the preventing of death or grievous hurt, or the curing of any grievous disease or infirmity;

Thirdly—That this exception shall not extend to the voluntary causing of grievous hurt, or to the attempting to cause grievous hurt, unless it be for the purpose of preventing death or grievous hurt, or the curing of any grievous disease or infirmity;

Fourthly—That this exception shall not extend to the abetment of any offence, to the committing of which offence it would not extend.”

A guardian consents to his 10-year-old child’s operation of removing kidney stones. He has been told by the doctor that the operation is very risky may the child may die. But the doctor also told him that without operation also the child might die. If under such a situation for the benefit of the child and for his best interest the guardian gives his consent for operation and the child dies during operation then the doctor is given protection under this section.

A teacher is given the authority over B who is a 10-year-old child, by B’s parents. If she beats the A with a scale because he disobeys the rules of the school, she shall be held under the exception in this section.[25] Although it is not an absolute right is given to the teachers. If they exceed their authority, they can be held liable.[26]

90. Consent known to be given under fear or misconception. Consent of insane person. Consent of child.

A consent is not such a consent as is intended by any section of this Code, if the consent is given by a person under fear of injury, or under a misconception of fact, and if the person doing the act knows, or has reason to believe, that the consent was given in consequence of such fear or misconception; or

Consent of insane person—if the consent is given by a person who, from unsoundness of mind, or intoxication, is unable to understand the nature and consequence of that to which he gives his consent; or

Consent of child—unless the contrary appears from the context, if the consent is given by a person who is under twelve years of age.

What is not a binding consent?

• Consent given under fear of injury or misconception of fact;
• Consent given from unsoundness of mind or intoxication;
• Consent given by a person under 12 years of age.

And the absence of free consent is known to the person obtaining the consent or he has reason to believe the absence of free/voluntary consent.

There are certain acts mentioned under IPC that are considered as criminal offences due to the absence of valid consent in its performance? For example, according to section 375 consensual sexual intercourse is not rape. But the consensus if given under these conditions, says a woman named Ahilya gives consent to perform sexual intercourse with a man named Indra in the misconception that Indra is her husband Gautam. Now in such a situation if Indra knew that she is giving consent under this misconception that he would be held guilty for rape.

If woman gives consent under a misconception of facts then it shall be held no consent – IPC states a man to be guilty if he has sexual intercourse with a woman after falsely promising to marry her. He is held guilty under S.375.[27]

FUNFACT Recently Orissa high court stated in its case of G. Achyut Kumar v. State of Odisha on 21 May 2020 held that consensual sexual intercourse on a false promise of marriage shall not be considered rape though the conduct is not socially appropriate but it is not rape. Supreme Court’s view on the same is still pending.

91. Exclusion of acts which are offences independently of harm caused.

“The exceptions in sections 87, 88 and 89 do not extend to acts which are offences independently of any harm which they may cause, or be intended to cause, or be known to be likely to cause, to the person giving the consent, or on whose behalf the consent is given.”

There are certain acts which are offences even if the victim gives the consent to do so, as specified under section 87, 88 and 89 under IPC, e.g., causing miscarriage, public nuisance, offences against public safety, morals, etc.^[28]

For example, according to section 87, a person who consents to take drugs should not be held liable. But as stated under section 91 certain offences are independently wrong and one of them is taking drugs as under The Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985. So, now even though the victim has given his/her consent to the harmful act and whether the harm is done or not, the act of taking drugs will be considered as an offence.

92. Act done in good faith for benefit of a person without consent.

“Nothing is an offence by reason of any harm which it may cause to a person for whose benefit it is done in good faith, even without that person's consent, if the circumstances are such that it is impossible for that person to signify consent, or if that person is incapable of giving consent, and has no guardian or other person in lawful charge of him from whom it is possible to obtain consent in time for the thing to be done with benefit:

Provided—

Provisos.

First—That this exception shall not extend to the intentional causing of death, or the attempting to cause death;

Secondly—That this exception shall not extend to the doing of anything which the person doing it knows to be likely to cause death, for any purpose other than the preventing of death or grievous hurt, or the curing of any grievous disease or infirmity;

Thirdly—That this exception shall not extend to the voluntary causing of hurt, or to the attempting to cause hurt, for any purpose other than the preventing of death or hurt;

Fourthly—That this exception shall not extend to the abetment of any offence, to the committing of which offence it would not extend.”

