General exception under IPC sec (80-87) | Law Notes


According to Indian penal code 1860, section (76-106) discussed about the general exception. They are:-

  • Mistake of Fact (Sections-76 & 79), 
  • Judicial Acts (Sections-77 & 78) 
  • Accident (Section-80) 
  • Necessity [Acts done to Avoid Greater Harm] (Section-81) 
  • Infancy (Sections-82 & 83) 
  • Insanity (Section-84) 
  • Intoxication or Drunkenness (Sections-85 & 86) 
  • Consent (Section-87 to 91) 
  • Acts done in Good-faith (Section-92)
  • Communication made in Good-faith (Section-93) 
  • Act done under Compulsion or Threat (Section-94) 
  • Acts causing Slight Harm or Trifling Acts (Section-95) 
  • Right of Private Defence (Sections-96 to 106)

These are the exception of IPC law. In this article we discussed about the section (80-87)

Section 80:- An accident in Doing a Lawful Act.

In section 80, accident is the reason of the injury to another, at the same time as the misfortune causes injury while much to he as to another independent with the act.

The accidents in this section are not excusable. Injuries reasons by an accidental act may be excused issue to the accomplishment of necessities of Law. 

It exempts the doer of a blameless or legal act in a guiltless or lawful manner moreover devoid of any mens rea or knowledge from any unexpected immorality consequence that may result from the accident.

There is no offence if it happens:-

  • An accident or misfortune.
  • Devoid of any mens rea or knowledge 
  • In the doing of a lawful act. 
  • In legal manners.
  • By legal means 


P is at work with a gun. The head flies off also kills a guy who is standing near. Now, if there was no wish for of fitting worry on the element of this, his act is called excusable along with not guilty. 

In the case of Rangaswamy, the accused fired up a shot as of an unlicensed gun. The court held that shooting with an unlicensed gun does not exclude an accused from claiming protection under this section. 

State of Orissa v. Khosa Ghasi , the person who is accused, a tribal in a forest, by way of bonafied intent effort an arrow at an animal. But, a human being was beat by the arrow furthermore died. The Orissa High Court held that acquitted the accused.

Section 81:- Act probable to reason of harm, except done without criminal mens rea and to prevent other harm. 

This section is known as ‘Doctrine of self preservation’ or else ‘Doctrine of Necessity and Compulsion’ or also ‘Jus necessitates’.
It is also maintain in the legal maxim ‘Necessitas non habet legem’, it’s meaning is ‘Necessity knows no laws’.


Essentials of Section 81-

The act is not a crime which is done by:-

  • Bonafied
  • devoid of mens rea 
  • His intention in doing so as to act ought to be to grounds minor injury so as to put off or keep away from greater harm.


P is in an enormous fire, pulls down houses in position to stop the fire from spreading. He does this by means of the intent in good faith of saving person life or property.

Section 82:- the act of a child under seven years of age.

Nothing is offence or crime which is done by the child whose age is under 7 years.

In this section, the least level of maturity of mind is a must to preserve mensrea. The legislature in its knowledge affirmed that a child below seven years of age does not have that greatly maturity of mind which is a must for amusing a guilty aim. In this law declares a child under seven years of age as doli in capex.

A decisive assumption of purity is raised in favour of a child under seven. 

The actuality is: – criminal child is under seven can give a total answer to every question and argument of the trial. 

In the case of Bakhul Shah, The accused bought for one anna from a child aged six years, two pieces of cloth price at fifteen annas, which the child had taken from the house of a third person. The court held that presumptuous that a accuse of an offence of deceitful treatment of property could not be continued due to the injury of the child to commit an offence, the accused was guilty of criminal misappropriation, if he knew that the goods belonged to the child’s guardians and’ fraudulently fitting to his own make use of.

Section 83:- the act of a child above seven & under twelve years of immature understanding.

This section of IPC says about so as to an act done by a child elder than seven years of age and below twelve years.

It does not consider decisive assumption of incorruptibility of the child. Advantage is given to a child who has not accomplished enough maturity of thoughtful to judge the nature and penalty of his conduct.

