ACTS JUSTIFIED BY LAW IN CRIMINAL LAW

(Project towards partial fulfillment of the assessment in the subject of Legal Methods and Legal
Research)

Submitted By:

Submitted To:

Abhinav Raj

Professor Dr. V. Seshaiah Shasthri,

U.G.-I Semester

Additional Dean, Faculty of Law

B.A., L.L.B (Hons.)

NATIONAL LAW UNIVERSITY,

JODHPUR

Submitted on 25 August, 2014

Acknowledgement

A major research project like this is never the work of anyone alone. The contributions of many
different people, in their different ways, have made this possible. I would like to thank God for
the wisdom and perseverance that he has bestowed upon me during this research project, and
indeed, throughout my life: I can do everything through him who gives me strength.
I would like to take this opportunity to thank Professor Dr. V. Seshaiah Shasthri, without whose
valuable support, guidance and advice this project would not exist. They have been a source of
determination with the immense knowledge and command over the subject. I would also like to
thank the library staff for working long hours to facilitate us with required material going a long
way in quenching our thirst for education. I would like to mention my seniors efforts in guiding
me through tough times they themselves have been through, and lastly I would like to thank my
friends for keeping alive the spirit of competition in me.

Abhinav Raj

Table of Content

table of case laws.............................................................................................................................4

introduction......................................................................................................................................5
justification- an overview................................................................................................................6
difference between justification and excuse....................................................................................6
general exception in ipc...................................................................................................................7
case analysis...................................................................................................................................10
conclusion......................................................................................................................................21
bibliography...................................................................................................................................21

TABLE OF CASE LAWS

1. State of west Bengal vs Shrew Mangal Singh, AIR 1987 SC 1917

2. Atmendra vs state of Karnataka, AIR 1998 SC 1985
3. Ananta Deb Singha Mahapatra and org. Vs. State of West Bengal, AIR 2007 SC
2524
4. Shrikant anandrao bhosale vs state of Maharashtra, AIR 2002 SC 3399
5. State of Rajasthan vs Shera ram @ Vishnu dutta, AIR 2012 SC 1
6. Sekar @ Raja Shekharan vs State rep. By Inspector of police, T. Nadu, AIR 2002 SC
3667
7. Surendra Mishra vs State of Jharkhand, AIR 2011 SC 627
8. Hari Singh Gond vs State of M.P.,AIR 2009 SC 31
9. Raj Kishor Jha vs State of Bihar and Org., AIR 2003 SC 4664
10. Raghbir Singh and org. Vs State of Haryana, AIR 2009 SC 1223.

INTRODUCTION

Criminal law outlines different punishments for various crimes. But a person may not always be
punished for a crime that he/she has committed. The law offers certain defenses that exculpate
criminal liability. These defenses are based on the premise that though the person committed the
offence, he cannot be held liable. This is because at the time of commission of the offence, either
the prevailing circumstances were such that the act of the person was justified or his condition
was such that he could not form the requisite mens rea for the crime. The defenses are generally
classified under two heads- justifiable and excusable. Thus, as John Gardner puts it, for
committing a wrong, a person must be responsible for doing a wrongful act without having any
justification or excuse for it.1
A justified act is a one which otherwise, under normal conditions, would have been wrongful but
the circumstances under which the act was committed make it tolerable and acceptable. The
person fulfills all the ingredients of the offence but his conduct is held to be right under the
circumstances. For example, a man while protecting his fields shot an arrow at a moving figure
honestly believing it to be a bear but caused the death of a man who hiding in the bushes. He
cannot be held liable since his conduct was justified under the circumstances. 2 In case of an
excuse, though the person has caused harm, it is held that the person should be
excused because he cannot be blamed for the act. For example, if a person of unsound mind com
mits acrime, he cannot be held responsible for being mentally sick. The two terms do not mean
the same thing. As Joshua Dressler says in his article, A justification does not excuse conduct;
an excuse does not justify conduct.3
1 John Gardner, Offences and Defense: Selected Essays in the Philosophy of Criminal Law (Oxford University Press
2007) 227 in AP Simester, Wrongs and Reasons[2009] 72(4) The Modern L Rev 648.

