GENERAL EXCEPTIONS IN PAKISTAN PENAL CODE

1. INTRODUCTION:

The general rule is that it is the duty of the prosecution to prove the prisoner's guilt beyond doubt and if
there is any reasonable doubt then the benefit of doubt is given to the accused. The prosecution must
prove beyond doubt that the accused performed the act with intention and with full knowledge of the
consequences of the act. This is based on the maxim, "actus non facit reum, nisi mens sit rea", which
means that mere doing of an act will not constitute guilt unless there be a guilty intent'.In Pakistan,
Pakistan Penal Code is the major criminal law, which defines substantive offences and prescribes their
respective punishments. This code also describes some specific circumstances in which crimes are though
committed, yet offenders are exempted from punishments. In such circumstances, it is not intention or
guilty mind, which constitutes crimes, but it is external force, which instigates mind to commit crimes.
Section 76 to 96 deals with General exceptions as envisaged in PPC.

2. CONCEPT OF GENERAL EXCEPTIONS IN PPC:

There are certain circumstances, in which an apparent offender is exempted from major punishment or is
entitled to just minor punishment. Such circumstances have been termed as General Exceptions in
Pakistan Penal Code.

3. GENERAL EXCEPTIONS IN THE LIGHT OF PAKISTAN PENAL CODE

In Pakistan Penal Code following are General Exceptions have been provided;

(i) Mistake (section 76)

A mistake means a factual error. It could be because of wrong information, i.e. ignorance or wrong
conclusion. If an act is done by a person, who is bound by law to do it or who, by reason of mistake of
fact and not by reason of mistake of law in good faith, believes himself/herself to be bound by law to do
it, such act is not considered an offence.

Illustration
(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.
Case law:
“A mistake of fact could be a defence if the same was in good faith and one was bound by law to do
it”. 1990 [Link] 196

(ii) Judicial Acts

Under Pakistan Penal Code, following General Exceptions have been provided in respect of judicial acts;

(a) Act of Judge;(section 77)

An act is not an offence, which is done by a judge when he/she acts judicially in exercise of any power
which is given to him/her by law or which he/she believes in good faith to be given to him/her by law.

Case Law: when the act done or ordered is in judicial capacity his protection is absolute and no enquiry
can be entertained against him whether the act done or ordered was erroneously, irregularly or even
illegally done or done without believing in good faith that he had jurisdiction to do or order the act
complained of. AIR 1965 SC 1651

(b) Act Done Pursuant to Judgment or Order of Court; (section 78)

An act is not an offence, when it is done in pursuance of judgment or order of a court of Justice or which
is warranted by judgment or order of a Court of Justice whilst such judgment or order remains in force.

(iii) Acts Justified by Law ;( section 79)

An act is not an offence, when it is done by any person who is justified by law in doing it or who, by
reason of a mistake of fact and not by reason of a mistake of law, believes in good faith himself/herself to
be justified in doing it.

Illustration:

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 murders 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-defense.

(iv) Accident ;( section 80)

Accidents happen despite of nobody wanting them. There is no intention on the part of anybody to cause
accident and so a loss caused due to an accident should not be considered a crime. An act is not an
offence, which is done by accident or misfortune, and which is done without any criminal intention or
knowledge in doing of a lawful act in a lawful manner by lawful means and with proper care and caution.
Illustration:

A works with a hatchet; the head flies off and kills a person standing nearby. Here, if there was no want
of proper caution on the part of A, his act is excusable and is not an offence.

(v) Necessity ;( section 81)

An act is not an offence, which is though done with the knowledge that it is likely to cause harm, yet it is
done it is done without any criminal intention to cause harm, and in good faith for purpose of preventing
or avoiding other harm to person or property.

Illustration:
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.

(iv) Infancy ;( section 82)

It is assumed that a child does not have an evil mind and he does not do things with evil intention. He
cannot even fully understand the implications of the act that he is doing. Thus, he completely lacks mens
rea and should not be punished. Thus an act is not an offence, which is done by a child under seven years
of age.
(vii) Child’s Immaturity ;( section 83)
An act is not an offence, which is done by a child, who is above seven years of age and under twelve
years of age, and who has not attained sufficient maturity of understanding to judge nature and
consequences of his/her conduct on that occasion.

However, a child above seven but below twelve may or may not have sufficient maturity to commit a
crime and whether he is sufficiently mature to understand the nature and consequences of the act needs to
be determined from the facts of the case. To claim a defence under section 83, a child must

 Be above seven and below twelve years of age.