No communication made in good faith is an offence because of any harm to the person to whom it is made, if it is made for the benefit of that person.

Main Ingredients-

1.     communication made must be in good faith

2.     communication made should be for the benefit of the person to whom it is communicated.

The term ‘benefit’ in this section, probably, includes personal, pecuniary as well as spiritual benefit.^[29] Benefit of the person: The benefit of a person does not mean for monetary benefit. Actions done for pecuniary benefit is not covered under this section.

Imagine you see a person trying to commit suicide by jumping from a 15 story-building. To protect them you call a helicopter and try to pursue him to not commit suicide. But eventually, he jumps. To protect him, you take the chopper towards him and in the process, one of his legs was cut by the chopper fan blades. After he was saved, he sued you for getting his leg cut. Should you be held liable?

Of course NOT! Why?

Because:

1.      you did not have any criminal intention to cut the victim’s leg;

2.      you were acting in good faith for the benefit of the victim;

3.      the victim was incapable to give his consent since he could not think rationally;

4.      though you did not take his consent you were protecting him which is justified by law;

Therefore, he cannot sue you for cutting his leg.

For example: If a person cuts a beggar’s hands so that beggar could earn more money by sympathy, such loss is a pecuniary benefit for the beggar i.e. monetary benefit. In such a situation the accused would be held liable.

What is important to note is that an act which was not initially committed for pecuniary benefit but the action committed resulted in certain monetary benefits then such money would not be termed as a benefit. For example, A person in order to save the other houses from burning destroys one house by whose cement and mud the fire could be stopped. Now the house owner got huge insurance money out of this act. Such benefit was not intended and therefore would not be considered as a benefit for this section.

93. Communication made in good faith.

“No communication made in good faith is an offence by reason of any harm to the person to whom it is made, if it is made for the benefit of that person.”

For Example, This section intends to protect persons, especially medical practitioners, who communicate certain necessary information to their patients in good faith and for their benefit. And the liability of harm caused due to such communication shall not be imposed on the practitioners. 

94. Act to which a person is compelled by threats.

“Except murder, and offences against the State punishable with death, nothing is an offence which is done by a person who is compelled to do it by threats, which, at the time of doing it, reasonably cause the apprehension that instant death to that person will otherwise be the consequence: Provided the person doing the act did not of his own accord, or from a reasonable apprehension of harm to himself short of instant death, place himself in the situation by which he became subject to such constraint.

Explanation 1—A person who, of his own accord, or by reason of a threat of being beaten, joins a gang of dacoits, knowing their character, is not entitled to the benefit of this exception, on the ground of his having been compelled by his associates to do anything that is an offence by law.

Explanation 2—A person seized by a gang of dacoits, and forced, by threat of instant death, to do a thing which is an offence by law; for example, a smith compelled to take his tools and to force the door of a house for the dacoits to enter and plunder it, is entitled to the benefit of this exception.”

In simple words, one can claim defence under this section for offences done under threat of death, hurt or grievous hurt except in two conditions:

a.      murder

b.     offences against the state punishable with death

For example, Imagine, you are getting threat calls that if you don’t kill the MP of your area, they will kill you. After two or three threat calls you decided to get over it and killed Mr. Kailash Rai, the MP of your area. Can you claim defence under this section? NO. Why? Because: -

Only the mere threat of future danger to your life would not give a license to become a party to mischief.^[30] Murder committed due to any threat to life or grievous hurt or hurt is no excuse under this section.

Unless there is a case of unsound mind or a real fear of instant death is proved, no excuse to break the law and to kill someone infringing the rights of mankind is accepted.^[31] However ,under English law, defence of duress is applied in cases where crime is committed due to a threat to the accused including in cases of murder or serious harm.^[32]

95. Act causing slight harm.

“Nothing is an offence by reason that it causes, or that it is intended to cause, or that it is known to be likely to cause, any harm, if that harm is so slight that no person of ordinary sense and temper would complain of such harm.”