2 State of Orissa v Khora Ghasi, 1978 CrLJ 1305 (Ori)

3 Joshua Dressler, Justifications and Excuses: A Brief Review of the Concepts and the Literature [1987] 33(4)
Wayne L Rev 1155.

The Indian Penal Code, 1860 (hereinafter the IPC) recognizes defenses in chapter four under the
heading General Exceptions. Sections 76 to 106 of the IPC cover these defenses. Though there
is no such express classification of defenses under justifiable and excusable given in the code,
the distinction between the two categories has nevertheless been regarded as an important topic
in criminal law. The primary aim of writing on this topic is to highlight this distinction and
present the views of various legal scholars on the issue. This project seeks to ask the need for
classifying defenses under these two headings. The views have been presented in the next part of
the

project under Literature Survey. It discusses

general

overview

of

the justifiable and excusable defenses. The different defenses featured in the IPC and under what
category they fall have been discussed. The next section expresses my views on the attempt to
classify the defenses.

JUSTIFICATION- AN OVERVIEW

To avail the defense of justification, the response of the person under the given circumstances
must be to protect the interest at stake and it must also be proportional to the harm that is
threatened. There are four theories of justification that have been proposed by Dressler. The first
theory is the moral forfeiture theory. It states that if a person knowingly and voluntarily
commits an offence then he cannot expect the law to protect him. For example, if a person
voluntarily attempts to kill another and in the process of self-defense is himself killed, then this
act of self-defense is justified. The second theory is the rights theory. It states that a persons
conduct will be justified if he has a legal right to protect a moral interest.
The third lesser harm theory says that if an act is done to prevent a greater harm from
occurring, it is justified. For example, if a person trespasses on the property of another in order to
save a child trapped in a fire inside the property, his act of trespassing will be justified. The last
theory labels a conduct as justifiable if it is done in greater public interest.

DIFFERENCE BETWEEN JUSTIFICATION AND EXCUSE

A close perusal of literature and the nature of these defenses will reveal some clear distinctions
between the two categories of defenses. Justified acts do not necessarily lack intention. But the
intention under the prevailing circumstances at the time of commission of the offence does not
6

qualify as criminal intent. Excusable defenses apply only if the act is done without any intention.
Justifications focus on the wrongful nature of the act. On the other hand, excuses look at the
blameworthiness of the actor. An act is justified under the circumstances regardless of the fact
whether the defendant is aware of them or not. However, circumstances that can excuse conduct
will not excuse the person unless he is aware of them. Justifications negate the social harm of the
offence whereas excuses exonerate the actor of moral blameworthiness for the offence.
Justifications also arise from balancing of harms. For example if a police officer uses force to
search

for

evidence

under

judicial

search

warrant,

he

will

be justified

even if his conduct amounts to an offence. Excuses, on the other hand, do not involveany

such

balancing of harms.

GENERAL EXCEPTION IN IPC

Sections 76 to 106 of the IPC provide general exceptions to offences. These include mistake of
fact, judicial acts, accident, necessity, infancy, insanity, intoxication, consent, duress, trivial acts
and the right of private defence. This section will discuss each of these exceptions and their
applicability under the IPC.
i.

Mistake of fact ( Sections 76 and 79 ) :-

Section 76 exculpates a person from criminal liability who is bound by law to do an act or who
does an act in good faith under a mistake of fact that he was bound by law to do it. Mistake is
considered excusatory in nature since the person did not intend nor foresee the consequences of
his act. The mistake should be of such a nature that had the circumstances that the
person believed to exist indeed prevailed, he would have been absolved from liability. The
mistake must be a mistake of fact not of law. The face should be material to constitute an
offence.
Section 79 of the IPC excuses an act that the person felt was justified by law. The position that
emerges is this. Jurisprudentially viewed, an act may be an offence, definitionally speaking but; a
forbidden act may not spell inevitable [guilt,] the law itself declares that in certain special
circumstances it is not to be regarded as an offence. Section79 makes an offence a non-offence.
When? Only when the offending act is actually justified by law or is bona fide believed by
7

mistake of fact to be so justified. Thus a person will be protected under Section 79 only if there
was a legal justification available for his actions and he applied the law to the best of his
judgment in good faith.
ii.

