| Act done by a person bound, or by mistake of fact believing himself bound by law |
76. Nothing is an offence which is done by a person who is, or who by reason of a mistake of fact and not by reason of a mistake of law in good faith believes himself to be, bound by law to do it. | | (a) A, a soldier, fires on a mob by the order of his superior officer, in conformity with the commands of the law. A has committed no offence. |
| | (b) A, an officer of a court of justice, being ordered by that court to arrest Y, and, after due enquiry, believing Z to be Y, arrest Z. A has committed no offence. |
|
|
[Indian PC 1860, s. 76] |
| Act of judge when acting judicially |
| 77. Nothing is an offence which is done by a judge when acting judicially in the exercise of any power which is, or which in good faith he believes to be, given to him by law. [Indian PC 1860, s. 77] |
| Act done pursuant to the judgment or order of a court of justice |
| 78. Nothing which is done in pursuance of, or which is warranted by, the judgment or order of a court of justice, if done while the judgment or order remains in force, is an offence, notwithstanding the court may have had no jurisdiction to pass the judgment or order, provided the person doing the act in good faith believes that the court had such jurisdiction. [Indian PC 1860, s. 78] |
| Act done by a person justified, or by mistake of fact believing himself justified by law |
79. Nothing is an offence which is done by any person who is justified by law, or who by reason of a mistake of fact and not by reason of a mistake of law in good faith believes himself to be justified by law, in doing it. | | (a) A sees Z commit what appears to A to be a murder. A, in the exercise, to the best of his judgment exerted in good faith, of the power which the law gives to all persons of apprehending murderers in the act, seizes Z, in order to bring Z before the proper authorities. A has committed no offence, though it may turn out that Z was acting in self-defence. |
| | (b) A, a police officer, is deployed to perform the duty of screening passengers boarding a flight at the airport. A sees Z, a passenger queuing up to be screened, acting suspiciously. As A approaches Z, Z suddenly shouts aloud that he is carrying a bomb and warns A not to approach further. As A draws his revolver, Z suddenly starts to run away. A, after assessing the circumstances of the case, and to the best of his judgment exerted in good faith, believes that Z has a bomb and will set it off. A shoots Z and Z dies as a result. A has committed no offence, even though it may turn out that Z was not carrying a bomb. |
| | (c) A, a police officer, is deployed to perform patrol duty at an underground train station. A receives information from police headquarters that someone is attempting to plant a bomb in the public transport system. The profile of the suspect is also provided. While patrolling the underground train station, A sees Z, who fits the profile. Z is seen carrying a backpack and behaving suspiciously. A approaches Z and orders him to stop. Z suddenly starts running towards a crowd in the station. A, after assessing the circumstances of the case, and to the best of his judgment exerted in good faith, believes that Z has a bomb and will set it off. A shoots Z and Z dies as a result. A has committed no offence, even though it may turn out that Z was not carrying a bomb. |
| | (d) X, the commander of a naval vessel, is patrolling Singapore territorial waters. X receives information that someone may hijack a vessel in order to commit a terrorist act. X spots vessel A which is proceeding at high speed towards a cruise liner. X orders vessel A to stop her manoeuvre immediately and fires a warning signal. Vessel A instead starts accelerating towards the cruise liner. X, after assessing the circumstances of the case, and to the best of his judgment exerted in good faith, believes that vessel A is going to ram into the cruise liner. X gives an order to fire at vessel A. The persons on board vessel A die as a result. X has committed no offence, even though it may turn out that vessel A was not hijacked nor were there any terrorist on board. |
|
|
[51/2007] [Indian PC 1860, s. 79] |
| Accident in the doing of a lawful act |
80. Nothing is an offence which is done by accident or misfortune, and without any criminal intention or knowledge, in the doing of a lawful act in a lawful manner, by lawful means, and with proper care and caution. | | A is at work with a hatchet; the head flies off and kills a man who is standing by. Here, if there was no want of proper caution on the part of A, his act is excusable and not an offence. |
|
|
[Indian PC 1860, s. 80] |
| Act likely to cause harm but done without a criminal intent, and to prevent other harm |
81. Nothing is an offence merely by reason of its being done with the knowledge that it 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.| Explanation.—It is a question of fact in such a case whether the harm to be prevented or avoided was of such a nature and so imminent as to justify or excuse the risk of doing the act with the knowledge that it was likely to cause harm. |
