Excusable Acts (General Exceptions)

Flowchart – NB 30

Intro

Excusable acts refer to acts that would otherwise be considered criminal but are not punishable due
to the circumstances surrounding the act. These acts are often excused because the individual
committing them lacks the intent or capacity to be held legally responsible, or because of external
factors that justify the act. Excusable acts fall under defences that release defendant from liability.

The Bhartiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 recognizes defences in Chapter III under “General Exceptions”.
Section 14 to 44 covers these defences which are based on the presumption that a person is not
liable for the crime committed. These defences depend upon the circumstances prevailing at that
point of time, mens rea of person and reasonability of action of that accused.

1. Mistake of Fact

Section 14 and 17 of BNS (earlier section 76 and 79 of IPC respectively) addresses the concept of
"Mistake of Fact," whereby an individual may not be held criminally liable if they commit an act
under a genuine and reasonable mistake regarding a fact that negates an essential element of the
crime. Acts done under a mistake of fact but not of law are excused.

Essentials

1. Existence of a Mistake: The accused must have acted under a mistake regarding a fact.

2. Materiality of the Fact: The mistaken belief must pertain to a fact that is relevant to the
offense. The fact must be one that, if true, would absolve the individual of criminal
responsibility.

3. Reasonableness: The belief in the mistaken fact must be reasonable. Courts assess this by
considering the circumstances surrounding the act and whether a reasonable person in a
similar situation would have held same belief.

4. Genuine Belief: The accused must genuinely believe in the existence of the fact as it pertains
to their actions, demonstrating that their actions stem from a sincere misunderstanding
rather than deceit or negligence.

Relevant Judgments

1. Krishna Ram Mahale v. Shobha Venkat Rao (AIR 1989 SC 2097)

This case elucidated the principles underlying mistake of fact. The Supreme Court reiterated that the
belief must not only be genuine but also reasonable. The court evaluated whether the accused had
taken adequate steps to ascertain the truth of the facts before acting on their belief.

2. R v. Tolson (1889) 23 QBD 168 (CCR)

R v. Tolson is an important reference for the principles of mistake of fact. The court held that a
woman who remarried, believing her first husband to be dead, could not be convicted of bigamy
because her belief was both genuine and reasonable under the circumstances. This highlights the
need to consider individual’s perspective and reasonableness of their beliefs when applying the
mistake of fact defense.

2. Act in Good Faith

Section 21 of BNS (formerly section 83 of IPC) addresses the concept of "Act in Good Faith,"
recognizing that individuals who act with honest intentions, even if their actions may result in harm
or unintended consequences, provided the person acted with due care and without criminal intent,
may not be held criminally liable.

Essentials

1. Honest Intention: The individual must demonstrate that their actions were motivated by a
genuine desire to benefit another person or the public.

2. Lack of Malicious Intent: The accused must show that there was no intention to cause harm
or injury to anyone.

3. Beneficial Purpose: The act must be aimed at achieving a positive outcome for the person or
group intended to benefit from the action.

4. Reasonable Conduct: While acting in good faith, the individual must also ensure that their
actions are reasonable under the circumstances. Recklessness or gross negligence may
invalidate the defense.

Relevant Judgments

1. State of Punjab v. Baldev Singh (1999) 6 SCC 172

The Supreme Court emphasized that an act performed in good faith, aimed at protecting another
person, could not attract criminal liability if it did not involve malice or ill will. The court underscored
the need for evaluating the intent behind the actions.

2. R. v. Brown [1993] UKHL 19

In this landmark case, the House of Lords ruled that acts performed in good faith, particularly in the
context of consensual activities, must be considered with an understanding of the intent to benefit
others.

3. Judicial Acts

Section 15 of BNS (earlier section 77 of IPC) deals with "Judicial Acts." This provision recognizes that
actions performed by individuals in their capacity as judicial officers, or under judicial authority,
should not attract criminal liability if those actions are conducted in good faith and within the scope
of their judicial functions.

This exception is crucial for maintaining the integrity of the judiciary and ensuring that judges and
other officials can perform their duties without fear of personal repercussions from their decisions.

Essentials

1. Judicial Authority: The individual must be a judge or magistrate acting within their judicial
capacity. This includes decisions made during court proceedings and any actions taken as
part of the judicial process.
 2. Exercise of Judicial Functions: The action must pertain to the exercise of judicial functions,
such as rendering judgments, issuing orders, or conducting trials.

3. Good Faith: The accused must demonstrate that the actions taken were intended to uphold
justice and were not driven by malice or improper motives.

Relevant Judgments

1. P. S. Bhatia v. State of Madhya Pradesh (1992)

In this case, the Supreme Court held that a judge could not be held liable for actions taken in the
course of judicial duties unless there was clear evidence of bad faith or misconduct.

2. S. S. Khandekar v. State of Maharashtra AIR ONLINE 2020 BOM 937

This case involved a complaint against a magistrate for allegedly passing an arbitrary order. The
Supreme Court ruled that the magistrate's actions were protected under Section 78 of IPC,
highlighting that the principle of judicial immunity must be upheld to allow judges to perform their
functions without undue interference.

