CHAPTER III– GENERAL EXCEPTIONS

Introduction 

Meaning and Scope 

This chapter deals with circumstances under which an act does not constitute an offence,  even though it may technically fall under the definition of an offence. These exceptions are  based on the principle that mens rea (guilty mind) is an essential element of crime. 

Objective 

• To ensure that persons who act without criminal intent are not punished. • To protect individuals acting under specific legal, moral, or social obligations. • To distinguish innocent acts from punishable acts. 

Section 14 – 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. 

An act done under a legal obligation or under mistaken belief (due to facts, not law) that one  is bound by law to do it, is not an offence. 

Essentials: 

• The person must be legally bound or believe so due to mistake of fact. • The belief must be in good faith. 
• Mistake of fact, not law. 

Case Law : 

State of West Bengal v. Shew Mangal Singh – Mistake of fact due to misunderstanding an  official order was protected.

Section 15 – Act of a 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. Judicial officers are protected from criminal liability for acts done in their judicial capacity,  provided they act in good faith. 

Essentials: 

• The act must be done in a judicial capacity. 
• Must be within powers or believed in good faith to be within powers. 

Case Law : 

Anderson v. Gorrie – Judicial immunity upheld for bona fide judicial acts. 

Section 16 – 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, if done whilst such judgment or order remains in force, is an  offence. 

An act done under the authority of a valid court order is not a criminal offence. Essentials: 

• Action must be done under court’s order. 
• Order must be in force at the time of act. 
• Protection ceases when order is set aside. 

Case Law : 

Murray v. The Queen – Execution of court’s order is protected. 

Section 17 – Act of a person 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. 

A person acting within legal justification or under a mistaken belief (in good faith) is not  criminally liable. 

Essentials: 

• Legal justification or good faith belief.
• Mistake must be of fact. 

Case Law : 

Tunda v. Rex – Right of private defence recognized even when mistake of fact occurred. 

SECTION 18 – Accident in doing a lawful act. 

Nothing is an offence which is done by accident or misfortune, without any criminal intention  or knowledge, while doing a lawful act in a lawful manner by lawful means and with proper  care and caution. 

Essentials: 

1. Act must be accidental or due to misfortune. 
2. Act must be lawful. 
3. Act must be done in a lawful manner. 
4. With due care and caution. 
5. Absence of criminal intention or knowledge. 

Illustration : 

A is lawfully cutting wood with an axe; the head flies off and kills a bystander. This is not an  offence. 

Case Law : 

Tunda v. Rex, AIR 1950 All 95 – A barber accidentally cuts the throat of a customer during  shaving. Held: It was not done with criminal intent – protected under accident. 

SECTION 19 – Act likely to cause harm but done without criminal intent  and to prevent other harm. 

Nothing is an offence if the harm was caused without criminal intent, in good faith, to prevent  or avoid other harm to person or property. 

Essentials: 

1. Act done without criminal intent. 
2. Done in good faith. 
3. Done to prevent or avoid other harm. 
4. Harm must be to person or property. 
5. Proportionality of harm caused and harm avoided. 

Illustration 

A pulls down houses to prevent fire from spreading. If it was done in good faith and  proportionally, it is not an offence.

SECTION 20 – Act of a child under seven years of age. 

Nothing is an offence which is done by a child under 7 years of age. 

Essentials: 

1. Child must be below 7 years of age. 
2. Absolute immunity from criminal liability. 

SECTION 21 – Act of a child above seven and under twelve of immature  understanding. 

Nothing is an offence done by a child above 7 and under 12 who has not attained sufficient  maturity of understanding to judge the nature and consequences of the act. 

Essentials: 

1. Child must be above 7 and below 12. 
2. Immature understanding must be proved. 
3. Partial immunity – rebuttable. 

Case Law : 

Marana Goundan v. Emperor, AIR 1920 Mad 460 – Immaturity must be proved by facts and  circumstances. 

SECTION 22 – Act of a person of mental illness. 

Nothing is an offence which is done by a person who, at the time of doing it, is incapable of  knowing the nature of the act due to unsoundness of mind. 

Essentials: 

1. Accused must be of unsound mind. 
2. Incapable of knowing the nature or wrongfulness of the act. 
3. Unsoundness must exist at the time of the act. 