Judicial Acts ( Section 77 and 78 ) :-

These provisions protect judges and judicial officers when acting judicially in exercise of powers
given to them by law or which they believe in good faith to be vested in them by the law. The
acts are justified by law. The rationale behind these provisions is that judges and judicial officers
should not be under any external influence so that they can act in a fearless and just manner.
Judicial acts extend to orders passed in the chambers of a judge. If a judicial officer is involved
in a criminal case, his arrest has to be in accordance with the directions issued by the Supreme
Court.
iii.

Necessity ( Section 81 ) :-

The defense of necessity is considered to be a justifiable defense. The act is done without any
criminal intention but not without knowledge. It is acceptable to do an act in good faith
that prevents a greater harm from taking place. For example, if the police puts a drunk person
under restraint without warrant for carrying a revolver, even though public nuisance is a noncognizable offence, they will be protected under Section 80 for preventing greater harm to
other people and property. An important issue while applying this defense is whether necessity
can be used to justify murder. In the old case, R v Dudley Stephens4 a ship was cast away in a
storm. The people on board had nothing to eat for many days. On the twentieth day, the accused
decided to kill the cabin boy and feed on his body. After being rescued, they were charged for
murder. They pleaded necessity but the court held that self-preservation was not an absolute right
and convicted them of murder.

4 R v Dudley Stephens, [1884] 14 QBD 273.

8

iv.

Consent and Duress ( Sections 87 to 94 ) :-

These defenses are featured under justifications. In case of consent, the accused is protected in
causing harm, less than grievous hurt, if the other person consented to it. The person should not
have the intention to cause any harm though he may have knowledge of the harm. Section 94
exempts a person from liability if he acted under any kind of compulsion provided he did not put
himself in that situation. If a person faces threat of instant death, his acts are justified under such
circumstances. However, this defense does not extend to murder and offences against the State.
The threat of instant death must continue throughout the offence.
v.

Trivial Acts ( Section 95 ) :-

Section 95 states that the law does not take into account trifling matters. This was incorporated to
deal with such acts which fell under the letter of the law but not its spirit. The act will be
governed by this section only if it amounts to an offence and a person with ordinary temper
would not complain of it.
vi.

Right of Private Defense ( Sections 96 to 106 ) :-

This right spells out that a person is justified to act in a certain manner to protect himself from a
threatened harm. This is based on the human instinct of self-preservation. A person is justified
in causing proportional harm to his aggressor to protect himself from a looming threat of injury.
In many cases where the accused killed the other person while trying to protect himself, the court
allowed the plea of self-defense and acquitted the person.
The person will be justified in exercising force only if it is proportional to the harm threatened by
the attacker. In Jai Dev v State of Punjab5 the accused was attacked by a large mob. He fired in
self-defense and killed one person. After that, the villagers started to run away. But he fired again
killing another. The court held that he exceeded his right of private defenses since there was no
justification to open fire again when the villagers had started running.

5 Jai Dev v State of Punjab, AIR 1963 SC 612.

9

CASE ANALYSIS

1. Shrikant Anandrao Bhosale vs State of Maharashtra.6

Facts:

The appellant was a Police Constable. He and Surekha was married in the year 1987. On
the date of the incident, they were living in police quarters along with their daughter. On
the morning of 24th April, 1994, there was a quarrel between husband and wife. While
Surekha was washing clothes in the bathroom, the appellant hit her with grinding stone
on her head. The appellant was immediately taken by the police to the quarter guard.
Surekha was taken to the Hospital. She was found dead.

