1

INTRODUCTION

I. INTRODUCTION
Before studying I.P.C., we should have some basic information about this branch of Criminal Law
which has been given below for the convinience of students.
 The Indian Penal Code was drafted by the First Indian Law Commission constituted in 1834.
 Lord Macaulay was the President of the first law commission and he is credited to have drafted the
IPC.
 The present form of I.P.C. was finally passed on 6th October, 1860 and came into operation on
January 1, 1862.
 I.P.C. applies to any offence 1. committed by an Indian citizen anywhere and on any ship or aircraft
registered in India, 2. committed by even a foreigner in India or on any ship or aircraft registered in
India.
II. CONTENTS OF I.P.C
The whole I.P.C. can be divided into two parts:
(1) General Principles and,
(2) Specific Offences
 General principles consist of principles which describe how crime is committed, who can be punished,
who can not be punished, what is the basis of punishment or liability, etc.
 Specific offences deal with offences as -
(a) body related offences like murder, kidnapping etc.
(b) property related offences like theft, robbery, dacoity etc.
(c) State related offences like sedition etc.
(d) justice related offences like perjury etc.
 The I.P.C. has been amended recently in year 2013 and there has been addition of many women
related offences like sexual harassment, sexual assault, voyeurism, stalking etc.
III. OBJECT OF I.P.C
 The object of this Act is to provide a general penal code for whole India and to punish the criminals.
 The Indian Penal Code shall extend to the whole of India except the State of Jammu & Kashmir.
 For purpose of I.P.C, India does not include Jammu and Kashmir and due to this reason it has a
separate penal code, known as Ranbir Penal Code.

 2

CRIME AND ITS CONSTITUENTS

I. INTRODUCTION
1. Essential ingredients of crime: There are three essential ingredients of crime. They are as follows:
1. There must be a Person to commit the crime
2. Guilty mind i.e. Mens rea
3. The act in furtherance of guilty intention i.e. Actus reus.
2. Person includes company, association or body of persons whether incorporated or not. In this sense,
even company or corporation etc. can be held liable in criminal law but obviously they cannot commit
crime involving physical violence or use of force like hurt, grievous hurt, rape or murder etc.
3. The criminal liability is based on a Latin maxim ‘Actus non facit reum, nisi mens sit rea’ which
means that the intent and act must concur to constitute a crime.
Crime = Mental element (mens rea i.e. guilty mind) + Physical act (actus reus i.e.
wrongful act)
 Generally, guilty mind is necessary in every crime but there is an exception to this rule. The requirement
of guilty mind is done away with, in the cases of strict liability such as in socio–economic offences,
Food Adulteration etc., statutory offences like War against State, Sedition, Rape etc., Public nuisance,
Libel, Contempt of Court etc.
 In deciding criminal liabilities, generally we are faced with certain terms like intention, motive, knowledge
etc. so it is necessary that we should have little bit idea of these terms.
 Intention - It is the desire to produce a particular result. It is the purpose or design with which an act
is done. It is a part of mens rea and relevant in determining criminal liability. It tells you that how an act
has been done. For example - when anyone fires a gunshot against someone from point blank range
then it is obvious that he has desire to kill him. So it is intention to cause death.
 Motive - It is ulterior object which stimulates or incites an action. It is also a part of mens rea but
generally not relevant in fixing criminal liability. It explains that why an act has been done. For example-
A has long standing dispute with B with respect to a piece of land and so he wants to kill B out of
frustration or revenge. Now this frustration or revenge is the motive.
 Negligence - It means absence of care according to the circumstances. It is treated as a part of mens
rea and relevant in criminal cases. For example, in offence of causing death by rash and negligent
driving, this act of rash and negligent driving is negligence.
 Knowledge - It is another shade of mens rea. It is nothing but awareness about a particular thing. It is
awareness of consequence. Everybody is presumed to have knowledge of the natural consequences
of his act; and it is also relevant in fixing criminal liability. For example - if somebody fires on a crowd
then he will be presumed to have knowledge that somebody will be killed.
 Actus Reus - It means that consequence of conduct which is prohibited by law. For example - if A
fires on B then act of firing is not Actus Reus rather death of B due to firing is Actus Reus. So in this
sense Actus Reus is not an act but consequence of the act.
 3

