General Exceptions: Chapter IV of the IPC comprising of Sec.76-106 deals with General Exceptions. It exempts certain persons from att…
General Exceptions:
Chapter
IV of the IPC comprising of Sec.76-106 deals with General Exceptions. It
exempts certain persons from attracting criminal liability even if the act or
omission of the accused falls under the definition of the offence.
IV of the IPC comprising of Sec.76-106 deals with General Exceptions. It
exempts certain persons from attracting criminal liability even if the act or
omission of the accused falls under the definition of the offence.
Following
are few of the important general exceptions:
are few of the important general exceptions:
A.
Accident
Accident
Nothing is an offence, which is done by accident or
misfortune, without criminal intent or knowledge in doing of a lawful act in a
lawful manner by lawful means with proper care and caution. All these
ingredients must concur to succeed in proving the defence of accident.
misfortune, without criminal intent or knowledge in doing of a lawful act in a
lawful manner by lawful means with proper care and caution. All these
ingredients must concur to succeed in proving the defence of accident.
Example: A and B were participating in a
wrestling competition, A dealt a blow upon B, there upon B fell and was
severely injured. Under the circumstances, it is a case of pure accident.
wrestling competition, A dealt a blow upon B, there upon B fell and was
severely injured. Under the circumstances, it is a case of pure accident.
B.
Absence of criminal intent
Absence of criminal intent
In the following cases an act basically forbidden by
criminal law is done without any criminal intent.
criminal law is done without any criminal intent.
An
Act done to avoid Greater harm
Act done to avoid Greater harm
“An act done with the knowledge
that it is likely to cause harm, but is done in good faith, and without any criminal
intention to cause harm”
that it is likely to cause harm, but is done in good faith, and without any criminal
intention to cause harm”
Example:
A huge fire engulfs a row of
huts, a passer by, pulls down houses to prevent fire from spreading. Now, he is
not guilty of an offence, as he did it to avoid a major tragedy.
A huge fire engulfs a row of
huts, a passer by, pulls down houses to prevent fire from spreading. Now, he is
not guilty of an offence, as he did it to avoid a major tragedy.
1.
Act of child
Act of child
i.
An act of child under seven years is no offence, they are considered as
children of tender age
ii.
An act of a child above seven
and under twelve years, who has not attained sufficient maturity of
understanding to judge the nature and consequence of his conduct, is also no
offence, children of adolescent age.
iii.
An act of a child over twelve years is an offence, if he can understand
the consequences of an act he intended to do and actually do it.
Example
: One 10 year old boy picked up a
knife and threatened to cut his uncle to pieces and did actually kill him. In
this case, it is obvious that the boy actually carried out what he intended and
knew would bring about the desired outcome. The boy was held liable.
: One 10 year old boy picked up a
knife and threatened to cut his uncle to pieces and did actually kill him. In
this case, it is obvious that the boy actually carried out what he intended and
knew would bring about the desired outcome. The boy was held liable.
2.
Act of an insane/unsound person
Act of an insane/unsound person
Nothing
is an offence,
which is done by a person, who, owing to unsoundness of mind, is incapable of
knowing the nature of the act or that he is doing is wrong or contrary to law.
is an offence,
which is done by a person, who, owing to unsoundness of mind, is incapable of
knowing the nature of the act or that he is doing is wrong or contrary to law.
However, the code lays down two
tests of criminal responsibility.
tests of criminal responsibility.
i. Did the offender know/understand the nature
of the act?
of the act?
ii. Did
the offender know /understand that it was contrary to law?
the offender know /understand that it was contrary to law?
3.
Act of an intoxicated person
Act of an intoxicated person
Nothing
is an offence,
which is done by a person, who, owing to intoxication, is incapable of knowing
the nature of the act, or that he is doing is wrong or contrary to law,
provided that the thing which intoxicated him was administered to him without
his knowledge or against his will.
is an offence,
which is done by a person, who, owing to intoxication, is incapable of knowing
the nature of the act, or that he is doing is wrong or contrary to law,
provided that the thing which intoxicated him was administered to him without
his knowledge or against his will.