| | | (a) A, the captain of a steam vessel, suddenly and without any fault or negligence on his part, finds himself in such a position that, before he can stop his vessel, he must inevitably run down a boat B, with 20 or 30 passengers on board, unless he changes the course of his vessel, and that, by changing his course he must incur risk of running down a boat C, with only 2 passengers on board, which he may possibly clear. Here, if A alters his course without any intention to run down the boat C, and in good faith for the purposes of avoiding the danger to the passengers in the boat B, he is not guilty of an offence, though he may run down the boat C, by doing an act which he knew was likely to cause that effect, if it be found as a matter of fact that the danger which he intended to avoid was such as to excuse him in incurring the risk of running down the boat C. |
| | (b) A in a great fire pulls down houses in order to prevent the conflagration from spreading. He does this with the intention, in good faith, of saving human life or property. Here, if it be found that the harm to be prevented was of such a nature and so imminent as to excuse A’s act, A is not guilty of the offence. |
| | (c) X, the commander of a naval vessel, is deployed in response to a threat of a terrorist attack against a ferry terminal in Singapore. X receives information that vessel A, with a crew of 6, has been hijacked by terrorists and is approaching the ferry terminal at great speed and is likely to collide into the terminal. There is insufficient time to evacuate the persons at the terminal, which is estimated to be about 100. X orders vessel A to stop her manoeuvre immediately and fires a warning signal. However, vessel A continues her advance towards the terminal. Here, if X gives an order to fire at vessel A to disable it, without any intention to cause harm to the crew members of vessel A, and in good faith for the purpose of avoiding the danger to the persons at the terminal, he is not guilty of an offence. This is so even though he knows that he is likely to cause harm to the crew members of vessel A, if it be found as a matter of fact that the danger which X intends to avoid is such as to excuse him in incurring the risk of firing at vessel A. |
|
|
[51/2007] [Indian PC 1860, s. 81] |
| Act of a child under 7 years of age |
| 82. Nothing is an offence which is done by a child under 7 years of age. [Indian PC 1860, s. 82] |
| Act of a child above 7 and under 12 years of age, who has not sufficient maturity of understanding |
| 83. Nothing is an offence which is done by a child above 7 years of age and under 12, who has not attained sufficient maturity of understanding to judge of the nature and consequence of his conduct on that occasion. [Indian PC 1860, s. 83] |
| Act of a person of unsound mind |
| 84. Nothing is an offence which is done by a person who, at the time of doing it, by reason of unsoundness of mind, is incapable of knowing the nature of the act, or that he is doing what is either wrong or contrary to law. [Indian PC 1860, s. 84] |
| Intoxication when a defence |
85.—(1) Except as provided in this section and in section 86, intoxication shall not constitute a defence to any criminal charge.(2) Intoxication shall be a defence to any criminal charge if by reason thereof the person charged at the time of the act or omission complained of did not know that such act or omission was wrong or did not know what he was doing and —| (a) | the state of intoxication was caused without his consent by the malicious or negligent act of another person; or | | (b) | the person charged was, by reason of intoxication, insane, temporarily or otherwise, at the time of such act or omission. |
[Indian PC 1860, s. 85] |
|
| Effect of defence of intoxication when established |
| 86.—(1) Where the defence under section 85 is established, then in a case falling under section 85(2)(a) the accused person shall be acquitted, and in a case falling under section 85(2)(b), section 84 of this Code and sections 251 and 252 of the Criminal Procedure Code 2010 shall apply. [15/2010 wef 02/01/2011] | (2) Intoxication shall be taken into account for the purpose of determining whether the person charged had formed any intention, specific or otherwise, in the absence of which he would not be guilty of the offence. |
| (3) For the purposes of this section and section 85 “intoxication” shall be deemed to include a state produced by narcotics or drugs. [Indian PC 1860, s. 86] |
|
| Act not intended and not known to be likely to cause death or grievous hurt, done by consent |
87. Nothing, which is not intended to cause death or grievous hurt, and which is not known by the doer to be likely to cause death or grievous hurt, is an offence by reason of any harm which it may cause, or be intended by the doer to cause, to any person above 18 years of age, who has given consent, whether express or implied, to suffer that harm; or by reason of any harm which it may be known by the doer to be likely to cause to any such person who has consented to take the risk of that harm. | | A and Z agree to fence with each other for amusement. This agreement implies the consent of each to suffer any harm which, in the course of such fencing, may be caused without foul play; and if A, while playing fairly, hurts Z, A commits no offence. |
|
|
[Indian PC 1860, s. 87] |
| Act not intended to cause death done by consent in good faith for the benefit of a person |