Proceeding Before Session Court and High Court:

After usual investigation, the appellant was charged for the offence of murder of his wife.

Question Before Session Court and High Court:

Was The commission of the offence a result of extreme anger or unsoundness of mind?

Judgement of Session Court and High Court:

On appreciation of evidence, the appellant was found guilty by the Sessions Court. The
evidence was again appreciated by the High Court. The judgment of the Sessions Court,
The appellant has been found guilty of the offence under Section 302 of the Indian Penal
Code (IPC) and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for life. The appeal against
conviction and sentence having been dismissed by the High Court, this appeal has been
filed on grant of leave, was affirmed.

Appeal Before Supreme Court:Question Before Supreme Court:-

6 Shrikant anandrao bhosale vs state of Maharashtra, AIR 2002 SC 3399.

10

Whether the appellant has proved the existence of circumstances bringing his case within
the purview of Section 84 will have to be examined from the totality of circumstances.

Judgement of Supreme Court:

Supreme court were of the view that the appellant has proved the existence of
circumstances as required by Section 105 of the Evidence Act so as to get benefit of
Section 84 IPC. They were unable to hold that the crime was committed as a result of
extreme fit of anger. There is a reasonable doubt that at the time of commission of the
crime, the appellant was incapable of knowing the nature of the act by reason of
unsoundness of mind and, thus, he is entitled to the benefit of Section 84 IPC. Hence, the
conviction and sentence of the appellant cannot be sustained.

Reasoning of the Court:

The appellant has a family history - his father was suffering from psychiatric illness.

Cause of ailment not known - hereditary plays a part.

Appellant was being treated for unsoundness of mind since 1992 -Diagnosed as
suffering from paranoid schizophrenia.

Within a short span soon after the incident from 27th June to 5th December, 1994, he had
to be taken for treatment of ailment 25 times to hospital.

Appellant was under regular treatment for the mental ailment.

The weak motive of killing of wife - being that she was opposing the idea of the
appellant resigning the job of a Police Constable.

Killing in day light - no attempt to hide or run away.

Case Ratio:

Any accused, who is insane,

is entitled to the benefit of Section 84 IPC.

11

2. Atmendra vs state of Karnataka.7

Facts :

There was two brothers Ganapati and Ashok Hegde. Both were living in adjacent houses.

But the relations between them were far from cordial.

At the backyard of their houses on the western side, there is a disputed coconut tree of

which both claimed to be the owners.

Once Ashok and his wife Vijayalakshmi noticed that one Vittal Bhandari was plucking
the coconuts in clusters and throwing them down, while the appellant and his father were

standing on "Chair" behind their house watching the coconuts.

Ashok, his wife and came on to the Chair of their house on hearing the noise of falling of
the coconuts and questioned Bhandari as to why he was plucking the coconuts. In the
course of exchange of words Ganapati instigated the appellant to finish Ashok stating
that be had become arrogant and then there followed a shot from the gun, which resulted

in instantaneous death of Ashok, the deceased.

The defence of the appellant was that the deceased swung the reaper at the appellant and
as he was turning to avoid the blow the gun also turned in the same direction on account
of which the rea per touched the hammer of the gun which went off and hit the deceased.

Proceeding Before Trial Judge:

The appellant and Ganapati were charged and tried for the offences stated above under
Section 302.

Question Before Trial Court:

Whether the appellant shot at the deceased and thus killed him or whether the gun got
fired due to the strike of the reaper swung by the deceased.

Judgement of the Trial Court:-

7 Atmendra vs state of Karnataka, AIR 1998 SC 1985.

12

The Trial Court found that motive was established; though it did not believe the plea of
self-defence which was also set up by the accused, however, it held that on the facts
accidental firing of gun could not be ruled out and consequently acquitted the accused.

Appeal Before High Court:

The State of Karnataka filed Criminal Appeal No. 17 of 1988 against the said judgment.

