This Article is Written by Paramjeet Kaur of Himachal Pradesh National University of 1st Semester, Intern under Legal Vidhiya
Introduction
Ignorantiafacti doth excusat; ignorantia juris non excusat” The Indian Penal Code, 1860 offers some general defence which can give an indicted person impunity from felonious responsibility which is grounded on a principle that though the person committed the offence, he cannot be held liable. This is because at the time of the commission of the offence, his conduct were justified or there was no mens rea. still, he’ll not be held liable as per the defences handed under Chapter 4 of IPC. The Indian Penal Code, 1860 offers some general defence which can give an indicted person impunity from felonious responsibility which is grounded on a principle that though the person committed the offence, he can not be held liable. This is because at the time of the commission of the offence, his conduct were justified or there was no mens rea. still, he’ll not be held liable as per the defences handed under Chapter 4 of IPC. The Indian Penal Code provides some general defences under chapter four that exculpate felonious liability which grounded on the premise that though the person committed the offence, he can not be held liable. This is because at the time of commission of offence, person was justified of his/ her acts, or there was absence of mens rea. still, it isn’t all acts that are to be penalized. There are certain defences handed under the dimension of Indian Penal Code( IPC), 1860 from Sections 76 to 106. Some exceptions similar as mistake of fact, accident and necessity are available when person was incorrect to actuality of some data and act done without felonious intention. still, as per Section 105 of Indian Substantiation Act, 1872, the burden of evidence regarding actuality of a situation of general defences lies on the indicted. Accident With this defence a person can escape felonious liability where similar act of person occurs as a result of accident. similar act must be devoid of intention. The law doesn’t intend to discipline a man of the effects over which he could conceivably have no control. Section 80 of IPC addresses accidents as a general defence. Section 80 Accident in doing a legal act. – Nothing is an offence which is done by accident or mischance, and without any felonious intention or knowledge in the doing of a legal act in a legal manner by legal means and with proper care and caution. An accident must be unintentional and unanticipated. It implies passing which can not be prognosticated by prudent man. According to Section 80, any act done without felonious intent or with knowledge with proper care and palladium while doing a legal act in a legal manner with legal means will constitute an accident. still, if there’s no connection between the detriment and the act, also there may be no liability for the detriment caused. The protection under this section will apply only if the act is a result of an accident or a mischance. The word’ accident’ is deduced from the lain word’ accidere’ signifying’ fall upon, transpire, be, chance ’. To bring an act within the legal meaning of the term’ accident’, an essential demand is that the happening must be one to which mortal fault doesn’t contribute. Accident and mischance means not just the passing of the unanticipated or unintended event, but it also means that similar unanticipated or unintended event, but it also means that similar unanticipated or unintended act redounded in injury to another. therefore indeed injuries in sports and games are covered in this section. Accidents have always been honoured as a valid defence to felonious liability, handed certain other conditions are also satisfied. First, the act under question should be’ without any felonious intention or knowledge. Secondly, the accident should have passed while doing a legal act in a legal manner by legal means. Thirdly, the legal act should have been done with proper care and caution. still, also an act done by accident or mischance won’t be an offence If these three criteria are satisfied. For the operation of this section, it’s essential to establish that the act was done without any’ felonious intention or knowledge. In other words, it must be without men rea or shamefaced mind. An act which was intended or known, can not obviously be an accident. To mileage protection under this section, an act should be an accident, done without any felonious intention and such an act should also be a law.However, this section will have no operation, If an act isn’t legal or isn’t done in a legal manner by legal means. illustration, an indicted gave a kick to a trespasser for the purpose of turning him out of the house. trespasser failed as result of the kick. The court set up him shamefaced as’ a kick isn’t maintainable mode of turning a man out of the house’ The accidental act shouldn’t only be without any felonious intention and a legal act, but the said legal act should also have been exercised with proper care and caution. What’s anticipated isn’t the utmost care, but sufficient care that prudent and reasonable man would consider acceptable, in the circumstances of the case.
Case Laws
In State of Orissa v. KhoraGhasi (1978) Cri LJ 1305, in this case, the accused killed the victim by shooting an arrow with the bona fide belief that he was shooting a bear that entered into the fields to destroy his crops, the death was said to be accident.
If the accident occurs while doing an unlawful act, the act would not attract the provision of Section 80 of IPC. In Jogeshwar V. Emperor (24 Cri LJ 789), the accused was giving the fist blow to the victim but accidently hit his wife who was holding her 2 month old child, the blow hit the head of the child which resulted in his death. It was held that even though the child was hit by accident, the act was not lawful, not done by lawful means or in a lawful manner.