However, Sec. 85 declares that
voluntary intoxication is no excuse for the commission of a crime.
voluntary intoxication is no excuse for the commission of a crime.
4.
‘Bonafide act’ for another’s benefit’
‘Bonafide act’ for another’s benefit’
Nothing is an offence by reason
of any harm which it may cause to the person for whose benefit it is done (a)
in good faith, and (b) even without that person’s consent,-
of any harm which it may cause to the person for whose benefit it is done (a)
in good faith, and (b) even without that person’s consent,-
(i) if the circumstances are such that it is
impossible for that person to signify consent; or
impossible for that person to signify consent; or
(ii) if
that person is incapable of giving consent, and has no guardian from whom
consent can be obtained in time.
that person is incapable of giving consent, and has no guardian from whom
consent can be obtained in time.
Example
: A is in a house, which is on
fire, with Z, a child. People below hold out a blanket. A drops the child from
the housetop knowing to be likely that the fall may kill the child, but not
intending to kill the child, and intending, in good faith, for the child’s
benefit. Here, even if the child is killed by the fall, A has committed no
offence.
: A is in a house, which is on
fire, with Z, a child. People below hold out a blanket. A drops the child from
the housetop knowing to be likely that the fall may kill the child, but not
intending to kill the child, and intending, in good faith, for the child’s
benefit. Here, even if the child is killed by the fall, A has committed no
offence.
5.
Communication made in good faith:
Communication made in good faith:
Any communication made in good
faith to a person is no offence if such communication causes harm to the person
to whom it is made, if it is for such person’s benefit.
faith to a person is no offence if such communication causes harm to the person
to whom it is made, if it is for such person’s benefit.
Example
: X, a surgeon in good faith,
communicates to a patient his opinion that he cannot live. The patient dies in
consequence of the shock. A has committed no offence, though he knew it to be
likely that the communication might cause the patient’s death.
: X, a surgeon in good faith,
communicates to a patient his opinion that he cannot live. The patient dies in
consequence of the shock. A has committed no offence, though he knew it to be
likely that the communication might cause the patient’s death.
6.
Act done under compulsion or threat
Act done under compulsion or threat
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 threat, which causes the
apprehension that instant death to that person will otherwise happen. This
section gives protection to those persons who are threatened with instant death
compelling them to commit an offence. Such a person can actually plead the
defence of compulsion or coercion. However, the section states that this defence
is not available where the accused in cases, where a person is compelled to
murder another or commit an offence against the state, which is punishable.
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 threat, which causes the
apprehension that instant death to that person will otherwise happen. This
section gives protection to those persons who are threatened with instant death
compelling them to commit an offence. Such a person can actually plead the
defence of compulsion or coercion. However, the section states that this defence
is not available where the accused in cases, where a person is compelled to
murder another or commit an offence against the state, which is punishable.
Private Defence
Nothing is an offence, which is
done in the exercise of the right of private defence. The right of private
defence is the right to protect one’s own person and property against the
unlawful aggression of others.
done in the exercise of the right of private defence. The right of private
defence is the right to protect one’s own person and property against the
unlawful aggression of others.
In
this connection, the following points may the noted:
this connection, the following points may the noted:
a) There is no right of private
defence under the code against any act, which is not in itself an offence under
the code.
defence under the code against any act, which is not in itself an offence under
the code.
Example: A attacks Z with knife. Z in
self-defence pulls out a revolver. This is not an offence on the part of Z. A
cannot say, “Z was about to shoot me, so I killed him. “It will be seen in this
case that if A had not in the first place attacked Z, nothing would have
happened.
self-defence pulls out a revolver. This is not an offence on the part of Z. A
cannot say, “Z was about to shoot me, so I killed him. “It will be seen in this
case that if A had not in the first place attacked Z, nothing would have
happened.
b) The
right of private defence cannot be persons who believing that they will be
attacked, actually attack the others.
right of private defence cannot be persons who believing that they will be
attacked, actually attack the others.
c) The
right to private defence should not be in excess.
right to private defence should not be in excess.
Note: Excess of right of private
defence is not allowed and such act will not be an exception.
defence is not allowed and such act will not be an exception.
