General Exceptions In Bns
I. Introduction
The General Exceptions under the Indian Penal Code (IPC) are contained primarily in Sections 76 to 106. These exceptions provide circumstances where an act that would otherwise be an offense is not punishable because the law recognizes the presence of justifications or excuses.
These exceptions are fundamental to the justice system, ensuring that punishment is not meted out unfairly when the accused’s act was justified, excusable, or lacked culpability.
II. Important General Exceptions Under IPC
Here are the major categories of General Exceptions:
| Section | Title | Summary |
|---|---|---|
| 76 | Act done by a person incapable of criminal intention (infancy) | No criminal liability if under 7 years of age. |
| 77 | Act of a child above 7 and under 12 of immature understanding | May be exempt if no mature understanding of wrongfulness. |
| 79 | Act done by a person bound or justified by law | No offense if act is done under legal obligation or authority. |
| 80 | Accident in doing a lawful act | No liability if harm caused by accident without rashness. |
| 81 | Act likely to cause harm, but done without criminal intent and to prevent other harm | No offense if act is reasonable and done to prevent greater harm. |
| 84 | Act of a person of unsound mind | No liability if the person is incapable of understanding nature or wrongfulness of the act. |
| 85 & 86 | Acts done by intoxicated person (without knowledge or against will) | No liability if intoxication was involuntary or no knowledge. |
| 87 to 89 | Act not intended to cause death or grievous hurt | No culpability if injury caused was unintended and without rashness. |
| 92 & 93 | Consent as a defense | No offense if act done with consent of the person or public good. |
| 96 to 106 | Right of private defense | Justified use of force in self-defense or defense of property. |
III. Detailed Explanation of Key Exceptions
1. Infancy (Sections 76 & 77 IPC)
Children below 7 years are presumed incapable of crime.
Children above 7 but under 12 may be exempt if they lack maturity to understand wrongfulness.
2. Act done by person bound by law (Section 79)
Acts done in discharge of legal duty or authority are not offenses.
3. Accident and mistake (Sections 80 & 81)
Harm caused by accident without rashness or criminal intent is excused.
Acts to prevent greater harm are justified.
4. Unsoundness of mind (Section 84)
Acts by persons of unsound mind who do not understand the nature or wrongfulness are excused.
5. Intoxication (Sections 85 & 86)
Voluntary intoxication is not a defense.
Involuntary intoxication or without knowledge can excuse.
6. Right of private defense (Sections 96 to 106)
Right to defend oneself or property from injury or threat using reasonable force.
IV. Key Case Laws Explaining General Exceptions
1. Raghunath Rai v. Emperor (AIR 1932 PC 215)
Facts:
The accused, a minor, was charged with an offense.
Held:
The Privy Council held that children under 7 years are incapable of committing crime (Section 76 IPC).
Children between 7 and 12 require proof of maturity and understanding (Section 77).
Significance:
Established the age of criminal responsibility in India.
2. Queen-Empress v. Khwaja Nazir Ahmad (1896) ILR 23 Cal 425
Facts:
The accused acted under a legal duty.
Held:
Acts done under legal authority or in discharge of official duty are exempt under Section 79 IPC.
Significance:
Recognized lawful duty as a defense to criminal liability.
3. State of Maharashtra v. Praful B. Desai (2003) 4 SCC 601
Facts:
A doctor performed surgery which led to the death of the patient.
Held:
The Supreme Court held that acts done in good faith for the benefit of a person without criminal intent, even if resulting in harm, may not attract liability under Sections 80 & 81 IPC.
Significance:
Affirmed the defense of accident and absence of criminal intention in medical negligence cases.
4. McDowell & Co. Ltd. v. Commercial Tax Officer (1985) 3 SCC 230
Facts:
Dispute over the intent of the accused regarding tax evasion.
Held:
Court stressed that intention or knowledge is essential for criminal liability.
Exceptions like mistake, accident, or absence of mens rea are relevant.
Significance:
Reiterated the importance of mens rea in criminal law exceptions.
5. K.M. Nanavati v. State of Maharashtra (1962) AIR 605
Facts:
Accused claimed right of private defense after killing his wife’s lover.
Held:
Court held that right of private defense is available only when there is an immediate threat.
Killing after the fact was not justified.
Significance:
Clarified scope and limits of right of private defense under Sections 96 to 106 IPC.
6. Surja Ram v. The King-Emperor (AIR 1935 PC 65)
Facts:
Accused acted under involuntary intoxication.
Held:
Privy Council held that involuntary intoxication negates mens rea and is a valid defense under Sections 85 & 86 IPC.
Significance:
Distinguished between voluntary and involuntary intoxication.
V. Summary
| Exception | Section IPC | Legal Principle | Key Case |
|---|---|---|---|
| Infancy | 76, 77 | Children under 7 incapable; 7-12 require proof of maturity | Raghunath Rai v. Emperor |
| Act done by law | 79 | Acts under legal duty or authority are excused | Queen-Empress v. Khwaja Nazir Ahmad |
| Accident/Mistake | 80, 81 | Harm caused by accident or to prevent greater harm excused | State of Maharashtra v. Praful Desai |
| Unsoundness of mind | 84 | No liability if person lacks understanding | (Generally applied in insanity cases) |
| Intoxication | 85, 86 | Involuntary intoxication excused; voluntary not | Surja Ram v. King-Emperor |
| Right of private defense | 96–106 | Reasonable force to prevent injury or danger | K.M. Nanavati v. State of Maharashtra |
VI. Conclusion
The General Exceptions in the IPC provide a balance between law enforcement and justice, ensuring that only those who possess criminal intention and awareness are punished. They protect vulnerable persons (like children, mentally ill), and ensure fair application of justice in cases of accident, mistake, or defense.
RELATED Blog
0 comments