General Exceptions under

BNS
Sec 14-33 BNS
Unit 4
• Every offence is subject to general exception as per section 14-33 of the Sanhita.
• Section 102 Bhartiya Sakshya Adhiniyam, 2023 clearly lays down in case of general
exceptions of IPC. The burden of proof lies upon the accused and court shall
presume that no such circumstances existed. The implication is that even if the
court from the facts finds that one of the general exceptions is applicable the
court will not raise the issue itself. As it has to mandatorily presume that no such
circumstance existed. Thus the burden of raising the plea of general exception and
proving it lies strictly upon defence.
 Mistake of fact: (S 14 & 17)
• Sec. 14 & 17 deals with principles of mistake of fact.
• Mistake of law is not an excuse.
• Maxim- ‘Ignorantia Facti Excusat and Ignorantia Juris Non Excusat’ which means ignorance of fact excuses, ignorance
of law not an excuse.
Ingredients of S. 14-
• When a person is bound by law to do something and does it.
• When a person believes in good faith owing to a mistake of fact and not a mistake of law, that he is bound to do
something and does it.
• It is not an offence.
Ingredients of S.17-
This section exempts a man from criminal liability in those cases where by reason of a mistake of law, a man
considers himself justified by the law to do an act in a particular way.
Judicial Acts & Accident: (S 15, 16, 18 BNS)
• S. 15- Act of Judge when acting judicially
It must be done in good faith
• S. 16- Act done pursuant to the judgment or order of Court.
It must be done in good faith

• S. 18- Accident.
Objective of this section is there should not be any criminal intention.
5 ingredients should be fulfilled-
1. Act is done by accident or misfortune.
2. Act done was lawful.
3. By lawful means.
4. Done with due care and protection.
 Act done out of necessity: (S. 19)
S. 19- Act likely to cause harm, but done without criminal intent, and to prevent other harm.
• Maxim- ‘Quad Necessitas Non-Habet Legam’- necessity knows no law
• Absence of criminal intent is there.
Ingredients-
1. without criminal intent
2. to prevent other harm.
 Act done by a child: (S. 20 & 21)

• S 20. Act of a child under seven years of age is not an offence.

Maxim: Doli incapax- incapable of committing an offence
• S 21. Act of a child above seven and under twelve of immature
understanding is not a offence if proved he doesn’t have understanding
of what he is doing.
If there is no evidence to prove immature understanding, then court will
assume that child above 7yrs and below 12yrs understood the nature of
offence.
 Unsoundness of mind (S. 22)
• S 22: Act of a person of unsound mind.
Ingredients-
1. At the time of doing it
2. By reason of unsoundness of mind
3. Incapable of knowing-
a). Nature of the act b). What he is doing is either wrong or contrary to law
(medical unsoundness) (Legal unsoundness)
• Unsoundness of mind should be proved to have existed at the time when accused at the time
of doing the act & also before & after the act in the surrounding circumstances.
• It requires both medical & legal unsoundness.
• For Medical unsoundness there has to be pre-existing mental disease.
 M’Naughtan case:
• Facts: Defendant, M’Naghten was charged with the murder of Edward Drummond, secretary to the
Prime Minister and used the insanity defence at trial. At the time of his arrest, he told police that he came
to London to murder the Prime Minister because he was told to do so. The jury reached a verdict of not
guilty and a meeting at the House of Lords ensued in order to determine what the standards for the
insanity defence would be.
• Verdict: The jury reached a verdict of not guilty by reason of insanity.
• Held: Every man is presumed sane and to possess a sufficient degree of reason to be responsible for his
crimes. Therefore, in order to establish an insanity defence, it must be clearly proven that at the time of the
act, the accused was under such a defect of reason from disease of the mind that he did not know the
nature and quality of the act he was committing; or if he did know, he did not know what he was doing
was wrong.
• Two principle are-
Every person would be assumed sane until contrary is proved.
It must be clearly proved that at the time of commission of the crime the person was so insane that he did not
know the nature and quality of his act, or if he knew, he did not know that he was doing wrong.
 Intoxicated person (S. 23 & 24)
• S. 23: Act of a person incapable of judgment by reason of intoxication caused against his will.
1. Accused be intoxicated at the time of commission of an offence.
2. It should against the will and without knowledge. Involuntarily intoxication.
3. Because of intoxication he was not in a condition to know the nature of an offence.
Voluntary intoxication is no defence.
‘Delerium Tremeus’- if some disease is caused due to excessive intoxication.
• S. 24: Offence requiring a particular intent or knowledge committed by one who is intoxicated.
As if person having knowledge of what he is doing is wrong.
 Case: Basudev v State of Pepsu (1995 AIR SC 488)
• Basudev went to a marriage, in ‘Barat’. There he asked a person to stand and let him
sit. Person refused then Basudev killed a child. Later he showed remorseless and
started running away. Here he drank voluntarily and not incapable of knowing the
nature of the act.
• He was also knowing it was contrary to law and morally wrong.
• No defence was given.

Note: Irressitable impulse is not a defence u/s24.