STAGES OF CRIME

I. INTRODUCTION
Every crime has following stages which can be illustrated by the given flowchart :
Stages of Crime:
Intention Preparation Attempt Crime
Ist Stage IInd Stage IIIrd Stage IVth Stage
(Not punishable) (Generally not (Punishable) (Punishable)
Punishable)
Intention (First Stage)
Mental stage i.e. first stage in crime, is generally not punishable because it is not possible to read the
mind of a person.
Preparation (Second Stage)
Preparation is second stage which means arrangement of tools, weapons etc. necessary for the
commission of a crime. Generally, it is not possible to punish the offender because it is impossible to show
that the preparation was directed towards wrongful end or was done with an evil intent or mind.
Attempt (Third Stage)
Attempt i.e. third stage of crime is also known as inchoate (incomplete) crime. This stage of crime is
punishable. Attempt is the direct movement towards the commission of the crime after the necessary
preparations has been completed.
II. DIFFERENCE BETWEEN PREPARATION AND ATTEMPT
For distinguishing between the two, one should see that is it possible for offender to go back or to
renounce the plan of committing crime without any harm. If answer is in affrimative, then it is mere preparation
and if it is negative then it is an attempt. This can be understood by the help of following examples.
(1) A, intending to murder Z, buys a gun and loads it. A has not yet committed the offence because he can
go back or renounce the plan without any harm. But when A fires the gun at Z, he has committed the
offence of attempt to murder because now there is no chance of repentance or going back as he has
done his part and nothing is left to be done though Z survives. If Z would have died then it will be a case
of murder.
(2) A, intending to murder Z by poison, purchases poison and mixes the same with food which remains in
A’s keeping; A has not yet committed the offence defined in this section because he can go back or
renounce the plan without any harm. A places the food on Z’s table or delivers it to Z’s servant to place
it on Z’s table. A has committed the offence of attempt to murder because now there is no chance of
 4

repentance or going back as he has done his part and nothing is left to be done though Z survives as he
does not take food. If Z would have died then it will be a case of murder.
(3) A makes an attempt to steal some jewels by breaking open a box, and after opening the box, finds that
there is no jewel in it. He has done an act towards the commission of theft, and therefore is guilty of
attempt to theft.
(4) A makes an attempt to pick the pocket of Z by thrusting his hand into Z’s pocket. A fails in the attempt
in consequence of Z’s having nothing in his pocket. A is guilty of attempt to theft.
(5) A, with the intention to cause the death of a child of tender years, exposes it in a desert place. A has
committed the offence of attempt to murder if the child does not die and if child dies he will be liable for
murder.
Accomplishment (Fourth Stage)
It is the final and last stage of crime and this stage is punishable.


 5

JOINT LIABILITY

I. JOINT AND CONSTRUCTIVE LIABILITY

(SEC. 34 & SEC. 149, I.P.C)
 When a crime is committed by a group in furtherance of common intention then each number of such
groups will be liable for that act in the same manner as if it were done by him alone.
Common intention or common object + Criminal act in such direction = Joint and Constructive
Liability.
 Common Intention means prior meeting of minds or pre concerted plan.
 Unlawful Assembly means an assembly of five or more persons having the common object of
committing crime.
Principle–
An act can be said to be in prosecution of common object when that act facilitates/helps in achieving of
common object.
 If crime is not committed in prosecution of common object then, all members of unlawful assembly
cannot be held liable. In such a case, only person/persons who committed crime, will be held liable. It
can be illustrated by following example, where in one case, two of the assembly members went after a
person to kill him but the victim ran into his house. The members frustrated as they were, gunned down
two girls of the intended victim who were playing outside. Rest of the members were not held liable
reason being that this was neither their common object, nor incidental to that, nor necessary for its
attainment.
Criminal act by a member of unlawful assembly + Criminal act must be done in prosecution
of common object = Joint Liability
II. ABETMENT(SEC.107, I.P.C)
 When one person instigates, conspires with or helps other person in doing something (usually bad)
then he is said to abet doing of that thing.
 Abetment is an offence in itself apart from the offence committed in pursuance of the abetment.
 Abetment under IPC is constituted by instigation, conspiracy or intentional.
(I) Abetment by instigation : How Abetment is done by instigation - A person is said to ‘instigate
another to do an act’, when he actively suggests or stimulates him to do the act by any means of
language, direct or indirect, or whether it takes the form of express solicitation, or of hints, insinuation
or encouragement. The word ‘instigate’ means to goad or urge forward or to provoke, incite, urge or
 6