For example: Imagine you are in a shop and somebody closed the shutter of the shop behind you and now you are stuck inside. Soon after 3 minutes, the shopkeeper came and rescued you. Can you sue him for wrongful confinement? NO. Such confinement for 3 minutes would be regarded as trivial harm. But if a person would have stuck all night, then he could have sued under section 342 for wrongful confinement.^[33]

Throwing heavy stones on the victim,^[34] blow given by umbrella stick in revenge,^[35] tearing up the paper of evidence,^[36] all such actions shall not be rendered as trivial.

IMPORTANT NOTE; Most of the examples illustrated in this article are different from the illustrations that IPC describes. It is therefore requested that the readers may as well go through those illustrations for a deeper understanding of these provisions.

By

LawVastutah

References

http://www.mcrhrdi.gov.in/splfc/week12/L-General%20Exceptions%20Under%20The%20Indian%20Penal%20Code-Ms.%20Divya%20D%20&%20Mr.%20Pankaj%20Kumawat.pdf

https://canestrinilex.com/en/readings/lifeboat-case-is-murder-allowed-by-necessity-queen-vs-dudley-and-stephens/

http://www.legalserviceindia.com/legal/article-2346-general-exceptions-under-law-of-crime-section-76-to-106-of-indian-penal-code.html

https://blog.ipleaders.in/general-exceptions-under-indian-penal-code/

KD Gaur: Criminal Law-Cases and Materials, 9th ed.

PSA Pillai: Criminal Law,12th Edition.

Ratanlal & Dhirajlal: Indian Penal Code (PB), 36th ed.

Indian Penal Code 1860.

---

[1] Ratanlal & Dhirajlal: Indian Penal Code (PB), 36th ed.

[2] Rachapudi Subba Rao v Advocate General, (1981) 2 SCC 577.

[3] Ratanlal & Dhirajlal: Indian Penal Code (PB), 36th ed.

[4] Ibid.

[5] Stephen’s Digest of Criminal Law, 9th Edn, Article 316.

[6] Atmendra v State of Karnataka, 1998 Cr LJ 2838

[7] Dhania Daji, (1868) 5 BHC (Cr C) 59.

[8] Hiralal, AIR 1977 SC 2236.

[9] Mussamut Aimona, (1864) 1 WR (Cr) 43.

[10] A v DPP, (1991) COD 442 (DC).

[11] R v Daniel McNaughten, 1843 RR 59.

[12] T. V. Asokan, Daniel McNaughton (1813-1865), available at https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2902100/, last visited on 10/10/2020.

[13] Ibid.

[14] Dahyabhai, 1964 (2) Cr LJ 472 (SC).

[15] Siddhapal Kamala Yadav, AIR 2009 SC 97.

[16] State of Maharashtra v Govind Mhatarba Shinde, 2010 Cr LJ 3586 (Bom).

[17] Bhikari, AIR 1966 SC 1; Peeru Singh v State of MP, 1987 Cr LJ 1781 MP.

[18] Bapu v State of Rajasthan, (2007) 8 SCC 66.

[19] Ibid.

[20] Mathai Mathew, 1952 Cr LJ 1304 (TC); Basdev v State of PEPSU, 1956 Cr LJ 919 (2).

[21] 1 Hale PC 32.

[22] (2006) 13 SCC 116.                                                           

[23] Ibid.

[24] Gautam Bhila Ahire v State of Maharashtra, 2010 Cr LJ 4073 (Bom).

[25] K. A. Abdul Vahid v State of Kerala, 2004 Cr LJ 2054 (Ker).

[26] Ganesh Chandra Saha v. Jiw Raj Somani, AIR 1965 Calcutta 32.

[27] State of UP v Naushad, 2014 Cr LJ 540.

^[28] Ratanlal & Dhirajlal: Indian Penal Code (PB), 36th ed.

^[29] PSA Pillai: Criminal Law,12th Edition.

^[30] Maganlal and Motilal, (1889) 14 Bom 115.

^[31] Devji Govindji, (1895) 20 Bom 215, 222, 223.

^[32] Director of Public Prosecutions for Northern Ireland v Lynch, (1975) 1 All ER 913 -Per House of Lords; Hurley (1967) VR 526.

^[33] Anoop Krishan Sharma v State of Maharashtra, 1992 Cr LJ 1861 (Bom).

^[34] Athai v State of MP, 2010 Cr LJ 995 (MP).

^[35] Sheo Gholam Lalla, (1875) 24 WR (Cr) 67.

^[36] Ramasami v State, (1888) 12 Mad 148.