Exceptions (Section 76-106) under Indian Penal Code (IPC)

Exceptions (Section 76-106)

Introduction:

The General Exceptions under the Indian Penal Code (IPC) from Sections 76 to 106 provide various circumstances under which an individual can be exempted from criminal liability. Here is a brief explanation of each section:

Section 76: Act done by a person bound, or by mistake of fact believing himself bound, by law

Explanation: If a person performs an act because they are legally bound to do so, or they believe in good faith that they are legally bound to do so, they are not liable for any offence resulting from that act. For example, a soldier firing a shot in obedience to a command given by his superior officer.

Section 77: Act of Judge when acting judicially

Explanation: A judge is exempt from criminal liability for any act done in the exercise of their judicial functions, provided it is within their jurisdiction and done in good faith.

Section 78: Act done pursuant to the judgment or order of Court

Explanation: If a person performs an act pursuant to a judgment or order of a court, they are exempt from criminal liability for that act, provided they act in good faith.

Section 79: Act done by a person justified, or by mistake of fact believing himself justified, by law

Explanation: If a person does an act which they, in good faith, believe to be justified by law, they are not criminally liable for the act. For instance, a person acting in self-defense believing an attack is imminent.

Section 80: Accident in doing a lawful act

Explanation: If an accident occurs while performing a lawful act in a lawful manner by lawful means with proper care and caution, the person is exempt from criminal liability. For example, a driver causing an accident despite following all traffic rules.

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

Explanation: If an act is done without any criminal intent to prevent or avoid other harm, it is exempt from criminal liability, even if it causes harm. For instance, breaking a door to save someone from a fire.

Section 82: Act of a child under seven years of age

Explanation: A child under the age of seven is exempt from criminal liability for any act they commit, as they are presumed incapable of having the necessary mens rea (criminal intent).

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

Explanation: A child above seven and under twelve years of age is exempt from criminal liability if, due to immature understanding, they do not have the capacity to understand the nature and consequences of their actions.

Section 84: Act of a person of unsound mind

Explanation: A person suffering from mental illness or unsoundness of mind at the time of the act is exempt from criminal liability if they are incapable of knowing the nature of the act, or that it is either wrong or contrary to law.

Section 85: Act of a person incapable of judgment by reason of intoxication caused against his will

Explanation: If a person commits an act while intoxicated without their consent (i.e., involuntarily), they are exempt from criminal liability if they are incapable of knowing the nature of the act or that it is wrong or contrary to law.

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

Explanation: Voluntary intoxication is not a defense, except if the crime requires specific intent or knowledge, and the intoxication prevents the person from forming that intent or knowledge.

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

Explanation: If an act, not intended to cause death or grievous hurt, is done with the consent of the person who suffers harm, there is no criminal liability. For instance, consenting to participate in a sport where injuries are common.

Section 88: Act not intended to cause death, done by consent in good faith for person’s benefit

Explanation: If an act, done with the consent of the person for their benefit, unintentionally causes harm, there is no criminal liability, provided the act is done in good faith. For example, a doctor performing a surgery that leads to unforeseen complications.

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

Explanation: Acts done in good faith for the benefit of a child or insane person by or with the consent of their guardian are exempt from criminal liability, provided the act is not intended to cause death.

Section 90: Consent known to be given under fear or misconception

Explanation: A consent given under fear of injury, or under a misconception of fact, is not considered valid consent, thus not excusing the actor from liability.

Section 91: Exclusion of acts which are offences independently of harm caused

Explanation: Certain acts are offenses regardless of the harm caused and the general exceptions do not apply. For instance, causing a miscarriage even if consented to by the woman.

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

Explanation: Acts done in good faith for the benefit of a person without their consent are exempt from criminal liability if the person cannot consent and there is no time to obtain consent.

Section 93: Communication made in good faith

Explanation: Any communication made in good faith for the benefit of a person is not an offense, even if it causes harm. For instance, a doctor informing a patient of their severe illness.

Section 94: Act to which a person is compelled by threats

Explanation: If a person commits an offense under the threat of instant death, they are exempt from criminal liability, except for certain serious crimes like murder.

Section 95: Act causing slight harm

Explanation: An act that causes slight harm, which a person of ordinary sense would not complain about, is not an offense. This covers trivial acts not worth legal action.