encourage to do an act. Instigation advice Per se does not necessarily amount to instigation. Instigation
necessarily connotes some active suggestion or support or stimulation to the commission of the act
itself. Advice amounts to instigation only if it was meant actively to suggest or stimulate the commission
of an offence. Instigation may be of an unknown person. A mere acquiescence or permission does
not amount to instigation.
Instigation can be done by wilful misrepresentation, i.e. deliberate or intentional wrong representation.
For Example–
(a) A, a public officer, is authorized by warrant from a Court of Justice to apprehend Z. B, knowing that
fact and also that C is not Z, willfully represents to A that C is Z, and thereby intentionally causes A to
apprehend C. Here B abets by instigation the apprehension of C.
The illustration appended to the Section is an Example of instigation by ‘wilful misrepresentation’.
(b) By wilful concealment of a material fact which he is bound to disclose, voluntarily causes or procures,
or attempts to cause or procure a thing to be done is said to instigate the doing of that thing.
Instigation by ‘wilful concealment’ is where some duty exists which obliges a person to disclose a fact.
(II) Abetment by Conspiracy : Abetment by conspiracy consists when two or more persons engage
in a conspiracy for the doing of a thing and an act or illegal omission takes place in pursuance of the
conspiracy and in order to the doing of that thing. Thus in order that abetment by conspiracy may
be constituted, three things are necessary:-
(a) a conspiracy between two or more persons;
(b) an act or illegal omission takes place in pursuance of that conspiracy; and
(c) The act or illegal omission must take place in order to the doing of the thing conspired.
For Example–
In a case, a married woman whose husband had died prepared herself to commit suicide in presence of the
accused persons who followed her to the funeral pyre and remained there with her step-sons chanting
‘Ram-Ram’ and one of the accused persons admitted that he had told the woman to say ‘Ram-Ram’ and
that she would become ‘sati’. It was held that since the above facts proved active connivance and unequivocal
countenance of the suicide by the accused persons, all were liable for abetment by conspiracy to commit
suicide justifying the inference of an engagement on their part.
(III) Abetment by Intentional Aid : A person abets by aiding, when by act done either prior to, or
at the time of, the commission of an act, he intends to facilitate, and does in fact facilitate, the
commission thereof. For instance, the supply of necessary food to a person known to be engaged
in crime is not per se criminal; but if food were supplied in order that the criminal might go on a
journey to the intended scene of the crime, or conceal himself while waiting for an opportunity to
commit the crime, the supply of food would be in order to facilitate the commission of the crime
and might facilitate it. In order to constitute abetment by aiding the abettor must be shown to have
intentionally aided the commission of the crime.
 Abettor means the person who abets:
(1) The commission of an offence or
 7

(2) The commission of an act which will be an offence if committed by a competent person.
In other words, a person can abet a competent person as well as an incompetent person to commit
crime.
For Example, abettor can abet a person of 21years age or he can abet even a child of 6 years
age, who is incompetent to commit crime. In both cases he will be held liable as an abettor.
 Abetment is a substantive offence and the conviction of an abettor is therefore, in no way dependent
on the conviction of the principal, offender.
III. CRIMINAL CONSPIRACY(SEC. 120A, I.P.C)
When two or more persons agree to commit crime or illegal act or other act not illegal but by illegal
means then it is called conspiracy.
The main ingredients of criminal conspiracy are:
(i) There should be two or more persons.
(ii) An agreement between the persons.
(iii) The agreement must be to do or cause to be done.
For Example–
I. When A & B conspire to induce C to break contract with D, it is conspiracy.
(a) An illegal act (including offence) or, (b) An act not illegal but by illegal means
II. When A & B conspire to induce C to break contract with D, even it is a conspiracy, not illegal by
illegal means.
Criminal Conspiracy = Two or more persons + Agreement to do or cause to be done an illegal
act or an act not illegal but by illegal means.
 In the case of a conspiracy to commit an offence, the mere agreement is sufficient to impose liability. In
other words, any act in pursuance of agreement is not required. This is the difference between abetment
by conspiracy and conspiracy.
Punishment of Criminal Conspiracy(Sec. 120B, I.P.C) :
(1) Whoever is a party to the criminal conspiracy to commit an offence punishable with death, or
rigorous imprisonment for a term of two years or upwards, shall, where no express provision is
made in this code for the punishment of such a conspiracy, be punished in the same manner as if he
had abetted such offence.
(2) Whoever is a party to the criminal conspiracy other than a criminal conspiracy to commit an offence
punishable as aforesaid shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term not
exceeding six months, or with fine or with both.