This section 83 is based on the Maxim ‘Malitiasuppletaetaten’, it means Malice supplies the defect of years. It tells about incomparable childishness of thoughtful. Consequently, the defence has to create that the accused did not have enough maturity. Usually, it is to be presumed that child had enough maturity. 

In the case of Ulla Mahapatra v. State, a boy over eleven years however below twelve years of age, picked up his knife and advanced towards the deceased with a intimidating signal, proverb that he would slash him to bits, and did in fact cut him, his whole act can merely guide to one deduction, that he did what he proposed to do and that he knew all the time that a gust exacted with a knife would effectuate his intent. 

Section 84:- the act of a person of the unsound mind.

Section 84 says about:-

 Act of a Person of Unsound Mind 

  • Kinds of Unsound mind
  • Idiot
  • Lunatic
  • Non compos mentis
  • Disease of mind

Conditions of Insanity

  • Wrong must be done by a unsound mind
  • Person is incapable to understand
  • Nature of crime
  • Act is against law
  • This incapability is due to unsoundness of 

Unsoundness of Mind defines as Persons of unsound mind are also known as non compos mentis. 

Sec. 84 of IPC is obtainable simply to a person who undergo from legal insanity at the time of alleged commission of the take action complained of. 

In the case of Neta Ram v/s State, 1866:- the accused go through from legal insanity at the date of trial but he did not undergo that on the date of alleged commission. The court was held that no benefit of sec 84 in this case.

Criticism of section 84 under IPC:-

It is based on the rule laid down in the case of McNaughton. The law laid down in the case is no longer a showing principle under the English law. Consequently, it is barely defensible to base Sec. 84 IPC on that pronouncement. 

This section 84 does not be familiar with medical or social insanity. This law is hardly justified. Section 84 must be make improvements to do justice in cases of incomplete insanity. 

In the case of Someswar Ghora v. State of Assam, the court held that Legal insanity has to be proved previous to the court, not medical insanity.
In the case of Ratan Lal vs. State of MP, the Hon’ble court held that surrounds fire to one’s own residence and cloths’ not including any reason is fine intentional insanity.
In the case of Babudev vs. State of Punjab, the court held with the aim of insanity as a result of smoking ganja or heavy.

Section 85:- the act of a person incapable of judgment by reason of the intoxication caused against his will.

Section 86:- an offence requiring a particular intention or knowledge committed by one who is the intoxicated.

Section 85 and section 86:-

Sections 85 and 86 make available for law as to intoxication. In this section the voluntary intoxication is not a defence. Voluntary intoxication may be suitable in the strength of mind of meticulous intent or else acquaintance compulsory for a specified offence.

Drunkenness or else intoxication are the consequence of uncontrollable drinks or drugs. The drunken or intoxicated human being is not adequately expert of having requisite mental ingredient to commend an offence.

Involuntary Drunkenness means a person gets intoxicated not including his knowledge like, from beginning to end fraud or subterfuge of others, in addition to there by becomes not sufficiently expert of compassionate the character and consequences of do something.

The valid defence of the Section (85 and 86) of IPC:-

In the significant case of Director of Public Prosecution v. Beard, a night watchman caught a 13 yrs old girl to rape her and the girl cried & tried to run away but he put cloth choke in her mouth and thumbs on her throat subsequent to that girl died by means of suffocation. The Beard implored a defence of the intoxication. The Trial Court convicted him for murder according to this Section 87.

The injured party is obliged to have say-so to, expressly otherwise impliedly to the act of the accused.
The person agreeable (injured party) must have been beyond 18 yrs at the time of permission.
The Act of the accused must have been devoid of a purpose, intention or knowledge of probability of causing death or grievous hurt. 

The act is not a crime which is done by a person:-

With not having any intention to cause death or grievous hurt 

Lacking of having any knowledge that his act is likely to cause death or grievous hurt 

With the consent given by the victim who suffers harm of Consent must be given by  a person above 18 years of age or the Consent may be expressed or implied in that case:-


The section of the general exceptions gives the some benefit to some accused that comes under these exceptions. This is also a vital part of the Indian penal code. The chapter IV of the IPC discussed on the subject of the general exceptions to criminal liabilities. There are various kinds of exceptions in this chapter IV. So, section (80-87), which we discussed in this article.




Author: Megha Jain

Leave a Reply