88. Nothing, which is not intended to cause death, is an offence by reason of any harm which it may cause, or be intended by the doer to cause, or be known by the doer to be likely to cause, to any person for whose benefit it is done in good faith, and who has given a consent, whether express or implied, to suffer that harm, or to take the risk of that harm. | | A, a surgeon, knowing that a particular operation is likely to cause the death of Z, who suffers under a painful complaint, but not intending to cause Z’s death, and intending, in good faith, Z’s benefit, performs that operation on Z, with Z’s consent. A has committed no offence. |
|
|
[Indian PC 1860, s. 88] |
| Act done in good faith for the benefit of a child or person of unsound mind, by or by consent of guardian |
89. Nothing, which is done in good faith for the benefit of a person under 12 years of age, or of unsound mind, by or by consent, either express or implied, of the guardian or other person having lawful charge of that person, is an offence by reason of any harm which it may cause, or be intended by the doer to cause, or be known by the doer to be likely to cause, to that person:| Provided that this exception shall not extend to — |
| (a) | the intentional causing of death, or to the attempting to cause death; | | (b) | the doing of anything which the person doing it knows to be likely to cause death for any purpose other than the preventing of death or grievous hurt, or the curing of any grievous disease or infirmity; | | (c) | the voluntary causing of grievous hurt, or to the attempting to cause grievous hurt, unless it be for the purpose of preventing death or grievous hurt, or the curing of any grievous disease or infirmity; | | (d) | the abetment of any offence, to the committing of which offence it would not extend. | | A, in good faith, for the benefit of his child, being under 12 years of age, without his child’s consent, has his child cut for the stone by a surgeon, knowing it to be likely that the operation will cause the child’s death, but not intending to cause the child’s death. A is within the exception, inasmuch as his object was the cure of the child. |
|
|
[Indian PC 1860, s. 89] |
|
|
| Consent given under fear or misconception, by person of unsound mind, etc., and by child |
90. A consent is not such a consent as is intended by any section of this Code —| (a) | if the consent is given by a person —| (i) | under fear of injury or wrongful restraint to the person or to some other person; or | | (ii) | under a misconception of fact, |
| and the person doing the act knows, or has reason to believe, that the consent was given in consequence of such fear or misconception; |
| | (b) | if the consent is given by a person who, from unsoundness of mind, mental incapacity, intoxication, or the influence of any drug or other substance, is unable to understand the nature and consequence of that to which he gives his consent; or | | (c) | unless the contrary appears from the context, if the consent is given by a person who is under 12 years of age. |
[Indian PC 1860, s. 90] |
| Acts which are offences independently of harm caused to the person consenting, are not within the exceptions in sections 87, 88 and 89 |
91. The exceptions in sections 87, 88 and 89 do not extend to acts which are offences independently of any harm which they may cause, or be intended to cause, or be known to be likely to cause, to the person giving the consent, or on whose behalf the consent is given. | | | Causing miscarriage, unless it is authorised under the Termination of Pregnancy Act (Cap. 324) is an offence independently of any harm which it may cause or be intended to cause to the woman. Therefore it is not an offence “by reason of such harm”; and the consent of the woman, or of her guardian, to the causing of such miscarriage does not justify the act. |
|
|
[Indian PC 1860, s. 91] |
| Act done in good faith for the benefit of a person without consent |
92. Nothing is an offence by reason of any harm which it may cause to a person for whose benefit it is done in good faith, even without that person’s consent, if the circumstances are such that it is impossible for that person to signify consent, or if that person is incapable of giving consent, and has no guardian or other person in lawful charge of him from whom it is possible to obtain consent in time for the thing to be done with benefit:| Provided that this exception shall not extend to — |
| (a) | the intentional causing of death, or to the attempting to cause death; | | (b) | the doing of anything which the person doing it knows to be likely to cause death, for any purpose other than the preventing of death or grievous hurt, or the curing of any grievous disease or infirmity; | | (c) | the voluntary causing of hurt, or to the attempting to cause hurt, for any purpose other than the preventing of death or hurt; | | (d) | the abetment of any offence, to the committing of which offence it would not extend. | | (a) Z is thrown from his horse, and is insensible. A, a surgeon, finds that Z requires to be trepanned. A, not intending Z’s death, but in good faith, for Z’s benefit, performs the trepan before Z recovers his power of judging for himself. A has committed no offence. |
| | (b) [Deleted by Act 51 of 2007] |
| | (c) A, a surgeon, sees a child suffer an accident which is likely to prove fatal unless an operation is immediately performed. There is not time to apply to the child’s guardian. A performs the operation in spite of the entreaties of the child, intending, in good faith, the child’s benefit. A has committed no offence. |