 8

GENERAL DEFENCES

INTRODUCTION
I.P.C. deals with the various defences which a person, who is accused of an offence under I.P.C or any
special or local law can plead for his benefit. They have been put together in one chapter in order to
obviate the necessity of repeating in every penal clause, a considerable number of defences.
As we know that every crime consists of two elements i.e. mens rea and actus reus. So whenever
and wherever either of the two is not present, crime cannot be committed. These defences are nothing but
they are such circumstances when either of the two is not present which are as follows.

I. MISTAKE(SEC. 76 AND SEC. 79, I.P.C)

1. Mistake of Fact
Ignorantia facti doth excusat, ignorantia juris non excusat is common law principle which
means, ignorance of fact is a defence but ignorance of law is not a defence. The justification for exemption
on the ground of mistake of fact or ignorance of fact is based on the principle that a man who is mistaken
or ignorant about the existence of a fact cannot form the necessary intention to constitute a crime and is
therefore, not responsible in law for his act.
Examples–
(a) A, an officer of a Court of Justice, being ordered by the Court to arrest Y, and, after due enquiry,
believing Z to be Y, arrests Z. A has committed no offence. This is because the officer under
mistake of fact believed himself to be bound by law to arrest Z who in his opinion was Y.
(b) A, a soldier, fires on a mob by the order of his superior officer, in conformity with the commands
of the law. A has committed no offence. As firing is in confirmity with commands of law so it can
not be an offence.
(c) A, an officer of a Court of Justice, being ordered by that Court to arrest Y, and, after due enquiry,
believing Z to be Y, arrests Z. A has commited no offence. This is because he believed in good faith
due to mistake of fact that he was bound to arrest Z.
 Ingredients: There are two classes of cases wherein a person is excused from criminal liability on the
ground of mistake of fact, viz.,
(1) When a person is bound or justified by law to do something and does it.
(2) When a person believes in good faith, bound or justified by law to do it.
Owing to a mistake of fact and not a mistake of law, that he is bound to do something and does it.
 9

Here “bound” refers to duty and “justified” means where a person is justified to do something or is
privileged to do something,. Example - policeman is dutybound to arrest criminal whereas a private person
is justified or privileged to arrest a criminal.
For Example– A sees Z commit what appears to A to be murder. A, in the exercise, to the best of his
judgment exerted in good faith, of the power which the law gives to all persons of apprehending murderers
in the fact, seizes Z, in order to bring Z before the proper authorities. A has committed no offence, though
it may turn out that Z was acting in self defence.
2. Mistake of Law
Mistake of Law means a mistake as to the existence or otherwise of any law on a relevant subject as
well as a mistake as to what the law is. A mistake or ignorance of law, whether civil or criminal, is no
defence in law howsoever genuine it might have been. In other words, all persons in a country, whether
subjects or foreigners, are bound by the law of the land. The rule is founded on the fiction that every man
knows the law, at any rate ought to know the law under which he lives or to which he is subject for the time
being. Without doubt, it is not possible even for professional lawyers to know the entire bulk of law.
Nevertheless, the rule has been recognized as a basic principle of law.
For Example– In a case, the Court refused to accept the plea of ignorance of the notification issued by the
Reserve Bank of India imposing restrictions on transit of gold to a place outside the territory of India and
held the accused, a French national, liable for violating the said notification. Thus, mistake or ignorance of
law was held to be no valid defence in law.
II. PROTECTION TO JUDGE AND JUDICIAL
OFFICER(SEC. 77 & SEC.78, I.P.C)
(1) Any act of Judge when acting judicially is not an offence(Sec. 77, I.P.C)
For Example – If a Magistrate erroneously decides a case exceeding his jurisdiction, he will not be held
criminally liable for exceeding his jurisdiction but if a judge assaults or abuses a man, or takes bribe, he is
much liable as an ordinary man would be for his acts.
(2) Even an act done pursuant to the judgment or order of court is also not an offence(Sec. 78, I.P.C)
For Example– A jailor charged with the duty of carrying out the sentence of whipping, who executes the
sentence of whipping under the direction of Magistrate, is not liable for committing an offence. The act of
the jailor, being an act done in pursuance of the order of a Court is protected under this section.
III. ACCIDENT IN DOING A LAWFUL ACT(SEC. 80, I.P.C)
Anything 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 is not an
offence.
For Example– A is at work with a hatchet; the head flies off and kills a man who is standing by. Here if
there was no want of proper caution on the part of A, his act is excusable and not an offence.
This Section exempts the doer of an innocent or lawful act in an innocent or lawful manner and without
any criminal intention or knowledge from any unforeseen evil result that may ensue from accident or
misfortune.
 10

