what is General Exception in Indian Penal Code 1860, why we read this chapter?

Chapter 4 of Indian Penal Code (General Exception/Defence) range Section (76-106) is start with section 6 Definitions in the code to be understood subject to the exceptions. 

maxim 'Actus non facit reum nisi mens sit rea' means "an act does not render a man guilty of a crime unless his mind is equal guilty. 

Each and every section, provision and illustration of IPC to be read with general exception.  This chapter general expression is frame in order to obviate the necessity of repeating in every peal clause a considerable number of limitation.  it would be obvious inconvenience  to repeat these exception several time in every page. we have therefore place them in seprate chapter.

question. Does general Exception apply on all local and special law?

In the case of King Emp. V/s Tustipada Mandal 1951 explain the fact

In this case Supreme Court held that in para 18 and 19, which is given below: 

18.The learned Advooate-General in counter argumenting the contention of Mr. Sahu, says that the principles underlying the "general exceptions" in chap, iv, I. P. C., are not applicable to a special or local Jaw offence as the present one. This contention cannot be entertained in view of Section 40 of the Code, wherein it is provided:

"In Chap. IV......word 'offence' denotes a thing punishable...... under any special or local law as hereinafter defined."

"Special law" is defined in Schedule 1 & "Local laws" in Schedule 2. These definitions will, by all means, cover the relevant laws with which we are concerned in this case.

19. The contention of Mr. Sahu, therefore, deserves consideration in view of the provisions, contained in Chap. IV, I. P. C. under the head "General Exceptions." The section, on which Mr. Sahu lays his finger in support of his contention, is 79, which reads:

"Nothing is an offence which is done by any person "who is justified by law, or who by reason of a mistake sot fact & and not by reason of a mistake of law in good faith, believes himself to be justified by law, in doing it." 

The Latin maxim ignorantia juris non excusat means ignorance of law is no excuse

there is two terms Ignorance of law and Mistake of law. both are different with each other. In mistake there is no Intention. The mistake must be such as character that has been it's circumstance real or true than no offence would have been committed. 

Mistake should be reasonable. automatically good faith come in, done with reasonable caution and care; It should be mistake of fact, not mistake of law; it must be bonafide, it must be reasonable and it must be in good faith with due care and caution. 

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.. 

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.

 Munsi Ram V/s Delhi Administration 2003

In this case SC held that "The law relating to defence of property is, set out in s. 97 IPC, which says that every person has a right, subject to the restrictions contained in s. 99, to defend-First-his own body, and the body of any other person, against any offence affecting the human body; Secondly.-the property, whether movable or immovable, of himself or of any other person, against any act which is an offence falling under the definition of theft, robbery, mischief. or criminal trespass, or which is an attempt to commit theft, robbery, mischief or criminal trespass. Section 99 of the Code lays down that there is no right of private defence in cases in which there is time to have recourse to the protection of the public authorities. It further lays down that the right of private defence in no case extends to the inflicting of more harm than it is necessary to inflict for the purpose of defence"

In Horam and others v. Rex(1), a division bench of the Allahabad High Court observed that where a trespasser enters upon the land of another, the person in whom the rightful possession is vested, while the trespasser is in the process of acquiring possession, may turn the trespasser out of the land by force and if in doing so, he inflicts such injuries on the trespasser as are warranted by the situation, he commits no offence. His action would be covered by the principle of private defence embodied in section  96 to 105 IPC.

Section 6 IPC impose a statutory duty on the court to consider whether the offence of the accused is cover under General Exception, even if accused did not taken the plea specifically. like suppose a lunatic person does not take the plea of section 84 ipc, the court must make the accused aware that he can claim the benefit of this section. 

Due care and attention denote a person must make an enquiry of such depth a prudent man would make a genuine desire to know the truth.  

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

In the case of Daya Shankar V/s HC of Allhabad 1987 SC

in this case SC held that "11. In our opinion the conclusion reached by the Inquiry Officer that the petitioner used unfair means is fully justified. No amount of denial could take him away from the hard facts revealed. The conduct of the petitioner is undoubtedly unworthy of judicial officer. Judicial Officers cannot have two standards, one in the Court and another outside the Court. They must have only one standard or rectitude, honesty and integrity. They cannot act even remotely unworthy of the office they occupy. The second contention urged for the petitioner also fails and is rejected."