Judgement of the High Court:

High Court confirmed the finding of the Trial Court with regard to motive; it concluded
that Bhandari was plucking the coconuts from the disputed tree at the behest of the
appellant and his father; it accepted the evidence of eye-witnesses (servants) and held that
the gunshot was not the result of striking of the reaper swung by the deceased but that the
appellant fired at the deceased to commit his murder and thus convicted him and awarded
sentence under Section 302 and sentenced him to suffer imprisonment for life and under
Section 27 of the Indian Arms Act and awarded punishment of undergoing rigorous
imprisonment for one year and to pay a fine of Rs. 200/- and in default to suffer further
rigorous imprisonment for two months; substantive sentences were directed to run

concurrently.
3. State of west Bengal vs Shew Mangal Singh.8
Facts:

The case of the prosecution was that the deceased and his brother were shot dead by the

police at a point blank range and brutally murdered.

According to defence version, police officers were attacked by the mob when they were
on patrol. When one of the constables got injured, the Deputy Commissioner of police

gave the orders to open fire.

The accused constables were bound by the law to obey the orders given by the superior
officer and they fired. And the deceased and his brother were shot dead.

Proceedings before Trial Judge :-

8 State of west Bengal vs Shew Mangal Singh, AIR 1981 SC 1917.

13

The complainant applied for sanction under Section 197 Cr. PC, for the prosecution of
the two officers.

Judgment of the High Court and Supreme Court:

Both the High Court and Supreme Court held that the situation warranted and justified
the order to open fire and hence, accused got protection under section 76 and cannot be
held guilty.
Raj Kishor Jha vs State of Bihar and Org..9

4.

Facts:

There was long-standing enmity between Rajendra Jha and one Deo Chandra Jha and
there were several rounds of litigations between them.
Once they was a quarrel between them, in which Nawal kishor jha shot dead.

Proceeding before Trial Court:

Trial court convicting 10 out of 15 accused persons for murder.

Proceeding before High Court:

The convicted accused persons filed appeals before the Patna High Court. Crl. Appeal
No. 485/89 was filed by 9 accused persons, while Crl. Appeal No. 521/89 was filed by one
accused.

Judgment of High Court:

High Court acquitted the accused.

Appeal Before Supreme Court:Question Before Supreme Court:9 Raj Kishor Jha vs State of Bihar and Org., AIR 2003 SC 4664.

14

Legality of the judgment whereby Division Bench of Patna High Court directed acquittal
of 9 respondents, this appeal has been filed by the informant.

Judgment of the Supreme Court:

The Supreme Court said since the judgment of the High Court is practically nonreasoned, one course open is to remit the matter back to the High Court to rehear appeal
and pass a reasoned judgment dealing with all relevant aspects. But considering the long
passage of time, we think it appropriate to decide the case by analyzing the evidence
brought on record.

Reasoning:

The Investigating Officer who died before completion of his testimony had recorded
objective findings;

The place of occurrence might be as has been suggested by the defence;

The medical evidence is not consistent with prosecution case as the doctor has stated in
his evidence that gun might have been fired from a distance of 70-80 ft while the first
information report reveals that it might have been fired from a close range;

Since the Investigating Officer had died, it had caused prejudice due to non-examination
of the Investigating Officer.

Case note:

The crucial point of time for deciding whether the benefit of Section 84 should be
given or not, is the material time when the offence takes place.

5. State of Karnataka v. Appa BaluI Ingale.10

Facts:

10 AIR 1993 SC 1126

15

The respondents restrained the complainant of the appellants by show of force from
taking water from a newly dug-up borewell on the ground that they(appellants) are
untouchables.

Appa Balu Ingale and four others were tried for the offences under Sections 4 and 7 of
the Protection of Civil Rights Act, 1955 (The Act)

The prosecution produced four witnesses who were all Harijans.

The High Court disbelieved evidence of all the four witnesses who deposed to the actual
incident as happened before their eyes.

According to the High Court their evidence was not uniform in regard to actual words
uttered by the accused persons and the manner they prevented the complainant party from
taking water from the well.