IV. ACT LIKELY TO CAUSE HARM, BUT DONE

TO PREVENT OTHER HARM(SEC.81, I.P.C)
Anything done with the knowledge that it is likely to cause harm, but 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, then it is not an offence.
Here, three conditions are necessary to claim exemptions from criminal responsibility, namely:
(1) The act has been done to avoid other harm;
(2) The harm to be avoided should be such as to justify the risk of doing an act likely to cause harm; and
(3) The act has been done in good faith without any criminal intention to cause harm.
Examples–
(1) A, in a great fire, pulls down houses in order to prevent the conflagration from spreading. He does this
with the intention in good faith of saving human life or property. Here, if it is found that the harm to be
prevented was of such a nature and so imminent as to excuse A’s act. A is not guilty of the offence.
(2) A, the captain of a steam vessel, suddenly and without any fault or negligence on his part, finds himself
in such a position that, before he can stop his vessel, he must inevitably run down a boat B, with twenty
or thirty passengers on board, unless he changes the course of his vessel, and that, by changing his
course, he must incur risk of running down a boat C with only two passengers on board, which he may
possibly clear. Here, if A alters his course without any intention to run down the boat C and in good
faith for the purpose of avoiding the danger to the passengers in the boat B, he is not guilty of an
offence, though he may run down the boat C by doing an act which he knew was likely to cause that
effect, if it be found as a matter of fact that the danger which he intended to avoid was such as to
excuse him in incurring the risk of running down the boat C.
V. INFANCY(SEC. 82, I.P.C)
Nothing is an offence which is done by a child under seven years of age.
No infant can be guilty of a crime under the age of seven years as under that age an infant is, by
presumption of law, doli incapax, (incapable of forming a guilty intention). If the accused were a child
under seven years of age, the proof of this fact would be the reason of defence.
For Example– A child of six years says that he will kill a certain person and does kill him by firing a gun
shot, even then he cannot be held liable.
VI. IMMATURITY(SEC. 83, I.P.C)
Anything which is done by a child above seven years of age and under twelve, who has not attained
sufficient maturity to understand the nature and consequences of his conduct is not an offence.
For Example– A child of 10 years steals a parker pen and goes to the market to sell it but when he is
offered Rs. 10 for it, he does not sell it and demands at least 50% of the price of pen i.e. Rs. 100. Then it
can be said that he has sufficient maturity and he can’t avail defence.
 11