4. Accident

Section 16 of BNS (formerly section 78 of IPC) addresses "Accident," recognizing that not all actions
resulting in harm or damage should be considered criminal when they occur unintentionally. This
ensures that individuals are not held liable for actions that occur due to unforeseen circumstances.

Essentials

1. Nature of the Act: The act must be lawful. This means that the individual must be engaging
in behavior that is legally permissible at the time of the incident.

2. Unintentional Harm: The act must result in unintended harm or damage and must not be a
result of the individual's intention or negligence.

3. Absence of Criminal Intent: There must be a complete lack of criminal intent or knowledge.

4. Lawful Purpose: The action must be undertaken for a lawful purpose. If an individual is
engaged in an illegal act, they cannot invoke the defense of accident, even if the resulting
harm was unintentional.

Relevant Judgments

1. R v. Smith [1959] 2 QB 35

This case from common law illustrates the principle of accident. The court ruled that if an act is
performed in the heat of the moment without any premeditated intent to harm, the accused should
not face criminal liability.

2. Navjot Singh Sidhu Case (1988)

In the Navjot Singh Sidhu case, Sidhu, was involved in a road rage incident in 1988, where he
allegedly hit a man leading to the man's death. Sidhu argued that there was no intention to cause
harm, claiming the death was accidental. The court, however, found him guilty. Section 80 of the IPC,
was not applicable as the act was not considered an accident but a result of his voluntary actions.

5. Absence of Criminal Intention

Section 19 of BNS (priorly section 81) of IPC addresses the exception of "Absence of Criminal
Intention," acknowledging that not all harmful actions should be criminally punishable if they occur
without intent to cause harm or wrongdoing. Criminal liability must be closely tied to the mental
state of the accused.

Essentials

1. Incapacity: The individual must demonstrate that they were incapable of forming the
requisite criminal intent at the time the act was committed. This incapacity could arise from
age, mental illness, or other conditions affecting judgment.

2. Good Faith Belief: Alternatively, the individual may claim that they acted in good faith under
the belief that their actions were justified, even if the belief was ultimately mistaken.

3. No Knowledge of Wrongdoing: The accused must have no knowledge that their actions
would result in harm or were otherwise wrongful.

4. Legal Context: The act must still fall within a lawful context; if the act itself is illegal, this
exception would not apply, even in the absence of criminal intention.

Relevant Judgments

1. Shankar v. State of Maharashtra (2011)

The Supreme Court ruled that a defendant who acted under a genuine belief that they were justified
in their actions, even if that belief was mistaken, should not be held criminally liable.

2. Ram Prasad v. State of Uttar Pradesh (1973 AIR 2673)

In this case, the court emphasized that a person who lacks the capacity to form intent due to age or
mental condition should not face criminal charges.

6. Act of Child

Section 20 and 21 and BNS (earlier section 82 and 83 of IPC) recognizes "Act of a Child" as an
exception to criminal liability. It exempts children based on understanding that minors lack the
maturity, mental capacity, and comprehension of nature of their actions required to be held liable.

The law embodies the principle of "doli incapax," which means that a child is presumed incapable of
forming criminal intent. Section 20 says that children under seven years cannot be held criminally
responsible in any case. However, section 21 grant conditional immunity to children between seven
and twelve years, contingent upon their maturity and understanding.

Essentials

1. Age of the Child: A child below the age of seven years is absolutely exempt from criminal
liability. However, a child between the ages of seven and twelve years may also be exempt if
it is demonstrated that they lack sufficient maturity to understand the nature and
consequences of their actions.

2. Understanding of Maturity: For children aged seven to twelve, the burden lies on the court
to assess whether the child has attained the necessary intellectual and emotional maturity to
comprehend their actions.
 3. Absence of Criminal Intent: It is presumed that young children are incapable of forming
criminal intent or understanding the moral wrongness of their acts.

Relevant Judgments

1. Nirbhaya Rape Case

The Nirbhaya case of 2012 involved a brutal gang rape and murder of a woman in Delhi. Six men,
including a juvenile, were arrested. However, as the juvenile was 17, despite him committing a
heinous crime, he was tried under the Juvenile Justice Act.

2. Hiralal Mallick v. State of Bihar (1977 AIR 2236)

The Supreme Court held that a child aged 10 years could not be convicted for theft, as the evidence
clearly showed that the child lacked the capacity to understand the consequences of their act.

7. Insanity

Section 22 of BNS (priorly section 84 of IPC) addresses the exception of "Insanity," recognizing that
individuals who are mentally ill and unable to understand the nature of their actions or the
wrongfulness of those actions should not be held liable.

Essentials

1. Mental Illness: The individual must be diagnosed with a mental disorder that impairs their
ability to understand their actions. This mental illness must be severe enough to affect their
judgment.

2. Lack of Understanding: The accused must demonstrate that they were incapable of
understanding the nature of the act they committed.

3. Temporal Context: The insanity must exist at the time of the offense. If the individual was
sane at the time but later developed a mental illness, the defense may not apply.