Case Law : 

Dahya Bhai Chhaganbhai Thakkar v. State of Gujarat, AIR 1964 SC 1563 – Burden of proof  lies on accused, but only preponderance of probability is needed.

SECTION 23 – Act of a person incapable of judgment due to intoxication. 

Nothing is an offence which is done by a person incapable of knowing the nature of the act  due to intoxication, provided it was administered without his knowledge or against his will. 

Essentials: 

1. Intoxication must be involuntary. 
2. Incapable of knowing nature or wrongfulness of act. 
3. Not applicable to voluntary intoxication. 

SECTION 24 – Offence requiring a particular intent or knowledge  committed by a person in intoxicated state. 

A person voluntarily intoxicated cannot plead absence of intent or knowledge required to  constitute an offence. 

Essentials: 

1. Applies to offences requiring specific intent. 
2. No exemption for voluntary intoxication. 

SECTION 25 – Act not intended and not known to be likely to cause death  or grievous hurt, done by consent. 

An act not intended or known to likely cause death or grievous hurt is not an offence if done  with the consent of the person. 

Essentials: 

1. Act must be with consent. 
2. Person consenting must be over 18 years. 
3. Act must not be intended or known to cause grievous hurt or death. 

SECTION 26 – Act not intended to cause death, done by consent in good  faith for person’s benefit. 

Act not intended to cause death, done with the consent of the person, in good faith for their  benefit, is not an offence. 

Essentials:

1. Done in good faith. 
2. For the person’s benefit. 
3. With consent. 
4. Not intended to cause death. 

Section 27 – Act done in good faith for benefit of child or person with  mental illness, by or by consent of guardian. 

Nothing is an offence which is done in good faith for the benefit of a child under 12 years or a person with mental illness, by or with the consent of the guardian, even if it causes  harm—except if it causes death, or is done with intent to cause death or grievous hurt. 

This section exempts from criminal liability any act done for the benefit of a minor or person  with mental illness, with guardian’s consent, if done in good faith. 

Essentials: 

1. Act must be done in good faith. 
2. For benefit of the child/person with mental illness. 
3. Consent given by guardian or person in lawful charge. 
4. Must not intend to cause death or grievous hurt. 

Case Law: 

• Queen Empress v. Kadar Baksh – Guardian’s consent to treatment shields the  doctor if the act was done in good faith. 

Section 28 – Consent known to be given under fear or misconception. 

Consent is not valid if given under fear of injury or under misconception of fact, and the  person doing the act knows or has reason to believe that the consent was not freely given. 

Consent must be free, voluntary, and informed. If someone gives consent under threat or  misbelief, and the doer knows it, such consent has no legal value. 

Essentials: 

1. Consent is under fear or misconception of fact. 
2. The accused knows or should know about the invalid consent. 
3. The act is based on such invalid consent. 

Case Law: 

• Uday v. State of Karnataka – Consent to sex based on false promise of marriage is  not valid.
• K.N. Mehra v. State of Rajasthan – Consent under wrong belief does not excuse the  act. 

Section 29 – Exclusion of acts which are offences independently of harm  caused. 

Acts that are offences by themselves (like theft, murder, rape) are still offences even if no  harm is caused or consent is given. 

This section denies the use of “consent” or “lack of harm” as a defence for acts that are  inherently criminal. 

Essentials: 

1. Act must be an offence per se (defined by law). 
2. It cannot be justified even if harm is consented to or not caused. 

Case Law: 

• Gian Kaur v. State of Punjab – Suicide abetment is punishable even if the person  consents to die. 
• State of M.P. v. Madanlal – In rape cases, consent under misconception or  immaturity is irrelevant. 

Section 30 – Act done in good faith for benefit of a person without consent. 

If a person acts in good faith for the benefit of another person without their consent, and  it’s impossible to obtain consent, the act is not an offence. Exceptions apply if the act: 

• Intends to cause death, 
• Is against the express will of the person, 
• Causes death and could have been avoided. 

A person may do a beneficial act without consent (e.g., emergency treatment), if done in  good faith and no malice. 

Essentials: 

1. Act is done in good faith. 
2. For the benefit of the person. 
3. Consent is not obtainable or the person is incapable. 
4. No intention to cause death or grievous hurt. 