 Not have attained sufficient maturity to understand the nature and consequences of his act.
 Be immature at the time of commission of the act.
Case Law: conclusive evidence of the age may be the birth certificate if it is not available then in
conjunction with such oral testimony as may be available. AIR 1958 SC 143

(viii) Insanity ;( section 84)

An act is not an offence, which is done by a person who, at time of doing it, by reason of unsoundness of
mind, is incapable of knowing nature of act or is incapable of knowing that he is doing what is either
wrong or contrary to law.

A person may be rendered incapable of judging an action as right or wrong due to several kinds of
deficiency in mental faculty or a disease of mind. Such people are called insane. Their position is same as
children below the age of discretion. From time to time several approaches have been adopted to
understand insanity and to see whether a person was insane or not at the time of his act.

Case law: medical insanity is distinct from legal insanity and courts are only concerned with the legal and
not with the medical view of the question. Unsoundness of mind in order to constitute legal insanity must
be such as should make the offender incapable of knowing the nature of the act or what he is doing is
wrong or contrary to law. PLD 2002 SC 92

(viii) Intoxication

Several times intoxication due to drinking alcohol or taking other substances cause the person to lose the
judgment of right or wrong. In early law, however, this was no defence for criminal responsibility. In
recent times this has become a valid defence but only if the intoxication was involuntary. Section 85 says
thus -

(a) When intoxicated Person in Incapable of Judgment;(section 86)

An act is not an offence, which is done by a person who, at time of doing it, is, by reason of
intoxication, is incapable of knowing nature of act or is incapable of knowing that he is doing
what is either wrong or contrary to law.

Case Law:

Section 86 applies only to cases of intoxication and does not cover a case where what is alleged is an
inherent defect or infirmity of mind, which is or greater significance because such infirmity or disease of
mind is more likely to prevent the formation of that intention which is required by the law to be
established as a part of the offence charged. AIR 1939 Mad. 407
 (b) (section 87) When Intoxicated Person Does An Offence, which requires Particular Intent or
Knowledge In cases where an act done is not an offence unless done with a particular knowledge
or intent, a person , who does the act in a state of intoxication, shall be liable to be dealt with as if
he/she had the same knowledge as he/she would have had if he/she had not been intoxicated.

Illustration
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.

(ix) Consent;(section 88)

An act is not an offence, which is done with consent of victim or which is done for benefit of a person of
twelve years age or a person of unsound mind through his/her guardian’s consent or which is done for
benefit of a person without his/her consent.

Illustration
A, a surgeon, knowing that a particular operation is likely to cause of death of Z, who suffers under the
painful complaint, but not intending to cause Z's death, and intending, in good faith for Z's benefit,
performs that operation on Z with Z's consent. A has-committed no offence.

Case Law: the expression “harm” in section 88 and 89 means only physical injury. AIR 1966 SC 1773

(x)Communication made in good faith: (section 93)

No communication made in good faith is an offence by reason of any harm to the person to whom it is
made for the benefit of that person.

Illustration
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.

(xi) Act to which a person is compelled by threats: (section94)

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 will otherwise be the consequence.

Case Law: Duress cannot be pleaded in avoidance of malice on charge either of murder or treasonable
offence punishable with death. 1969 SCMR 344

(xii) Trifles: (section 95)

Act causing slight harm is included under this section. 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.
Case law: There is no standard or degree with which an act can be compared and judged as trivial or
otherwise. At the same time, the amount of injury caused by an act is also not a measure for such an act.
AIR 1977 SC 2432

(xiii) Private Defence: (section 96)

Pakistan Penal Code recognizes this principle that every person has right to defend his/her body and
property. Therefore, private defense under Pakistan Penal Code is considered a General Exception to
offences.

Case law:

“The right of private defence does not arise merely because an act is unlawful or wrongful. The act must
amount to an offence and it must amount to an offence of a particular kind”. PLD 1949 Lah. 421

6. CONCLUSION:
To conclude, it can be stated that General Exceptions, which have been provided in Pakistan Penal Code,
are generally divided into excusable and justifiable exceptions. In excusable exceptions, guilty mind is
completely absent while acts are not left excused, but are justified in justifiable exceptions.

RELEVANT PAST PAPERS

 Saleem under intoxication drove a bus in zig-zag manner, causing accident at three different
points consecutively dashed against a moped rider causing injuries including shajja-damigha and
ghyr-jaifa munaqilah, dashed against auto-rickshaw causing damage to it and then hitting a grill
and compound wall. Explain with reasons, what offences have been committed? (CJ-cum-JM
2017)
 All criminal defenses amount to the same thing. It is a defence to criminal liability if the accused
acts reasonably in the case of immediate crisis. Explain and evaluate this statement by reference
to the following criminal defenses. (CJ-cum-JM 2019)
a) Self defence b) Duress c) Necessity