The High Court rejected the testimony of the eye witnesses

Appeal to the Court of Appeal:

The aggrieved complainant appealed to the Supreme Court challenging High Courts
verdict seeking damages against the respondent Appa Balu Ingale.

Questions before the Court of Appeal:

Whether there was an act which amounts to discrimination on the basis of

untouchability?

Whether the lower courts verdict is correct in law?

Judgement of the Court of Appeal:

The Supreme Court allowed the appeal, set aside the judgment of the High Court and
restored the judgment of the Trial Court.

Order of the Court of Appeal:

16

Respondents Shankar Babaji Patil and Rajaram Rama Sankpal shall undergo the sentence
of simple imprisonment for one month and to pay the fine of Rs. 100 each with the
default clause as awarded by the trial court

Reasons for the Court of Appeal:

Enforcement of any disability is a crime against human rights and the Constitution entails
the wrong doer with punishment.

The practice of untouchability in any form is a crime against the Constitution

Most Important Reason or Ratio:

All customs, usages, practices directly or indirectly recognising or encouraging the

practice of untouchability in any form is void ab initio.

General Principle of Law:

The practice of untouchability in any form is a crime against the Constitution

6. Sekar @ Raja Shekharan vs State rep. By Inspector of police, T. Nadu.11

Facts :

Palaniswamy (hereinafter referred to as "the deceased") impugned the sheep which,

according to him, was destroying his crops. Accused and others went to the place where
the sheep was tied and they untied it from the rope. This led to exchange of words
between the deceased and the accused. When the deceased fell down after receiving
injuries on his hand and left shoulder, the accused again inflicted another blow on his
neck. The occurrence was witnessed by 3 persons. Information was lodged at the police
station and on completion of investigation, charge-sheet was placed and the accused
faced trial. The accused took the plea of false implication and alternatively pleaded that
the assaults were made in exercise of right of private defence.

Proceeding before Trial court:11 Sekar @ Raja Shekharan vs State rep. By Inspector of police, T. Nadu, AIR 2002 SC 3667.
17

The trial court placing reliance on evidence of witnesses came to hold that the accused
was responsible for the death of the deceased. Plea of the accused that the assaults were
made in exercise of the right of private defence was not accepted, more particularly in
view of the fact that even after the deceased had fallen down, the accused inflicted a
further blow on the neck.

Proceeding before High Court:

High Court did not find any merit in the submissions made to the effect that this was a
case which was clearly covered by the accused's exercise of right of private defence.
Having rejected this stand of the accused, the High Court analysed the evidence to
conclude that the conviction was justified.

Judgment of High Court:

High Court have come to conclude that the accused was responsible for the death of the
deceased and this is not a case where the right of private defence can be pressed into
service by the accused.

Appeal Before Supreme Court:Question Before Supreme Court:

whether right of private defence is available or not, the injuries received by the accused,
the imminence of threat to his safety, the injuries caused by the accused and the
circumstances whether the accused had time to have recourse to public authorities are all
relevant factors to be considered?

Judgment of Supreme Court:

The

Supreme Court reduce the sentence to 10 years and if the accused has

undergone the period of 10 years and is not required to be in custody in any other
case, he shall be released forthwith and the appeal is allowed to the extent
indicated.

Reasoning:-

18

They noticed that there was an altercation between the accused and the deceased. There
was no pre-meditation and the assaults were given by the accused during the course of
the sudden quarrel. This, according to them, brings the case within the ambit of Exception
IV to Section 300 IPC. Even otherwise, this appears to be a case of accused exceeding the
right of private defence. The appropriate conviction would, therefore, be under
Section 304 Part I IPC and custodial sentence of 10 years would meet hand of justice.

Case Ratio:

Section 99, I.P.C., lays down the limits of the right of private defence. Sections 96 and 98

give a right of private defence against certain offences and acts.