Case Law:

• Hari Singh Gaur v. State of M.P. – Doctor’s act in emergency treatment without  consent is justified. 

Section 31 – Communication made in good faith. 

If someone communicates anything in good faith for the benefit of another, it is not an  offence, even if it causes unintended harm. 

Truthful or sincere communication for someone’s good (even if it causes distress) is  protected. 

Essentials: 

1. Communication must be in good faith. 
2. Must be intended for the other’s benefit. 
3. Harm, if any, must be incidental. 

Case Law: 

• Emperor v. Abdool Wadood Ahmed – A doctor’s disclosure to authorities was not  an offence as it was made in good faith. 

Section 32 – Act to which a person is compelled by threats. 

A person is not guilty of an offence if they are compelled by threats (to life or grievous hurt)  to do the act. This does not apply to: 

• Murder, or 
• Offences punishable with death. 

A person may be excused from liability if they acted under coercion—except for very serious  crimes like murder. 

Essentials: 

1. Threat to life or grievous harm. 
2. No reasonable escape. 
3. Excludes murder and capital offences. 

Case Law: 

• R v. Dudley & Stephens – Murder under threat not excused (English case). • Kehar Singh v. State – Participation in assassination conspiracy not excused under  duress.

Section 33 – Act causing slight harm. 

An act that causes only slight harm, done without criminal intention or knowledge, is not  an offence. 

If harm is trivial and unintentional, the person is not criminally liable. Essentials: 

1. Harm caused is very slight. 
2. No intention or knowledge to cause harm. 
3. Act is otherwise lawful. 

Case Law: 

• In Re: Damu Naik – Pushing in a crowd causing minor harm is not an offence. 31 to 33. Let me know if you 

Section 34 – Right of private defence. 

Nothing is an offence which is done in the exercise of the right of private defence. This section legally recognizes the right to protect oneself or another person, or  property, from unlawful aggression or harm. Any act done in genuine private defence is  not punishable under law. 

Essentials: 

• There must be a threat or apprehension of unlawful harm. 
• The action must be purely defensive, not retaliatory. 
• The force used should be necessary and proportionate. 
• No private defence if state protection is available. 

Case Law: 

Darshan Singh v. State of Punjab (2010) – The Supreme Court upheld the right to private  defence and stated it must be reasonably exercised. 

Section 35 – Right of private defence of body and of property. 

Every person has a right to defend: 

(a) his own body, and the body of any other person, against any offence affecting the human  body;

(b) the property, whether movable or immovable, of himself or of any other person, against  any act which is an offence falling under theft, robbery, mischief, or criminal trespass. 

This section grants every person the right to defend both: 

• Human body (self or others) 
• Property (movable or immovable, self or others) 

Essentials: 

• Defence of human body against bodily offences. 
• Defence of property against listed property crimes. 
• The act defended against must be unlawful. 

Case Law: 

1. M. Nanavati v. State of Maharashtra – Highlights how intent and circumstances affect  legal justifications. 

Section 36– Right of Private Defence Against the Act of a Person of  Unsound Mind, etc. 

Every person has the same right of private defence against an act which: 

• Would otherwise be an offence, 
• But is not an offence only because the person doing it is: 

o Of unsound mind, 

o Intoxicated, 

o Under 7 years of age, or 

o Immature understanding (due to age or incapacity). 

Essentials:

• The other person is: 
• of unsound mind, or 
•  a child under 7, or 
•  incapable of criminal intent. 

2. Their act would be an offence if done by a sane adult. 
3. Your life or property is in danger. 
4. You respond with reasonable force. 

Case Law: 

 Sikandar Singh v. State of Bihar, AIR 2010 SC 3580 

• A person under intoxication attacked another.
• Held: Right of private defence under Section 98 applied; the attacker’s incapacity  does not take away the defender’s right. 

 Munshi Ram v. Delhi Administration, AIR 1968 SC 702 

• Reinforced that mental condition of the attacker is irrelevant if the act threatens  safety. 

Section 37 – Acts Against Which There is No Right of Private Defence. There is no right of private defence against: 

• Acts done, or attempts made, by or under direction of a public servant, or • Acts done in good faith, believing them to be lawful, 
• If The act does not cause reasonable apprehension of death or grievous hurt,  and 

o The public servant is acting in official duty. 