Section 96 to 106: Right of Private Defence

Explanation: The right of private defence is an essential concept in criminal law, allowing individuals to protect themselves or others from imminent harm. Sections 96 to 106 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) specifically deal with the right of private defence. Here is a detailed overview of these sections:

Section 96: Things done in private defence

Explanation: This section states that nothing is an offence which is done in the exercise of the right of private defence.

Section 97: Right of private defence of the body and of property

Explanation: This section confers the right of private defence to every person to protect:

1. His own body, and the body of any other person, against any offence affecting the human body.

2. His own property, or the property of any other person, against certain offences including theft, robbery, mischief, or criminal trespass.

Section 98: Right of private defence against the act of a person of unsound mind, etc.

Explanation: This section extends the right of private defence against acts done by:

- A person of unsound mind

- A person in a state of intoxication

- A child, or

- A person acting under a misconception

The right of private defence can be exercised even if the person causing the harm does not have the mental capacity to understand the nature and consequences of their act.

Section 99: Acts against which there is no right of private defence

Explanation: This section limits the right of private defence. It states that there is no right of private defence against:

- An act which does not reasonably cause the apprehension of death or grievous hurt if done or attempted to be done by a public servant acting in good faith.

- An act which does not reasonably cause the apprehension of death or grievous hurt if done or attempted to be done by the direction of a public servant acting in good faith.

- An act against which a person has the opportunity to have recourse to the protection of public authorities.

Additionally, the right of private defence does not extend to inflicting more harm than necessary to protect oneself or one’s property.

Section 100: When the right of private defence of the body extends to causing death

Explanation: This section specifies circumstances under which the right of private defence of the body extends to causing death. These include:

- Assault (अचानक हुआ हमला) causing reasonable apprehension of death

- Assault causing reasonable apprehension of grievous hurt

- Assault with the intention of committing rape

- Assault with the intention of gratifying unnatural lust

- Assault with the intention of kidnapping or abducting

- Assault with the intention of wrongfully confining a person, under circumstances which may reasonably cause apprehension that the person will be unable to have recourse to public authorities for release.

Section 101: When such right extends to causing any harm other than death

Explanation: This section states that in situations other than those enumerated in Section 100, the right 

of private defence extends only to causing harm other than death.

Section 102: Commencement and continuance of the right of private defence of the body

Explanation: The right of private defence of the body commences as soon as there is a reasonable apprehension of danger to the body, and it continues as long as such apprehension of danger to the body continues.

Section 103: When the right of private defence of property extends to causing death

Explanation: This section outlines when the right of private defence of property extends to causing death. These include:

- Robbery

- House-breaking by night

- Mischief by fire on any building, tent, or vessel used as a human dwelling or for the custody of property

- Theft, mischief, or house-trespass under circumstances causing reasonable apprehension of death or grievous hurt.

Section 104: When such right extends to causing any harm other than death

This section states that in cases other than those listed in Section 103, the right of private defence of property extends to causing any harm other than death.

Section 105: Commencement and continuance of the right of private defence of property

Explanation: The right of private defence of property commences when there is a reasonable apprehension of danger to the property. This right continues:

- Against theft: until the offender has effected his retreat with the property, or the assistance of public authorities is obtained, or the property has been recovered.

- Against robbery: as long as the offender causes or attempts to cause any person death or hurt or wrongful restraint, or as long as the fear of instant death or instant hurt or instant personal restraint continues.

- Against criminal trespass or mischief: as long as the offender continues in the commission of criminal trespass or mischief.

- Against house-breaking by night: as long as the house-trespass which has been begun by such house-breaking continues.

Section 106: Right of private defence against deadly assault when there is a risk of harm to an innocent person

Explanation: This section provides that if in the exercise of the right of private defence against an assault which reasonably causes the apprehension of death, a person cannot effectively exercise that right without risk of harm to an innocent person, they may exercise it even with that risk.

These sections collectively provide a comprehensive framework for the right of private defence in Indian law, balancing the need for self-protection with the principle of proportionality and the duty to avoid excessive harm.

Conclusion:

The general exceptions under Sections 76 to 106 of the IPC provide a comprehensive framework that recognizes the complexity of human behavior and circumstances. These exceptions ensure that individuals are not wrongfully punished for actions that were either justified, done under duress, or committed without the necessary intent or capacity to understand their implications. By incorporating these exceptions, the IPC aims to uphold justice and fairness, balancing the need to punish wrongful acts with the recognition of legitimate defenses.