VII. INSANITY(SEC. 84, I.P.C)

An insane person, who, is incapable of knowing the nature of the act, or that he is doing what is either
wrong or contrary to law; cannot be made criminally liable. He will get benefit if he was insane at the time
of doing the act. This benefit will not be made available if he was insane earlier or later but not at the time
of committing offence.
For Example– The accused had dreamt that he was commanded by someone in Paradise to sacrifice his
own son of five years. The next morning the accused took his son to a mosque and killed him by thrusting
a knife in throat. He then went straight to his uncle, but finding a chowkidar nearby took his uncle to a tank
at some distance and slowly told him the story. In this case, the person concerned is not insane because he
has realization that he has done something against law, so he can’t get benefit of insanity.
 It lays down the legal test of responsibility in cases of alleged unsoundness of mind.
 There are four kinds of persons who may be said to be non compos mentis (not of sound mind):
(1) An idiot - (unsound by birth)
(2) One made non compos by illness - ( acquired insanity)
(3) A lunatic or a madman; and
(4) One who is insane due to habitual drinking - This defence is based on Mc Naughten’s case
decided in England.
before at the time of act after
insane not insane insane
no benefit of this provision
VIII. INTOXICATION(SEC. 85, I.P.C)
Intoxication can be of two types : 1. Involuntary 2. Voluntary
 Involuntary intoxication is a defence and a person will not be held liable for doing an act while in a state
of intoxication if at the time of doing it, due to intoxication, he was -
(i) Incapable of knowing the nature of the act, or
(ii) That he was doing something wrong or contrary to law;
Provided that the thing which intoxicated him was administered to him without his knowledge or
against his will.
 Voluntary drunkenness is no excuse for the commission of a crime. In other words, only involuntary
drunkenness is a defence.
 At the same time drunkenness does not, in the eye of the law, make an offence the more heinous.
For Example– In a case, the accused ravished a girl of thirteen years of age and, in furtherance of the act
of rape, placed his hand upon her mouth and his thumb upon her throat, thereby causing death by suffocation.
The sole defence was a plea of drunkenness. It was held that drunkenness was no defence unless it could
be established that the accused at the time of committing rape was so drunk that he was incapable of
forming the intent to commit the crime. Thefore he did not get benefit of this exception.
 12

IX. Consent(Sec. 90, I.P.C)

(A) Whenever harm is caused to consenting individuals, the offender should not be punished. It is based on
the well known Roman Maxim Volenti Non fit injuria which means he who consents cannot complain of it.
Consent excuses offences in following cases -
(1) Any harm other than intentional death / grievous hurt
(2) Even in case of any harm resulting in death if it was not intended (not desired) but known and
which occured without negligence.
(3) Anything which is not intended to cause death/grievous hurt is if it is due to consensual harm done
to a person above 18 years.
This provision is particularly intended to save the sportspersons from any criminal liability when they
cause injury in normal and natural play.
For Example– A and Z agrees to fence with each other for amusement. This agreement implies the
consent of each to suffer any harm which, in the course of such fencing, may be caused without foul play;
and if A, while playing fairly, hurts Z, A commits no offence, because there was consent and it was not done
in pursuance of guilty mind.
(B) Act not intended to cause death, done by consent in good faith for person’s benefit(Sec. 88,
I.P.C): Nothing, which is not intended to cause death, is an offence by reason of any harm which it
may cause, or be intended by the doer to cause, or be known by the doer to be likely to cause, to any
person for whose benefit it is done in good faith, and who has given a consent, whether express or
implied, to suffer that harm or to take the risk of that harm.
This provision is particularly intended to save the medical professionals from any criminal liability when
they cause injury while performing operations.
For Example– A, a surgeon, knowing that a particular operation is likely to cause the death of Z., who
suffers under a painful complaint, but not intending to cause Z’s death and intending in good faith Z’s
benefit performs that operation on Z, with Z’s consent. A has committed no offence, because the operation
was done in good faith for the benefit of the child and so there was no guilty mind. Therefore, there cannot
be any criminal liability.
(C) Act done in good faith for benefit of child or insane person with the consent of guardian or by
the guardian(Sec. 89, I.P.C) : Anything which is done in good faith for the benefit of a person under
twelve years of age, of unsound mind, by consent, either express or implied, of the guardian or other
person having lawful charge of that person, is not an offence by reason of any harm which it may
cause, or be intended by the doer to cause or be known by the doer to be likely to cause to that
person.
This provision is particularly intended to save the guardian or teacher from any criminal liability for
injury caused in good faith for the benefit of child or insane.
For Example– A, in good faith, for his child’s benefit without his child’s consent, has his child cut for the
stone by a surgeon. Knowing it to be likely that the operation will cause the child’s death, but not intending
to cause the child’s death. A is within the exception, inasmuch as his object was the cure of the child, it was
done in good faith so there was no guilty mind. Therefore, there cannot be any criminal liability.
 13

Consent is not a true consent if it is given:

