Answer
General Exceptions:
Such exceptions have been provided in Chapter IV, comprising Sections 76 to 106 of the Code. They also denote the circumstances where a man justified in committing acts which would otherwise be offences. They may be summarized as below
1. Mistake of fact:
(a) act done by a person bound, or by mistakes of fact believing himself bound by law (S. 76); and
(b) act done by a person justified, or. by mistake of fact believing himself justified by law. (S. 79).
2. Judicial acts:
(a) act of a Judge when acting judicially (S. 77) and
(b) act done by officers pursuant to the judgment or order of the Court (S. 78).
3. Accident:
Act which is done by accident in doing a lawful act. For example, a policeman opens fire at mob under the command of his officer and kills several persons.
4. Absence of Criminal intent:
(a) act done with the knowledge that it is likely to cause harm, but done without criminal intent and to prevent other harm (S.81);
(b) act done in good faith for the benefit of a person without consent (S.92);
(c) communication faith (S.93);
(d0act done under threat of death (S.94).
v>
5. Incapacity to commit crime:
(a) act of a child above 7 seven years (S. 82);
(b) act of a child above 7 10 years, but of understanding (S. 83);
(c) act of a person of unsound mind (S. 84);
(d) act of an intoxicated person when the thing which intoxicated him without his knowledge or against his will. (S. 85).
6. Consent:
(a) act not known to be likely to cause death or grievous hurt, done by consent of the sufferer (S. 87);
(b) Act not intended to cause death done by consent of the sufferer (S. 88);
(c) Act done in good faith for i.e. benefit of a child under 12 years or an insane person with the consent of the guardian. (S. 89).
7. Trifling acts:
Act causing slight harm (S. 95)
8. Private defiance:
Acts done in the exercise of the right of private defense of body or property. For example, A attempts to kill B, B has a right to kill him. Another example, Z attempts, to commit House Breaking by Night, at K’s house. K has righto kill Z, (Ss. 96-99, 102 to 106).
Burden of Proof:
The celebrated rule is that in the eyes of law a man is innocent unless proved otherwise. Therefore, it is on the prosecution to prove the guilt against him with which he may have been charged. It is not for the person concerned to prove this innocence straightaway. However, contrary to it Article 121 of the Qanun-e-Shahadat Order, 1984 provides that when .a person is accused of any offence the burden of proving the existence of circumstances bringing the case within any of the General Exceptions in the Pakistan Penal Code, 1860 or within .any exception or provision contained in any other part of the same Code or in any law defining the offence is upon him and the Court shall presume the absence of such circumstances. Thus, if the offence falls within the General Exceptions contained in Sections 76 to 106, the burden shall shift from the prosecution upon the accused as he shall have to prove that his case falls within the ambit of such Exception(s). To quote:
Example:
A person accused of murder alleges that by reason of unsoundness of mind he did not know the nature of the act and its consequences,
If it is intended to bring the case within the purview of the exception it is for the defense to prove that when the act was committed, the accused was labouring under the state of unsoundness of mind insomuch so that he had not the capacity to differentiate between good and bad. If the defence succeeds in brining the case of the accused within the scope of general exception he would escape the punishment which the offence carries with it as be provided in the relevant provisions of Pakistan Penal Code, 1860.
For the benefit of exception
Defense is liable to:
1. Law presumes the absence of circumstances mentioned in the general exception clauses if someone wants to enjoy such benefits then he will have to prove that his case falls under the perimeter of the said clauses. Hence burden of proof shifts the accused/applicant.
2. It is established that Men’s race is totally absent in such clauses yet it is the duty of the applicant to prove
before the court.
3. While exercising he right of self-defence of body or property, the quantum of force defended should be proportionate to the quantum of force attacked. Further, the right of killing only commence as the apprehension of killing continues and if someone exceeds such limit, he will have no immunity from criminal liability of his action.
Limitations mentioned in Section 99 of the PPC should be strictly followed.