4. Expert Testimony: Evidence from mental health professionals is typically required to

substantiate claims of insanity. Courts often rely on psychiatric evaluations to determine the
mental state of the accused.

Relevant Judgments

1. State of Madhya Pradesh v. Dinesh I (2007) DMC 692

In this case, the Supreme Court ruled that an accused could not be held liable if they were found to
be suffering from a serious mental illness at the time of the crime.

2. R v. Daniel McNaughten (1843) 8 E.R. 718

In R v. Daniel McNaughten (1843), the accused attempted to kill the UK Prime Minister but
mistakenly shot his bodyguard. McNaughten suffered from delusions, believing all his problems were
due to the PM's policies, and was unaware of his actions. Simple questions were used to assess his
mental state. He was acquitted on grounds of insanity, leading to the formulation of the McNaughten
Rules.

8. Intoxication
Section 23 and 24 of BNS (earlier section 85 and 86 of IPC) pertains to "Intoxication," recognizing that
individuals who commit acts under the influence of intoxication may not possess the necessary mens
rea required for liability.

Essentials

1. State of Intoxication: The individual must be in a state of intoxication due to the

consumption of alcohol or drugs. This intoxication should be significant enough to impair
their mental faculties.

2. Lack of Awareness: The accused must demonstrate that they were incapable of
understanding the nature of their actions due to the intoxicated state.

3. Voluntary Intoxication: The defense typically applies to cases of voluntary intoxication. If the
intoxication was involuntary, the case may not stand.

4. Timing: The intoxication must exist at the time of the offense.

Relevant Judgments

1. Basdev v. State of Pepsu (1956 AIR 488)

In this case, the accused, intoxicated at a wedding, shot a boy after warning him to leave the area
where meals were being served. The accused claimed the intoxication was involuntary, as it was a
family custom. However, court held that intoxication does not excuse liability if the person still knew
the nature of act. Since accused understood his actions, the defence of intoxication was rejected.

2. K. P. M. v. State of Uttar Pradesh (AIR 2008 SC 2781)

The Supreme Court emphasized that voluntary intoxication could serve as a defense if it affected the
accused's ability to form intent.

9. Consent

Section 25 to 29 of BNS (priorly section 87-91 of IPC) pertains to "Consent," recognizing that certain
acts, even if they result in harm, may not be considered offenses if they are conducted with the valid
consent of the injured party. However, consent must be free and informed.

Essentials

1. Valid Consent: The consent must be given voluntarily; without coercion, undue influence, or
pressure. The individual must have the capacity to consent.

2. Informed Consent: The person giving consent must be adequately informed about the
nature and consequences of the act. If the consent is based on misinformation or lack of
understanding, it may be rendered invalid.

3. Legality of the Act: The act itself must not be illegal. Consent cannot be used as a defense for
actions that are expressly prohibited by law, even if both parties agree to the act.

4. No Misconception of Fact: If the consent is given under a misconception of fact then the
defense may not apply.

Relevant Judgments

1. Mohd. Aftab v. State of Uttar Pradesh (2017)

In this case, the Supreme Court ruled that consent given for a medical procedure, where the patient
was informed of the risks, could not be grounds for liability if complications arose. This judgment
emphasized the need for informed consent in medical contexts and aligned with the principles
established in Section 80 of the BNS.

12. Trifling Acts

The principle of de minimis non curat lex, which means "the law does not concern itself with trifles,"
is recognized by section 33 of BNS (earlier 95 of IPC). It provides that law will not take notice of trivial
matters that do not warrant judicial scrutiny and unnecessarily invocate legal machinery for matters
that are insignificant.

Essentials

1. Trivial Nature of the Act: The act must be of such a minor nature that it is not considered
offensive or harmful in the eyes of a reasonable person.

2. No Legal Consequence: The act should have no significant legal consequence. It should
neither infringe on another person’s rights nor cause measurable harm or damage.

Relevant Judgments

1. Vishwanath v. State of Maharashtra (2017)

In this case, the court dealt an individual who was accused of causing minor harm by stepping on
someone’s foot during public event. Court ruled that act was to trivial to warrant proceedings.

13. Private Defense

Section 34-44 of BNS (earlier 96-106 of IPC) recognizes "Private Defense" as a right of individuals to
protect themselves or others from imminent harm or unlawful aggression. The concept of private
defense serves to balance individual's right to self-protection with need to maintain public order.

Essentials

1. Imminent Threat: There must be an immediate and unlawful threat to the individual or
others. The defense cannot be claimed for past threats or anticipated future threats.

2. Proportionality: The response to the threat must be proportionate. This means that the
force used in defense should not exceed what is necessary to avert the threat.

3. Legitimacy of Threat: The threat must be unlawful. The right to private defense does not
apply to situations where the individual is the aggressor or is engaging in unlawful conduct.

4. Intent: The intention behind the act must be to protect oneself or others from harm, rather
than to inflict harm on the aggressor.

Relevant Judgments

1. State of Maharashtra v. Jagtap (2001 CRI LJ 1579 Bom)

In this case, the court held that the accused acted in private defense when he used force against an
aggressor who posed an immediate threat to his safety.