1. By a person under fear of injury; and the person obtaining the consent knows or has reason to
believe this.
2. By a person under a misconception of fact;
3. By a person of unsound mind; and who is unable to understand the nature and consequence of that to
which he gives his consent.
4. By a person who is intoxicated;
5. By a person under twelve years of age.
(D) Act done in good faith for benefit of a person without consent(Sec. 92, I.P.C) : Anything is an
offence by reason of any harm which it may cause to a person for whose benefit it is done in good faith,
even without that person’s consent, if the circumstances are such that it is impossible for that person to
signify consent, if that person is incapable of giving consent, and has no guardian or other person in
lawful charge of him from whom it is possible to obtain consent in time for the thing to be done with
benefit.
This provision is particularly intended to save the benevolent person from any criminal liability for
injury caused in good faith for the benefit of the victim.
For Example–
(a) Z is carried off by a tiger. A fires at the tiger knowing it to be likely that the shot may kill Z, but not
intending to kill Z, and in good faith intending Z’s benefit. A’s ball gives Z a mortal wound. A has
committed no offence, because it was done in good faith so there was no guilty mind. Therefore,
there cannot be any criminal liability.
(b) Z is thrown from his horse, and is insensible. A, a surgeon, finds that Z requires to be trepanned. A,
not intending Z’s death but in good faith, for Z’s benefit, performs the trepan before Z recovers his
power of judging for himself. A has committed no offence, because it was done in good faith so
there was no guilty mind and so there cannot be any criminal liability.
(c) A, a surgeon, sees a child suffer an accident which is likely to prove fatal unless an operation, be
immediately performed. There is no time to apply to the child’s guardian. A performs the operation
in spite of the entreaties of the child, intending, in good faith, the child’s benefit. A has committed no
offence, because it was done in good faith so there was no guilty mind and so there cannot be any
criminal liability.
(d) A is in the house which is on fire, with Z, a child. People below hold out a blanket. A drops the
child from the house-top knowing it to be likely that the fall may kill the child, but not intending to
kill the child, and intending in good faith, the child’s benefit. Here, even if the child is killed by the
fall, A has committed no offence, because it was done in good faith so there was no guilty mind.
Therefore, there cannot be any criminal liability.
 14

X. COMMUNICATION MADE IN GOOD FAITH(SEC. 93, I.P.C)

No communication made in good faith is an offence by reason of any harm to the person to whom it is
made, if it is made for the benefit of that person.
For Example– A, a surgeon, in good faith, communicates to a patient his opinion that he cannot live. The
patient dies in consequence of the shock. A has committed no offence, though he knew it to be likely that
the communication might cause the patient’s death because it was done in good faith and without criminal
intention.
XI. ACT TO WHICH A PERSON IS COMPELLED
BY THREATS(SEC. 94, I.P.C.)
Except murder and offences against the State punishable with death, nothing is an offence which is
done by a person who is compelled to do it by threats, which at the time of doing it, reasonably cause the
apprehension that instant death to that person will otherwise be the consequence, provided the person
doing the act did not of his own accord, or from a reasonable apprehension of harm to himself short of
instant death, places himself in the situation by which he became subject to such constraint. If he is not
compelled by threat of instant death to do that then he will not get protection.
Examples–
(1) A person who, of his own accord, or by reason of a threat of being beaten, joins a gang of dacoits,
knowing their character, is not entitled to the benefit of this exception; It is due to the reason that
there is either voluntariness or absence of threat of instant death.
(2) A person seized by a gang of dacoits, and forced, by threat of instant death, to do a thing which is
an offence by law; For example, a smith compelled to take his tools and to force the door of a
house for the dacoits to enter and plunder it, is entitled to the benefit of this exception.
Conlusion: In first case he is not compelled by threat of instant death but in second case he is threatened
by instant death, so in this case he will avail the defence.
(XII) ACT CAUSING SLIGHT HARM(SEC. 95, I.P.C.)
Nothing is an offence which has resulted in slight harm of which no person of ordinary sense and
temper would complain of such harm.
The maxim de minimis non curat lex (the law takes no account of trifles) is the foundation of this
provision.
For Example– This section was applied -
(a) where a person was convicted for taking pods, almost valueless, from a tree standing on Government
waste land;
(b) where the accused committed theft of a cheque of no value; and
(c) where the plaintiff complained of the harm caused to his reputation by the imputation that he was
travelling with a wrong ticket.
(d) in case of an offence of misbranding; and
(e) the conduct of a lawyer in using filthy language in course of cross examination were treated as
trivial.
 15

Right of Private Defence(Sec. 96 - Sec. 106, I.P.C.)

