General Exceptions BNS: Sections 14-44, IPC Comparison, Burden of Proof and Supreme Court Cases
General Exceptions BNS | Sections 14-44 | IPC Comparison | Right of Private Defence | Insanity | Mistake of Fact | Intoxication | Section 108 BSA Burden of Proof | SC Cases 2024 2025 | Judiciary Exam Notes | July 2026
| General Exceptions BNS — Quick Reference: Chapter: Chapter III of BNS 2023 Sections: 14 to 44 (BNS) = Sections 76 to 106 (IPC) Total exceptions: 31 sections covering all defences Seven categories: 1. Acts bound by law / mistake of fact (S.14-17) 2. Accident and absence of criminal intent (S.18-19) 3. Acts of children and persons of unsound mind (S.20-22) 4. Intoxication (S.23-24) 5. Consent and acts done in good faith (S.25-33) 6. Right of private defence — body (S.34-37) 7. Right of private defence — property (S.38-44) Burden of proof: Section 108 BSA 2023 (was Section 105 IEA) The accused must prove that their case falls within a General Exception. Standard: Balance of probabilities — not beyond reasonable doubt. Key rule: Even if accused does not plead a General Exception, the court shall apply it suo motu if evidence clearly shows it applies. |
General exceptions under BNS Sections 14 to 44 — formerly IPC Sections 76 to 106 — are the statutory defences that turn an otherwise criminal act into a lawful one. The BNS Chapter III carries the same structure and logic as IPC Chapter IV. The section numbers changed. The substance did not. A candidate who understands that BNS Section 22 = IPC Section 84 (insanity), BNS Section 34 = IPC Section 96 (private defence), and BNS Section 14 = IPC Section 76 (mistake of fact) will never confuse the two codes in an exam. This article covers all seven categories, the IPC equivalents, the burden of proof under Section 108 BSA, and the Supreme Court cases that directly test these provisions.
IPC to BNS — General Exceptions Mapping Table
| Category | IPC Section | BNS Section | Description |
| Act bound by law | S.76 | S.14 | Nothing is an offence done by a person bound by law or who by reason of mistake of fact believes themselves bound by law |
| Judicial act | S.77 | S.15 | Act done by a judge acting judicially |
| Act pursuant to court judgment | S.78 | S.16 | Act done pursuant to judgment or order of court |
| Act bound by law — person | S.79 | S.17 | Act done by a person justified or who by mistake of fact believes justified by law |
| Accident | S.80 | S.18 | Accident — no criminal intention or knowledge — lawful means and care |
| Act likely to cause harm done in good faith | S.81 | S.19 | Act causing harm done to prevent other harm — good faith — no reasonable alternative |
| Act of child under 7 years | S.82 | S.20 | Child under 7 years — not an offence |
| Act of child between 7-12 years | S.83 | S.21 | Child 7-12 years — immature understanding — not an offence |
| Act of person of unsound mind | S.84 | S.22 | Person of unsound mind at time of act — did not know nature or wrong of act |
| Involuntary intoxication | S.85 | S.23 | Intoxication without knowledge or against will — complete defence |
| Voluntary intoxication — knowledge | S.86 | S.24 | Voluntary intoxication — knowledge presumed — intent may be affected |
| Consent | S.87 | S.25 | Consent of victim — harm not amounting to grievous hurt or death |
| Act done in good faith for benefit of child / insane person | S.92 | S.30 | Good faith — benefit of person — no consent possible |
| Communication in good faith | S.93 | S.31 | Communication made in good faith |
| Compulsion | S.94 | S.32 | Act under threat of instant death — does not apply to murder or certain offences |
| Trifling act | S.95 | S.33 | Act causing slight harm not intended or known to cause such harm |
| Right of private defence | S.96 | S.34 | Nothing is an offence done in exercise of right of private defence |
| Right extends to causing death — body | S.100 | S.37 | When private defence of body extends to causing death of assailant |
| Right extends to causing death — property | S.103 | S.40 | When private defence of property extends to causing death |
| Extent of right — body | S.99 | S.36 | Right does not extend beyond what is necessary to cause harm defensively |
| Harm to innocent — private defence | S.106 | S.44 | Harm to innocent person in good faith in private defence — not an offence |
Category-wise Explanation — Key Provisions
1. Mistake of Fact — Sections 14 and 17 BNS (IPC Sections 76 and 79)
Section 14 BNS covers acts done by a person bound by law. Section 17 BNS covers acts done by a person who by reason of mistake of fact — not mistake of law — believes in good faith that they are justified by law. The key distinction: mistake of fact is a complete defence. Mistake of law is not. A police officer who arrests the wrong person genuinely believing in good faith that an arrest warrant covers that person may rely on Section 17 BNS. A person who kills another thinking it is lawful under a law that does not actually exist cannot rely on Section 17.