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.

when you can get the benefit of accident when following condition is true. 

it should be lawful act in lawful manner by lawful means and with proper care and caution. than you can get the benefit of section 80. RC Nigam quote is his book different between accident and misfortune. Accident lies in the fact in the accident only injury to another person where in misfortune causes as much as to the author as to another unconnected with the act.

Definition of Accident: - an accident is an incident which take place out of the ordinary causes of event, which no man of ordinary prudence could anticipate and take step to avoid it. 

In the case of Sukhdev singh v./s Delhi Administration 2003 Supreme Court held that there is 5 element of accident it must be there to get the benefit of section 80 1. accident 2.  lawful act 3. lawful manner 4. lawful means 5. proper care and caution. even there is exception of this given in draft IPC written that if an accident take place while performing unlawful act protection of section 80 available provided there is no causal connection between result and harm and the act in question.

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.

section  81 is used the principle of necessity. principle of necessity is also called doctrine of salvage. In accident there is no criminal intention and no knowledge however in the necessity there is no criminal intention but have knowledge.. I want to quote Bentham here he said in 3 situation defence of necessity can be given.

1. The harm is done to avoid a greater harm
2. No other means of avoid the greater harm.
3. No other option to commit this harm

Ingredient of principle of Necessity

• The act of the accused must have be done without any criminal intention to cause the harm
• the harm must be done in good faith to prevent other harm to person or property. 
• the harm must be done in order to avoid greater harm.

Maxim Quod Necesstas non habit legem means Necessity need no law

Maxim Necesstas vincit legem means necessity overcome the law. 

Section 81 IPC does not give you blanket immunity to the liability. it is only available in exceptional circumstances. 

• Act was absolutely unavoidable. 
• If this act was not done it would cause a huge damage. which is absolutely disproportionate to the harm which is about to cause.
• Harm was inflicted by me was not more than necessary for the purpose.

Necessity and Homicide

R v Dudley Stephen 1884 

In this case 3 person was stuck in a boat and there is nothing to eat in the sea. since there is no water and food and all three are dying from hunger. two of them decide to kill one and eat his flash. they kill that boy and eat his flash for survival. so court give following point. 

• self preservation is not absolute necessity. 
• no man have right to take the life of another person to save own life. 
• Private homicide to conserve own life/ 

US Vs Holmes 

There was ship and need to reduce the weight on the ship. Crew member through 16 person from the ship in the water to save the ship. court held you can't take the life of other to save your own life. you can't get the benefit of necessity. 

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.

Deal with Doli incapax and get the absolute immunity; law believe that below 7 years doli incapax, he is incapable to understand the nature and consequence of the act that why he is not able to forming necessary mensrea. 

Shayam Bhadur V/s Bihar (Patna High court 1967) 

court held that child is below the age of 7 years of age in not able to understand the nature and consequence of his act. so there is no offence committed by the child who's age is under 7 years. 

 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.

act of the child above 7 and under 12 years of immature understanding if he is sufficient mature. to judge the nature and circumstance of his conduct.  

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.

Surendra Mishra vs State Of Jharkhand on 6 January, 2011

"Section 84 lays down the legal test of responsibility in cases of alleged unsoundness of mind. There is no definition of `unsoundness of mind' in IPC. The courts have, however, mainly treated this expression as equivalent to insanity. But the term `insanity' itself has no precise definition. It is a term used to describe varying degrees of mental disorder. So, every person, who is mentally diseased , is not ipso facto exempted from criminal responsibility. A distinction is to be made between legal insanity and medical insanity. A court is concerned with legal insanity, and not with medical insanity."

Legal insanity means disorder of mind, which pair the cognitive faculty that we called reasoning capacity of the person. 

Cognitive faculty is so impaired that it render the person incapable to understanding the nature and consequences. 

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.