General Exceptions in BNS - Chapter III Sections 14-44 Complete Guide

Chapter IV of the IPC captioned 'General Exceptions', comprising ss 76 to 106, exempts certain persons from criminal liability. An act or omission of an accused even though prima facie falls within the terms of a section defining an offence or prescribing a punishment therefore, does not constitute an offence if it is covered by any of the exceptions' enumerated in the ch IV. The general exceptions, in ultimate analysis, limit and override offences and penal provisions of the Code. The title 'General Exceptions is used to convey that these 'exceptions' are available to all offences.

Object of this Chapter

Every penal clause is subject to a number of limitations and no offence can be absolute without any exceptions. An offence committed by a child or by a mentally ill person cannot obviously be treated in the same manner as an offence committed by a sane adult. Similarly, liability cannot be fixed on persons who would have committed an offence by accident, under threat, by necessity or in private defence, in the same manner as a person who has committed an offence with an evil intention or design.

Instead of qualifying every offence with the limitations or exceptions, a separate chapter has been enacted which is applicable to the entire Code. This is basically to avoid repetition. Section 6 of the Code provides that- "Throughout this Code every definition of an offence, every penal provision, and every illustration of every such definition or penal provision, shall be understood subject to the exceptions contained in the Chapter entitled 'General Exceptions', though those exceptions are not repeated in such definition, penal provision or illustration.

Section 6, thus, mandates a court to read every definition of an offence or penal provision including the illustrations appended thereto subject to General Exceptions.

Categorization of Exception

1. Excusable Exceptions

Law excuses certain classes of persons, even though their acts constitute an offence. Acts of infants, insane or intoxicated persons and acts done under mistake of fact or by accident fall under this category. In the excusable defences, the act is excused for want of the necessity of requirements of a guilty mind. This category of exceptions, thus, treats an actus reus as non-criminal because of the absence of the requisite mens rea.

2. Justifiable Exceptions

Acts committed, though are offences, are held to be justifiable under certain circumstances and hence exempted from the provisions of the IPC. Acts done by a person justified in law; judicial acts; acts done out of necessity, under duress, with consent; and acts done in private defence of body or property, fall under the second category. Act done is justified on account of some other meritorious considerations neutralising the corresponding liability otherwise incurred.

Burden of Proof

It is the fundamental rule of criminal jurisprudence that a person is innocent until proved guilty. This means that there is always a presumption of innocence in favor of an accused and the burden of proving every aspect of the crime is solely on the prosecution. The standard of proof required is very high. The prosecution has to prove the guilt of the accused beyond reasonable doubt.

However, Section 105 of the Indian Evidence Act 1872 (Evidence Act) places the burden on the accused to prove that the case falls within one of the general exceptions. It provides that the court shall presume the absence of such circumstances', which may bring the accused within the exceptions set out in ch IV of the IPC. It calls upon the accused to show that the circumstances bringing the case within the exceptions are present, as the court cannot suo moto presume the existence of the circumstances.

Though, the burden of proof in respect of proving the existence of circumstances that might bring the case within the exceptions provided in ch IV of the Code is on the accused, the standard of proof required is not the same as that of the prosecution. The accused discharges his burden of proof as soon as he proves the preponderance of probability of the existence of the circumstances bringing his case within the general exceptions. Once a prima facie case of the existence of circumstances that brings the case within any of the general exceptions is made out, the burden once again shifts on the prosecution to prove beyond doubt the guilt of the accused and to establish that the general exception relied on by the accused does not exist. This primary burden on the prosecution never shifts.