Necessity:
Defence of necessity applied, when a person in order to prevent greater harm from taking place, commits a crime or a criminal act during an emergency situation, wherein accused can escape criminal liability because his/her act was justified as he/she had the intention to prevent a situation which would cause greater harm as compared to the criminal act committed by him or her.
Section 81: Act likely to cause harm, but done without criminal intent, and to prevent other harm.__Nothing is an offence merely by reason of its being done with the knowledge that is likely to cause harm, if it be 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.
An act of accused in order to prevent greater harm without any criminal intention falls under the ambit of necessity. Such act must be done in good faith in order to prevent the happening of great harm. The question of motive is of no importance, where positive evidence does exist in the favor of accused.
Difference between Accident and Necessity Section
80 and 81 are similar sections, the former haggling with accidents and the ultimate with ineluctable accidents. still, there’s a difference as to the nature and extend of mens rea specified under both these sections. Section 80 stipulates the absence of felonious intention as well as felonious knowledge. But Section 81 stipulates the absence of felonious intention alone. therefore, the term’ without felonious intention’ or’ knowledge’ are present in section 80, whereas, the term used in section 81 is’ without felonious intention’ alone. In fact, section 81 easily contemplates a situation where the indicted has knowledge that’s likely to beget detriment, but it’s specifically quested that similar knowledge shall not be held against him. therefore in certain situations indeed though the presence of knowledge is sufficient mens rea, in this section, knowledge alone won’t be sufficient if there’s absence of felonious intention. Knowledge has been described as mindfulness of consequences of the act. The demarking line between knowledge and intention is no doubt thin, but it isn’t delicate to perceive that they connote different effects. The impunity from felonious liability under this section will be available where an offence is committed without any felonious intention, to beget detriment and in good faith and if similar offence is committed for the purpose of precluding or avoiding other detriment or property. The detriment caused need not be inescapably lower than the detriment prevented, though this question would come material when judging the good faith of an act. The explanation to the section provides that the defense for the detriment caused and whether the threat caused should be excused, is a question of fact to be determined in each case. The question, whether the doctrine of necessity can be applied as a defense for killing another mortal being, is a veritably tricky question. The usual view that necessity is no defence to a charge of murder. But, killing becomes much more delicate in cases of exigency. Killing a person in tone defence may appear to be an illustration of necessity. While tone defence may appear to be an illustration of necessity. While tone defence may lap necessity, the two aren’t the same. Private defence operates only against raiders. Generally, the raiders are wrong doers, while the persons against whom action is taken by necessity, may not be raiders or wrong doers. Unlike necessity, private defence involves no balancing of values.
Case Laws
In Gopal Naiduv. Emperor( 1923) ILR 46 Bom 605, the police officers were shamefaced of the offence of unlawful confinement for disarming and restraining a crapulous man carrying a revolver in his hand. Though the offence of public nuisance was a non-cognizable offence without leave, it was held that they can maintain defense under this defence. In this case, the Madras High Court held that the person or property to be defended may be person or property of the indicted himself or of others. The word detriment in this section means’ physical injury.’
In Rv. Dudley and Stephens( 1884) 14 QBD 273 DC, in this case, three grown-ups and one minor were cast adrift in a boat following a shipwreck without food and water. Their food ran out 7 days before the storm and they had no water for 5 days. Dudley suggested to immolation the minor boy as he was too weak to which Brook refused. On the 20th day Dudley and Stephens without the concurrence of Brooks killed the boy as he was close to death and had no family. All three fed on the boy and were saved four days latterly. In this case, defence of necessity wasn’t held valid and they were condemned for murder.
Conclusion
The felonious law deals with the different corrections for colourful crimes mentioned in the Indian Penal Code, 1860. Though the person commits an offence, he may not be held liable for an offence committed. It’s because every offence isn’t absolute, they’ve certain exceptions. These exceptions are handed under Chapter 4 of IPC. Through this chapter, the law bestows certain defences which escape the indicted from felonious liability and its corrections. These defences are grounded on the principle that though a person commits an offence, he’ll not be held liable. It’s because there won’t be the shamefaced intention at the commission of act. According to accident, mentioned under Section 80 of the Indian Penal Code, it’s considered an condonable act which escapes one from the responsibility of crime for the acts devoid of mens rea, at the end of action, are exempted from felonious liability. The general defences elevated under IPC are of consummate significance in establishing the parameters of felonious offences. Felonious liability makes a person liable for the acts which are banned by law. Indian Penal Code took cognizance of fact that all acts aren’t to be penalized. The acts devoid of mens rea are exempted from felonious liability.
0 Comments