Every time when an offence is likely to be committed or is committed against someone then it is not
necessary that they will avail help of public authorities. In such a situation law allows him to defend himself
or others against those offences.
Q. What is right of private defence?
The law of private defence provides that when a person is suddenly faced with an attack to his person
or property or to other’s person or property and immediate aid from the State machinery is not available
then that person is entitled to defend himself and resist the attack and to inflict on the attacker any harm that
is necessary for the purpose of defence.
Things done in private defence -
Nothing is an offence which is done in the exercise of the right of private defence.
For Example– Where a person was dispossessed of his land by a party of men and he ran to his residence
from where he fetched his gun and came back within fifteen minutes to fire at and injure them, he was held
to be within his rights, but when he went further still and chased and injured a person who was just standing
by there and who died, in reference to him the accused had no right to private defence.In later situation,
there was no apprehension of injury, so there was no reason for use of force.
Now the question arises against which offences it is available:
Every person has a right, to defend:
(i) His own body; and the body of any other person, against any offence affecting the human body.
For Example – Where a girl was being sexually molested and her father hit the assailant resulting in
consequential death, it was held that the father was entitled to the right of private defence irrespective of
the fact whether the affair was with or without consent because of the girl being a minor.
(ii) The property, whether movable or immovable, of himself or of any other person, against theft, robbery,
mischief or criminal trespass, or which is an attempt to commit them.
For Example– An illegal seizure of cattle with a view to impound them is theft and persons attempting to
resist the seizure by force, act in the exercise of the right of private defence of the property and are as such
entitled to the defence under this Code.
Q. What are the restrictions on exercise of the right to private defence?
Ans. There are following restrictions on the right of private defence:
(1) It is not available agaisnt a public servant or any person acting under direction of public servant against
any act done in good faith under colour of office, but this exception will not apply when his act causes
apprehension of death or grievous hurt.
For Example– In a case, where the property of a person was wrongfully attached as the property of the
absconders and the attachment was resisted by the rightful owner. It was held that the resistance could not
be said to be in the lawful exercise of the right of private defence as the police officer was acting in good
faith under colour of his office and even supposing that the order of attachment was not properly made,
that would in itself not be sufficient ground for such a defence.
 16

(2) It can’t be exercised when there is time to have recourse to public authority.
For Example– Where there is an element of invasion or aggression on the property by a person who has
right to possession then there is obviously no room to have recourse to the public authority and the
accused has the undoubted right to resist the attack and use even force, if necessary.
Q. When does the right of private defence of body extends to causing of death?
The right of private defence of the body extends to the voluntary causing of death if offence or harm to
the assailant, is of the nature of -
(i) Death
(ii) Grievous hurt (including acid attack)
(iii) Rape
(iv) Gratifying unnatural lust
(v) Kidnapping & abduction
(vi) Wrongful confinement under such circumstances that recourse to public authority is not possible.
Q. When does the right of private defence of property extend to causing of death?
The right of private defence of property extends, under the restrictions to the voluntary causing of
death of the wrongdoer, if the offence, is an offence/harm of any of the following descriptions:
(i) Robbery; (it includes dacoity as well)
(ii) House-breaking by night
(iii) Mischief by fire committed on any building, tent or vessel, which building, tent or vessel is used as
a human dwelling or as a place for the custody of property;
(iv) Theft, mischief or house-trespass under such circumstances as may reasonably cause apprehension
that death or grievous hurt will be the consequence, if such right private defence is not exercised
Important Points About Right of Private Defence
1. It is a right given to everyone in I.P.C. to defend person (body) or property.
2. It is private as this right can be exercised by private people like us in contradistinction to
defence or protection given by public officer like police.
3. It is right to defend in contrast to offend (i.e. commission of offence).
4. It is available to an innocent person and not to an offender (i.e. criminals).
5. This right is available to defend:(a) Person of yours or anyone else.(b) Property of yourself
or of others.
6. This right is not available in case where both parties fighting are equally culpable or criminal
or wrong.
7. Under exercise of this right anyone can use only reasonable force and minimal force to
avoid threat/offence.
8. This right is available till you have apprehension of injury.
9. This right can also be exercised against unsound person.
10. In certain cases, even death can be caused under right of private defence.