| | (d) A is in a house which is on fire, with Z, a child. People below hold out a blanket. A drops the child from the house-top, knowing it to be likely that the fall may kill the child, but not intending to kill the child, and intending in good faith, the child’s benefit. Here, even if the child is killed by the fall, A has committed no offence. |
| | Explanation.—Mere pecuniary benefit is not benefit within the meaning of sections 88, 89 and 92. |
|
|
[Indian PC 1860, s. 92] |
|
|
| Communication made in good faith |
93. No communication made in good faith is an offence by reason of any harm to the person to whom it is made, if it is made for the benefit of that person. | | A, a surgeon, in good faith, communicates to a patient his opinion that he cannot live. The patient dies in consequence of the shock. A has committed no offence, though he knew it to be likely that the communication might cause the patient’s death. |
|
|
[Indian PC 1860, s. 93] |
| Act to which a person is compelled by threats |
94. Except murder and offences against the State punishable with death, nothing is an offence which is done by a person who is compelled to do it by threats, which, at the time of doing it, reasonably cause the apprehension that instant death to that person or any other person will otherwise be the consequence:| Provided that the person doing the act did not of his own accord, or from a reasonable apprehension of harm to himself short of instant death, place himself in the situation by which he became subject to such constraint. |
| | Explanation 1.—A person who, of his own accord, or by reason of a threat of being beaten, joins gang-robbers knowing their character, is not entitled to the benefit of this exception on the ground of his having been compelled by his associates to do anything that is an offence by law. |
| | Explanation 2.—A person seized by gang-robbers, and forced by threat of instant death to do a thing which is an offence by law — for example, a smith compelled to take his tools and to force the door of a house for the gang-robbers to enter and plunder it — is entitled to the benefit of this exception. |
|
|
|
[Indian PC 1860, s. 94] |
| 95. Nothing is an offence by reason that it causes, or that it is intended to cause, or that it is known to be likely to cause, any harm, if that harm is so slight that no person of ordinary sense and temper would complain of such harm. [Indian PC 1860, s. 95] |
| Nothing done in private defence is an offence |
| 96. Nothing is an offence which is done in the exercise of the right of private defence. [Indian PC 1860, s. 96] |
| Right of private defence of the body and of property |
97. Every person has a right, subject to the restrictions contained in section 99, to defend —| (a) | his own body, and the body of any other person, against any offence affecting the human body; | | (b) | the property, whether movable or immovable, of himself or of any other person, against any act which is an offence falling under the definition of theft, robbery, mischief or criminal trespass, or which is an attempt to commit theft, robbery, mischief or criminal trespass. |
[Indian PC 1860, s. 97] |
| Right of private defence against the act of a person of unsound mind, etc. |
98. When an act, which would otherwise be a certain offence, is not that offence, by reason of the youth, the want of maturity of understanding, the unsoundness of mind, or the intoxication of the person doing that act, or by reason of any misconception on the part of that person, every person has the same right of private defence against that act which he would have if the act were that offence. | | (a) Z, under the influence of madness, attempts to kill A. Z is guilty of no offence. But A has the same right of private defence which he would have if Z were sane. |
| | (b) A enters, by night, a house which he is legally entitled to enter. Z, in good faith, taking A for a housebreaker, attacks A. Here Z, by attacking A under this misconception, commits no offence. But A has the same right of private defence against Z, which he would have if Z were not acting under that misconception. |
|
|
[Indian PC 1860, s. 98] |
| Acts against which there is no right of private defence |
99.—(1) There is no right of private defence against an act which does not reasonably cause the apprehension of death or of grievous hurt, if done, or attempted to be done, by a public servant acting in good faith under colour of his office, though that act may not be strictly justifiable by law.| (2) There is no right of private defence against an act which does not reasonably cause the apprehension of death or of grievous hurt, if done, or attempted to be done, by the direction of a public servant acting in good faith under colour of his office, though that direction may not be strictly justifiable by law. |
| (3) There is no right of private defence in cases in which there is time to have recourse to the protection of the public authorities. |
| Extent to which the right may be exercised |
(4) The right of private defence in no case extends to the inflicting of more harm than it is necessary to inflict for the purpose of defence.| Explanation 1.—A person is not deprived of the right of private defence against an act done, or attempted to be done, by a public servant, as such, unless he knows, or has reason to believe, that the person doing the act is such public servant. |