PRACTICE EXERCISE:
1. A sees
B his enemy and runs after him and beats him up. B suffers a massive head injury. Does this fall under the general exception of
accident?
B his enemy and runs after him and beats him up. B suffers a massive head injury. Does this fall under the general exception of
accident?
A. Yes
B. No
C. Maybe
D. None
of the above
of the above
Ans: B
2. A and B were
participating in a kick boxing competition. A made a move against B and B fell
down and got severely injured. A can claim the general defence of
participating in a kick boxing competition. A made a move against B and B fell
down and got severely injured. A can claim the general defence of
A. Mistake of fact
B. Mistake of Law
C. Accident
D. Insanity
Ans: C
3. ‘A’ sees B’s hut burning
in order to save the other huts which were in line A pulls down the huts
surrounding B’s hut. Can he claim protection under Sec. 81?
in order to save the other huts which were in line A pulls down the huts
surrounding B’s hut. Can he claim protection under Sec. 81?
A. Yes
B. No
C. Maybe
D. None of the above
Ans: A
4. Doli Incapax means
A. Cruelty
B. Incapability of forming
criminal intent
criminal intent
C. Accident
D. Attempt
Ans: B
5. Nothing is an offence is
done by a child under the age of ____
done by a child under the age of ____
A. 10
B. 12
C. 7
D. 8
Ans: C
6.
Nothing is an offence which is done by a child above seven years of age and
under ________, who has not attained sufficient maturity of understanding to
judge of the nature and consequences of his conduct on that occasion.
Nothing is an offence which is done by a child above seven years of age and
under ________, who has not attained sufficient maturity of understanding to
judge of the nature and consequences of his conduct on that occasion.
A. Sixteen
B. Eighteen
C. Ten
D. Twelve
Ans: D
7. Ramu who turned six
takes a gun and shoots his mother. Will he be held liable?
takes a gun and shoots his mother. Will he be held liable?
A. Yes
B. No
C. Maybe
D. None of the above
Ans: B
8. Voluntary intoxication
is _______________ for the commission of a crime.
is _______________ for the commission of a crime.
A. Excuse
B. No excuse
C. Exception
D. None of the above
Ans: B
9. ‘A’ in
order to save B a three year old from falling into the well pushes them aside.
Will A be liable for any injury caused to B?
order to save B a three year old from falling into the well pushes them aside.
Will A be liable for any injury caused to B?
A. Yes
B. No
C. Maybe
D. None of the above
Ans: B
10. X, a surgeon in good
faith communicates to Y that she has only three months to live. She dies of
shock will the doctor be liable?
faith communicates to Y that she has only three months to live. She dies of
shock will the doctor be liable?
A. Yes
B. No
C. Maybe
D. None of the above
Ans: B
11. Except
_________________________________________, nothing is an offence, which is done
by a person who is compelled to do it by threat, which causes the apprehension
that instant death to that person will otherwise happen.
_________________________________________, nothing is an offence, which is done
by a person who is compelled to do it by threat, which causes the apprehension
that instant death to that person will otherwise happen.
A. Murder
B. Offences against state
punishable with death
punishable with death
C. Both A. and B.
D. None of the above
Ans: C
12. Can Right to private
defence be excessive?
defence be excessive?
A. Yes
B. No
Ans: B
13.
Akash due to apprehension of grevious hurt from Asmi takes a gun and shoots
her. Can he claim the right to private defence?
Akash due to apprehension of grevious hurt from Asmi takes a gun and shoots
her. Can he claim the right to private defence?
A.
Yes
Yes
B.
No
No
Ans:
B
B
14.
Papu, a boy of 6 years takes a toy when he visits Babu’s house. Is he guilty of
theft?
Papu, a boy of 6 years takes a toy when he visits Babu’s house. Is he guilty of
theft?
A.
No
No
B.
Yes
Yes
Ans:
A
A
15.
X goes to the bar and drinks and in a rage removes his pistol and shoots Y, the
bartender. Can he claim that he was involuntarily intoxicated?
X goes to the bar and drinks and in a rage removes his pistol and shoots Y, the
bartender. Can he claim that he was involuntarily intoxicated?
A.
Yes
Yes
B.
No
No
Ans:
B
B