2. Act of Person of Unsound Mind — Section 22 BNS (IPC Section 84)
Section 22 BNS provides that nothing is an offence 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 what they are doing is either wrong or contrary to law. Three elements must be satisfied: the person was of unsound mind at the time of the act — not before, not after; the unsoundness was such that they could not know the nature of the act; or could not know that the act was wrong or contrary to law.
| Section 22 BNS — Common Exam Traps: 1. The unsoundness must exist AT THE TIME of the act. A person with a history of mental illness who commits an act during a lucid interval cannot claim Section 22 BNS. 2. The standard is cognitive — did the person know the NATURE of the act or that it was WRONG? It is not enough to show mental illness generally. 3. Burden of proof: Section 108 BSA — accused must prove insanity on balance of probabilities. Prosecution need not disprove it. 4. Every person is presumed sane — the presumption is against insanity. Accused must rebut this presumption. Surendra Mishra v. State of Jharkhand (2011): Mere abnormal behaviour or mental illness in the past does not establish Section 84 IPC / S.22 BNS. Specific cognitive incapacity at the time of the act must be proved. |
3. Intoxication — Sections 23 and 24 BNS (IPC Sections 85 and 86)
Section 23 BNS covers involuntary intoxication — where a person was intoxicated without their knowledge or against their will. This is a complete defence. Section 24 BNS covers voluntary intoxication — where the person chose to drink or take drugs. Voluntary intoxication does not excuse an act that requires knowledge — knowledge is presumed despite intoxication. However, voluntary intoxication can affect specific intent. If an offence requires intention and the intoxication was so extreme as to make intention impossible, the person may be liable for a lesser offence.
Basdev v. State of Pepsu (AIR 1956 SC 488): A retired military officer shot a 13-year-old boy at a wedding while heavily intoxicated after the boy refused to vacate his chair. The accused claimed intoxication removed his intention. The Supreme Court rejected this — held that voluntary drunkenness does not excuse knowledge that a pistol fires bullets and kills. Knowledge is presumed even when drunk. The conviction for murder was upheld.
4. Right of Private Defence — Sections 34 to 44 BNS (IPC Sections 96-106)
Section 34 BNS states: nothing is an offence done in the exercise of the right of private defence. This is the broadest statement of the right. The conditions are: there must be a reasonable apprehension of danger; state protection must not be reasonably available; the force used must be proportionate; the right cannot extend beyond what is necessary.
| Section 37 BNS — When Right of Private Defence Extends to Causing DEATH: Section 37 BNS (was Section 100 IPC) — 7 situations where the right of private defence of the body extends to causing the death of the assailant: 1. Assault reasonably causing apprehension of death 2. Assault reasonably causing apprehension of grievous hurt 3. Assault with intent to commit rape 4. Assault with intent to commit unnatural lust 5. Assault with intent to kidnap or abduct 6. Assault with intent to wrongfully confine a person so that they cannot have recourse to public authorities 7. Act of throwing or administering acid which causes reasonable apprehension of grievous hurt — NEW in BNS (was not in IPC Section 100) Exam point: Situation 7 (acid attack threat) is NEW in BNS Section 37. It has no equivalent in IPC Section 100. This is directly testable. |
Section 36 BNS (IPC Section 99): The right of private defence does not extend to causing more harm than is necessary. It cannot be exercised against a public servant acting in good faith under colour of office even if the act is not strictly justifiable by law. There is no right of private defence against a superior force if there is time to seek public protection.
Darshan Singh v. State of Punjab (2010) 2 SCC 333: The Supreme Court laid down that the right of private defence is a right to defend, not to retaliate. It must be exercised in good faith. The Court held that when there is reasonable apprehension of the assailant causing death or grievous hurt, the person exercising private defence can cause the death of the assailant and still be protected under what is now Section 37 BNS. The degree of force must still be proportionate.
Section 108 BSA — Burden of Proving General Exceptions
Section 108 of the BharatiyaSakshyaAdhiniyam 2023 (BSA) replaced Section 105 of the Indian Evidence Act 1872. It 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 lies upon the accused. The standard is the balance of probabilities — not proof beyond reasonable doubt.
| Section 108 BSA — How the Burden Works: Prosecution: Must prove the offence beyond reasonable doubt Accused: Must prove that a General Exception applies on balance of probabilities Even if the accused does not plead a General Exception — if the evidence on record makes it clear that a General Exception may apply, the court shall consider it suo motu. Section 6 BNS: All offence definitions are subject to the Chapter III General Exceptions — even if those exceptions are not repeated in the specific offence definition. Exam point: General Exceptions are universal defences — they apply to every offence defined in BNS unless the section itself excludes them. |
Supreme Court Cases — General Exceptions
1. Basdev v. State of Pepsu (AIR 1956 SC 488) — Voluntary Intoxication
Voluntary intoxication does not excuse knowledge. The accused who voluntarily drinks must be taken to know what a pistol does when fired. Intent may be affected in extreme cases of intoxication but knowledge is presumed. Still binding under Section 24 BNS.