| | Explanation 2.—A person is not deprived of the right of private defence against an act done, or attempted to be done, by the direction of a public servant, unless he knows, or has reason to believe, that the person doing the act is acting by such direction; or unless such person states the authority under which he acts, or, if he has authority in writing, unless he produces such authority, if demanded. |
|
|
[Indian PC 1860, s. 99] |
|
| When the right of private defence of the body extends to causing death |
100. The right of private defence of the body extends, under the restrictions mentioned in section 99, to the voluntary causing of death or of any other harm to the assailant, if the offence which occasions the exercise of the right is of any of the following descriptions:| (a) | such an assault as may reasonably cause the apprehension that death will otherwise be the consequence of such assault; | | (b) | such an assault as may reasonably cause the apprehension that grievous hurt will otherwise be the consequence of such assault; | | (c) | an assault with the intention of committing rape; | | (d) | an assault with the intention of committing non-consensual penile penetration of the anus; | | (e) | an assault with the intention of kidnapping or abducting; | | (f) | an assault with the intention of wrongfully confining a person, under circumstances which may reasonably cause him to apprehend that he will be unable to have recourse to the public authorities for his release. [51/2007] |
[Indian PC 1860, s. 100] |
| When such right extends to causing any harm other than death |
| 101. If the offence is not of any of the descriptions enumerated in section 100, the right of private defence of the body does not extend to the voluntary causing of death to the assailant, but does extend, under the restrictions mentioned in section 99, to the voluntary causing to the assailant of any harm other than death. [Indian PC 1860, s. 101] |
| Commencement and continuance of the right of private defence of the body |
| 102. The right of private defence of the body commences as soon as a reasonable apprehension of danger to the body arises from an attempt or a threat to commit the offence, though the offence may not have been committed; and it continues as long as such apprehension of danger to the body continues. [Indian PC 1860, s. 102] |
| When the right of private defence of property extends to causing death |
103. The right of private defence of property extends, under the restrictions mentioned in section 99, to the voluntary causing of death or of any other harm to the wrongdoer, if the offence, the committing of which, or the attempting to commit which, occasions the exercise of the right, is an offence of any of the following descriptions:| (a) | robbery; | | (b) | house-breaking by night; | | (c) | mischief by fire committed on any building, tent or vessel, which building, tent or vessel is used as a human dwelling, or as a place for the custody of property; | | (d) | theft, mischief or house-trespass, under such circumstances as may reasonably cause apprehension that death or grievous hurt will be the consequence, if such right of private defence is not exercised. |
[Indian PC 1860, s. 103] |
| When such right extends to causing any harm other than death |
| 104. If the offence, the committing of which, or the attempting to commit which, occasions the exercise of the right of private defence, is theft, mischief, or criminal trespass, not of any of the descriptions enumerated in section 103, that right does not extend to the voluntary causing of death, but does extend, subject to the restrictions mentioned in section 99, to the voluntary causing to the wrongdoer of any harm other than death. [Indian PC 1860, s. 104] |
| Commencement and continuance of the right of private defence of property |
105.—(1) The right of private defence of property commences when a reasonable apprehension of danger to the property commences.| (2) The right of private defence of property against theft continues till the offender has effected his retreat with the property, or till the assistance of the public authorities is obtained, or till the property has been recovered. |
| (3) The right of private defence of property against robbery continues as long as the offender causes or attempts to cause to any person death or hurt or wrongful restraint, or as long as the fear of instant death or of instant hurt or of instant personal restraint continues. |
| (4) The right of private defence of property against criminal trespass or mischief, continues as long as the offender continues in the commission of criminal trespass or mischief. |
| (5) The right of private defence of property against house-breaking by night continues as long as house-trespass which has been begun by such house-breaking continues. [Indian PC 1860, s. 105] |
|
| Right of private defence against a deadly assault when there is risk of harm to an innocent person |
106. If, in the exercise of the right of private defence against an assault which reasonably causes the apprehension of death, the defender is so situated that he cannot effectually exercise that right without risk of harm to an innocent person, his right of private defence extends to the running of that risk. | | A is attacked by a mob who attempt to murder him. He cannot effectually exercise his right of private defence without firing on the mob, and he cannot fire without risk of harming young children who are mingled with the mob. A commits no offence if by so firing he harms any of the children. |
|
|
[Indian PC 1860, s. 106] |
|
|