 Acts done by consent (S.25-30)
• 25. Act not intended and not known to be likely to cause death or grievous hurt,
done by
• 26. Act not intended to cause death, done by consent in good faith for person's
benefit.—
• 27. Act done in good faith for benefit of child or insane person, by or by consent of
guardian.—
• 28. Consent known to be given under fear or misconception.—A consent is not
such a consent as
• 29. Exclusion of acts which are offences independently of harm cause.—The
exceptions in
• 30. Act done in good faith for benefit of a person without consent.—Nothing is an
offence by
 Communication made in good faith:
(S. 31)
Section 31- Communication made in good faith- No communication made in good faith is
an offence by
 Act causing slight harm S. 33
(de minimis non curat ex)
• Section-33. Act to which a person is compelled by threats.
 State of WB v Shew Mangal Singh (1981)
• The respondents, who are all Police officers, were tried by the learned Judge, City Sessions Court, Calcutta, under section 302 read with section 34 of the
Penal Code, on the charge that at about 10.00 p.m. On November 11, 1970 they, along with Bibhuti Chakraborty the then Deputy Commissioner of Police
(North Division), P. R. Dey, the then Assistant Commissioner of Police (N.S.) and some others, caused the death of Ranjit Chakraborty and Samir
Chakraborty by causing them gunshot injuries.

• Facts-The deceased Ranjit and his brother Samir were sitting outside their house when three police vehicles carrying the respondents and other Police
officers, numbering about 15 or 20 in all, suddenly stopped in front of the house. The Police officers, led by Bibhuti Chakraborty, rushed towards them
and their elder brother Benoy, with revolvers in their hands. Ranjit disclosed that he was a constable of the Calcutta Police and Samir said that he was an
N. V. F. cadet. Bibhuti Chakraborty then fired a shot from his revolver at Ranjit from a point-blank range. Respondent 2, Chitta Ranjan Ganguly, and
respondent 4, Bimal Thakur pursued Ranjit who had in the meanwhile rushed into his house. They dragged him out of the house, whereupon respondent
4 fired a shot at him. The other Police officers, including some of the respondents, also fired at Ranjit. In the meantime, the other brother Samir, who was
trying to get into the house, was caught hold of by some of the respondents and respondent 1, Shew Mangal Singh, fired a shot at him. Samir and Ranjit
were thereafter dumped in to a Police jeep and the convoy of the Police officers went to a place near Rajarghat on the bank of the river Hooghly. Samir
was crying in agony. Some of the Police officers who were sitting in an Ambassador car ordered that Samir's voice should be silenced. Thereupon
respondent 3 Anil Maitra: who was sitting in a jeep, fired a shot at him. Ranjit and Samir were then taken to R. G. Kar Hospital, where Ranjit was declared
dead. Samir died within a few minutes thereafter, before any medical assistance could be given to him. Their brother Benoy was taken into custody by the
Police Officers and was produced before a Magistrate on the following day, when he was released on bail.

• Respondents are undoubtedly not guilty of murder and the High Court' s judgment reflects its serious concern for justice. Judgments of acquittal are not to
be condemned as "lighthearted" for the reason that the Government considers that it has a stake in the conviction of the accused.

• The particular night on which the incident took place was cloudy and it was drizzling. It is very difficult to take the witnesses at their word when their
evidence suffers from various contradictions. The witnesses were deposing to the incident nearly nine years later. Their evidence is insufficient to establish
the complicity of the respondents in causing the death of the deceased. The surviving brother lodged the complaint more than a month after the incident.
The name of PW. 2 an important witness who was in the company of P.W. 1 from the beginning of the incident was not mentioned in the complaint.
 Prakash Nayi v State of Goa (2023)

• The case of the prosecution is that the appellant attacked the deceased at a store in which he was working, which belonged to the brother of his
grandfather, who did not have any issue. There was no motive and the overt act attributed is that he assaulted the deceased with an iron locking
plate without any provocation and premeditation. The occurrence took place on 14.05.2004 at 6:00 a.m. It was seen by PW2. He took the
material object and came out of the shop and went to the bus stand. Thereafter, he came back to the shop and left it there. He once again
walked to the bus stand and was sitting on a chair. He neither moved away from the said place nor made any attempt to leave.
• Section 84 IPC was pleaded- The section itself provides that the benefit is available only after it is proved that at the time of committing the act,
the accused was labouring under such a defect of reason, from disease of the mind, as not to know the nature and quality of the act he was
doing, or that even if he did not know it, it was either wrong or contrary to law then this section must be applied.
• Accused was suffering from anxiety neurosis with reactive depression and had symptoms of acid peptic disease and mild hypertension. The
treatment given to him was akin to one meant for schizophrenia.
• Two doctors were examined as AWs 1 and 2, for the fact that he was indeed suffering from schizophrenia.
• Court observed Schizophrenia is certainly an over-powering mental illness.
• The trial court of conviction and sentence of the appellant punishable under Section 302 of the IPC and the judgment and order dated
02.06.2008 of the High Court affirming the same are set aside.
• The appellant is acquitted of all the charges charged with.
 Cases:
• Basudev v State of Pepsu (1995 AIR SC 488)
• McNaughten’s case (10 CL. & F.,200)
• State of WB v Shew Mangal Singh (1981)
• Prakash Nayi v State of Goa (2023)
• Thank you.