General Exception under IPC – Part 4


This article is the continuation of last article which provide information on the general exceptions. This article will provide information on sections from 93 to 95 of IPC.


Sec 93 states Communication made in good faith— 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.

Sec 93 states that if a communication is made in good faith for the benefit of the person and it causes harm than it does not amount to an offence. Ingredients of sec 93:     

  • The communication must be made in good faith.
  • It must be made for the benefit of the person to whom it is made.

Eg: ‘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.


Sec 94 states that :- 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: Provided 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.

Sec 94 of IPC recognises the principle that offences committed out of compulsion is a defence to criminal liability. The principle is founded on the well-known maxim, “Actus me invito factus non est mens actus,” which means an act which is done by me against my will is not my act. Therefore it is highly justifiable that a man should be excused for his acts which are done through unavoidable force and compulsion. The offence of murder and offences against the state punishable with death are excluded from this section. The benefit of this section does not extend to the offence of murder and the offence against the state punishable with death. The offence of murder is excluded from sec 94 under the principle that a man cannot kill another to save his own life. As regards the second exception , i.e. offence against the state punishable with death is excluded from sec 94 under the presumption that an individual should place the sovereignty of his country, even above his own life. Even at gunpoint, a person should refuse to wage war against the state.  

Instant death:

For this Section to apply it is necessary to prove the existence of fear of instant death. Any other kind of fear, including fear of distant and not instant death, does not provide any protection under this Section.  Eg: if A threatens B that he would kill him in a week’s time unless he steals Z’s car by then, and B steals the car, B is not protected under this Section.


Sec 95 of IPC deals with trivial acts. It is based on the Latin maxim, “de minimis non curat lex” which means that the law does not concern itself with trifles. Sec 95 states that:

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.

Sec 95 intends to exclude from the operation of the code those cases which, from the imperfection of the language, fall within the letter of the penal law but are yet not within its spirit to prevent the penalisation of negligible wrongs or offences of trivial character. No man can pass through a crowded street without clashing against somebody and no reasonable man would complain of such small annoyances.

Aishwarya Says:

I have always been against Glorifying Over Work and therefore, in the year 2021, I have decided to launch this campaign “Balancing Life”and talk about this wrong practice, that we have been following since last few years. I will be talking to and interviewing around 1 lakh people in the coming 2021 and publish their interview regarding their opinion on glamourising Over Work.

If you are interested in participating in the same, do let me know.

Do follow me on FacebookTwitter  Youtube and Instagram.

The copyright of this Article belongs exclusively to Ms. Aishwarya Sandeep. Reproduction of the same, without permission will amount to Copyright Infringement. Appropriate Legal Action under the Indian Laws will be taken.

If you would also like to contribute to my website, then do share your articles or poems at

We also have a Facebook Group Restarter Moms for Mothers or Women who would like to rejoin their careers post a career break or women who are enterpreneurs.

You may also like to read:

Beti Bachao Beti Padhao

Rights of Minorities

India and its ties with neighbouring Countries

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.