Essentials: 

1. The act is done by a public servant or under their direction. 
2. The act is lawful or done in good faith. 
3. It does not create reasonable fear of death or grievous hurt. 
4. If there’s no immediate and serious danger, private defence is not available. Case Law: 

 State of Orissa v. Rabindra Nath Dalai, AIR 1973 Ori 181 

• Held: Resistance to lawful search by police was not justified as private defence since  no harm was caused. 

 Moti Lal v. State of M.P., AIR 1994 SC 1544 

• Reiterated: Private defence cannot be used against official acts unless there’s real  threat of serious harm. 

Section 38 – When the right of private defence of body extends to  causing death. 

The right of private defence of the body extends to causing death if the offence attempted is:

• Assault with intent to murder 
• Grievous hurt 
• Rape 
• Unnatural lust 
• Abduction or kidnapping 
• Wrongful confinement with fear of death 
• Acid attack or attempt thereof 

One can cause death only in extreme circumstances where life or serious bodily injury is  under threat. 

Essentials: 

• There must be imminent danger to life or grave injury. 
• The act must fall within the mentioned offences. 
• Response must be immediate and proportionate. 

Case Law: 

Rishipal v. State of Uttarakhand – Person causing death during an attempt to rape was held  protected under private defence. 

Section 39 – When such right extends to causing any harm other than  death. 

In all other cases, right of private defence of body allows causing any harm except death. Where the threat is not of serious bodily harm or death, the defender may only cause limited  harm. 

Essentials: 

• The offence must not fall under Section 36. 
• Only necessary harm should be caused. 
• Force used must not be excessive. 

Section 40 – Commencement and continuance of the right of private  defence of body. 

The right of private defence of the body begins when reasonable apprehension of danger  arises and continues as long as such apprehension exists. 

Defence can start before the actual attack, when threat is reasonably perceived, and ends  only when the threat ends.

Essentials: 

• Threat must be real and immediate. 
• Right continues till the danger exists. 
• Right doesn’t wait for actual harm to occur. 

Case Law: 

State of Orissa v. Rabindranath Dalai – Right begins at the stage of reasonable  apprehension, not after attack begins. 

Section 41 – When right of private defence of property extends to  causing death. 

Right to cause death in defence of property is allowed when there is: 

• Robbery 
• House-breaking by night 
• Mischief by fire on dwelling 
• Fear of death or grievous hurt during theft/trespass 

Deadly force is permitted only in serious property offences involving risk to life or  serious damage. 

Essentials: 

• Offence must be grave and listed in the section. 
• Defender must act to prevent crime. 
• Death caused must be proportionate and necessary. 

Case Law: 

Munney Khan v. State of M.P. – Right to cause death upheld when night housebreaking and  threat were established. 

Section 42 – When such right extends to causing any harm other than  death. 

In all other property offences, defender can cause harm except death. 

Non-lethal force can be used to prevent less serious crimes against property. Essentials: 

• Offence must be of lesser nature than Section 41.
• Force used should not be deadly. 
• Harm must be necessary and proportionate. 

Section 43 – Commencement and continuance of right of private  defence of property. 

The right starts with apprehension of threat and continues until: 

• The offence is over 
• Property is recovered 
• The threat ceases 

Right of defence over property lasts even after the act begins and can continue to regain  possession. 

Essentials: 

• Right begins with reasonable apprehension. 
• Right continues during and after the offence. 
• It ends once the property is secured or threat ceases. 

Section 44 – Right of private defence against a deadly assault when  there is risk of harm to innocent person. 

If, in the course of exercising private defence, an innocent person is harmed unintentionally,  the act is not an offence, provided it was done in good faith and unavoidable. In cases where protecting oneself leads to unintended injury to a bystander, the defender is  not criminally liable if acting in good faith. 

Essentials: 

• The harm to the third party must be unintentional. 
• Action must be done in good faith. 
• The act must be necessary and unavoidable. 

Case Law: 

Smt. Shobha v. State of Maharashtra – Private defence can extend to cases where accidental  injury is caused to an innocent person in unavoidable circumstances.