7. Hari Singh Gond vs State of M.P.12
Facts:

Harilal Gond (hereinafter referred to as the `deceased') was the maternal grandfather in
law of the accused and in the night of incident accused, deceased and his samdhi Motilal

were sleeping in the same house.

Shyamlal (PW1), son in law

of

the

deceased

brought

his

son

in

law

accused Hari Singh on 23.2.1995 to Mohda from Singanpuri for treatment. On 25.2.1995
in the evening Motilal (PW2) the father of Shyamlal and his samdhi i.e. deceased and son
in law i.e. accused Hari Singh were sleeping in the same room after having their meal.

Shyamlal alone was sleeping in his room.

Shyamlal got up around 3-3.30 after hearing the shouting of his son in law who was
pushing his door. Then accused ran towards him to beat and in fact beat Shyamlal with
the lathi which he was carrying in his hand. Shyamlal ran away and went to the house of

Baldan.
After sometime he observed that his house was burning. Then he came running towards

his house and conveyed the same to the villagers.

When he went alongwith villagers to his house then the villagers Mulloo Singh,
Chamru Singh etc. caught hold of accused Hari Singh and they observed that there was a
fire in the room where Harilal the father in law of Shyamlal was sleeping and his father in

12 Hari Singh Gond vs State of M.P.,AIR 2009 SC 31.

19

law was burnt and had died. Motilal the father of the Shyamlal told him
that Hari Singh had slapped him at his cheek and had also kicked him at his back and by
taking lathi and trishul he ran after him, then he also ran away. Then accused started
beating deceased Harilal with stick and accused hit Harilal several times due to which
Harilal died. Then accused put some grains on fire which were lying in that room, due to
which not only the house caught the fire but Harilal was also burnt.
Proceeding before Trial Court:

The trial court relied on the evidence of eye witness Moti Lal while Kali Bai
corroborated the statement of eye witness about the unusual behaviour of the accused.

Judgment of Trial Court:

The trial court found the evidence to be cogent and accordingly recorded conviction and
imposed sentence as noted above. It did not accept the plea that Section 84 IPC has
application.

Proceeding before High Court:

In appeal before the High Court the stand about unsoundness of mind and protection
under Section 84 IPC was pressed into service.

Judgment before High Court:

High Court accepted State's stand and accordingly dismissed the appeal.

Appeal Before Supreme Court:Question Before Supreme Court:

Whether there was deliberation and preparation for the act; whether it was done in a
manner which showed a desire to concealment ; whether after the crime, the offender
showed consciousness of guilt and made efforts to avoid detections whether, after his
arrest, he offered false excuses and made false statements?

Judgment of Supreme Court:-

20

They said that the trial Court and the High Court have, on the facts of the case, rightly
held that Section 84 IPC has no application. It is submitted that the accused-appellant
is in custody since 23.1.1996 and Section 339 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973
has application. They express no opinion in that regard.

Case Ratio:

The crucial point of time for deciding whether the benefit of Section 84 should be given
or not, is the material time when the offence takes place.

CONCLUSION

The above discussion highlights that the classification of defenses has been
undertaken by various legal scholars for a long time. The debate over their classification still find
s it wayinto the academia. While I do not completely disregard the classification, I also feel that
it should not be over emphasized. I agree with the view of Glanville Williams that this
distinctionisofno practical significance as mentioned in the previous section. But nevertheless, th
e attempt to differentiate these defenses has found its way into the method in which exceptions
are taught to law students. For the sake of conceptual clarity and teaching, categorizing
exceptions under justifiable and excusable is welcomed. But it will be futile to give it much
attention when it is not really relevant in the practical scenario.
BIBLIOGRAPHY

P.S.A.Pillais Criminal Law, 9th Edition, Fourth Reprint, 2012, Lexis Nexis

Justification and Excuse in the Criminal Law , J.C. Smith, Stevens & Sons Ltd.
Justification Defences and Just Convictions, Robert F. Schopp
Offences and defences : selected essays in the philosophy of criminal law, John
Gardner.

21