general exception under section 78 and 79

 GENERAL EXCEPTION UNDER SECTION 78 AND 79

S

INTRODUCTION

The Criminal law have different punishments that fluctuate from one case to another. However, it isn't generally vital that an individual will be punished for a wrongdoing which the individual had perpetrated. The Indian Penal Code, 1860 perceives defences in Chapter IV under “General Exceptions”. Section 76 to 106 covers these defences which depend on the assumption that an individual isn't at risk for the wrongdoing perpetrated.  These defences rely on mens rea of individual and sensibility of activity of that accused. At the point when IPC was introduced, it was accepted that there is no exemptions in criminal cases which was significant escape clause. So a different Chapter IV was presented by the producers of the Code applicable to the whole idea. The General Exceptions are separated into 2 classifications: 

• Excusable Acts – These are those acts wherein however the individual had caused hurt, yet that individual ought to be pardoned on the grounds that he can't be blamed for the act. Section 79 of IPC is covered under this.

• Judicially Justifiable Acts – These acts would have been illegitimate under typical conditions yet there are some conditions which makes the act tolerable and adequate. Section 78 is covered under this.

CRITICAL ANALYSIS

Section 78 - This section states that if an act is committed at the time of the imposition of a decision or order of a court, it will not be considered an offence, even if the court does not have jurisdiction to pass such a decision. However, the act must be done in good faith that the court has such jurisdiction. Under this section, one can plead a mistake of law as a defence. This section provides protection to officers acting under the authority of a court’s decision or order of a Court of justice. The essential ingredients for the application of section 78 are.

1. There must be an order or judgment of the court.

2. The order or judgment must be in force.

3. The court, passing such an order or judgment, may or may not have the required jurisdiction to pass such an order.

4. The person executing such an order or judgment in good faith and by exercising due diligence, trusts that the court of law had jurisdiction.

 Illustration: Omi, an officer of the court, arrested Binoy, following the court’s order. Here, Omi has committed no offence.  In a case of Kapoor Chand v State, a court order was given against a minor wedded young lady by her mom for her recovery. The mother of the young lady got a court order under Section 100 of Cr. P. C. The officer having recorded the assertion of the young lady guided her to be given to her significant other. Here, if the spouse and his colleagues attempt to cause her to sit in a car, they would not commit offense as they are completely ensured under Section 78 of IPC.

Section 79 – It deals with cases where a person under the mistake considers himself to be simply justified or excused by the law to act in a particular way. The ingredients of section 79 are as follows:

1. Act committed by a person should be a mistake of fact.

2. Mistake that has been committed is of fact and not of law.

3. The mistake that has committed should be in good faith.

4. The person that does the act should be justified by law or should trust that mistake it is justified by the law in doing such act.

Illustration: A was being tried for stealing the umbrella belonging to B. A has pleaded that he was intoxicated at the time of taking the umbrella and mistakenly believed that the umbrella was his own. The defence is justifiable because A mistook another’s umbrella to be his own in good faith. 

ANALYSIS WITH CASE – DEPLOYING IRAC METHOD

In Chirangi v. State, Chirangi Lohar visited a hillock together with his son. When he returned home and slept, his nephew found that the son is not with him and he features an axe which was stained with blood. On being enquired he said that he became insane and that he killed his son on the fallacy that a tiger was approaching him. His statement of being insane was proved by his psychiatrist. Moreover, both father and son had a really good relationship between them which further proves that Chirangi had no reason to kill his own son. Whether Chirangi Lohar will be getting defence as mistake of fact. (I)

A mistake of fact emerges when an individual does any act yet misjudged some undeniable reality that refutes a part of the wrongdoing. A mistake of fact is a defence to different crimes. In the event that the criminal litigant can demonstrate that he does the act believing it to be a mistake of fact or misjudged some incontrovertible fact that refutes a part of the wrongdoing. (R) The accused during a second of delusion accepted his solitary child to be a horrible creature, a tiger and consequently attacked him with an axe. It had been held that he was legitimized as he mixed up an individual's being to be a risky creature and wasn’t responsible for his mistake. The defence of mistake of fact was applied and therefore the accused Chirangi Lohar wasn’t responsible for the offence of killing his own son as he was into a belief that there was a tiger that was approaching towards him. (A) 

As observed during this case a father kills his own son believing, in straightness, him to be a tiger. It had been observed that a hunter mistakes a person for an animal and often fires a shot. Similarly, here, through an error a person meaning to do a lawful act has done that which is unlawful. There has not been any conjunction between his act and his will, which is important to make a criminal act. If there was no malice aforethought, there was an error therefore it is going to be no crime. (C)

CONCLUSION

These defences are given to judges and persons following their order or court judgement so that they perform their act fearlessly and effectively. The work performed by Hangman is not easier for himself also but its his duty to take somebody’s life. Section 78 of Indian Penal Code protects him from any case like the violation of right to life and any other cases. Section 79 helps people who acts in mistake of fact and thinks that they are doing something justified according to law. If one person acting in self defence and kills him and another third person sees it and if he stop that person in good faith thinking he had done murder, so third person can take the defence section 79. These both section protects persons either acting according to judgement, order or in good faith. 

REFERENCES 

C K TAKWANI (THAKKER), INDIAN PENAL CODE IPC, (EBC Reader, First Edition, 2014).

Hema Modi, General Exceptions Under Indian Penal Code, IPLEADERS, Dec. 14, 2019.

Kapoor Chand v State (1976) 3 Cr LT 370 (India). 

Chirangi v. State (1952) Cri LJ 1212 (India).