2. Darshan Singh v. State of Punjab (2010) 2 SCC 333 — Private Defence
The Supreme Court reiterated that private defence is a right to defend — not to retaliate. It must be exercised in good faith with proportionate force. Where the assailant causes reasonable apprehension of death or grievous hurt, the defender can cause death under what is now Section 37 BNS. The deceased had attacked the accused with a gandasa. The Supreme Court upheld the right of private defence and acquitted the accused.
3. Surendra Mishra v. State of Jharkhand (2011) 11 SCC 495 — Insanity Standard
The Supreme Court held that mere mental illness does not establish the defence of unsoundness of mind under Section 84 IPC (now Section 22 BNS). The accused must prove that at the precise time of the act, they were incapable of knowing the nature of the act or that it was wrong. General evidence of abnormal behaviour or past mental illness is insufficient.
4. Yogendra Morarji v. State of Gujarat (2025 SC) — Exceeding Private Defence
In a 2025 judgment, the Supreme Court held that where the accused exceeded the right of private defence, the conviction should be for culpable homicide not amounting to murder under Section 105 BNS (was Section 304 IPC) — not for murder under Section 103 BNS. The Court confirmed the well-established principle: exceeding private defence removes the complete defence but converts the offence from murder to culpable homicide. The accused had continued attacking even after the threat had substantially reduced. Excess of force = culpable homicide, not murder.
FAQs — General Exceptions BNS
General exceptions kyahoti hain BNS mein?
BNS 2023 ke Chapter III mein Sections 14 se 44 tak “General Exceptions” hain — yeh wohparisthitiyan hain jab koi aamtaur pe apraadhlagtahuakaamapraadhnahimaanajaata. Jaise: agar koi police officer court ke order par kisi ko pakadtahai (Section 16 BNS), ya koi apniyadoosre ki jaanbachanekeliyehamlaawar ko chotpahunchatahai (Section 34-37 BNS), ya koi pagalpan ki wajah se kiyegayekaam ki prakriti nahisamajh pa rahatha (Section 22 BNS) — toh yeh sab General Exceptions keantargatapraadhnahimaanejaate. IPC mein yeh Sections 76-106 mein the.
What is the burden of proof for General Exceptions?
Under Section 108 of the BharatiyaSakshyaAdhiniyam 2023 (BSA), the burden of proving that a General Exception applies lies on the accused. The standard is balance of probabilities — not proof beyond reasonable doubt. The prosecution does not have to disprove the exception — the accused must establish it affirmatively. However, if the evidence on record itself discloses circumstances pointing to a General Exception, the court must apply it even if the accused did not specifically plead it.
IPC Section 84 ka BNS meinkaunsa section hai?
IPC Section 84 (insanity — act of person of unsound mind) ka equivalent BNS mein Section 22 hai. Section 22 BNS keantargat, agar koi vyaktikisikaamkesamaypagalpan ki wajah se kaam ki prakriti nahisamajhsaktatha, ya yeh nahisamajhsaktatha ki wohkaamgalathaiya kanoon kekhilafhai — tohwohkaamapraadhnahihai. Pagalpandoosro ki nazarmeinnahi, balkikaamkesamay ki manasthitidekhnihogi. Section 22 BNS keliye Section 108 BSA keantargat accused par yeh sabitkarnahoga ki woh is exception keantargataatahai.
When does the right of private defence extend to causing death under BNS?
Under Section 37 BNS (IPC Section 100), the right of private defence of the body extends to causing the death of the assailant in seven situations: reasonable apprehension of death, reasonable apprehension of grievous hurt, assault with intent to commit rape, assault with intent to commit unnatural lust, assault with intent to kidnap or abduct, wrongful confinement preventing access to public authorities, and — new in BNS — act of throwing or administering acid causing reasonable apprehension of grievous hurt. The seventh situation (acid) has no equivalent in IPC Section 100 and is the most important new addition in BNS for exam purposes.
Related Articles
→ Murder vs Culpable Homicide: BNS Sections 100 101 103 105 and SC Cases 2026 — Private defence exceeding right — reduces murder to culpable homicide under Section 105 BNS
→ BNS Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita 2023: Sections, IPC Comparison and Exam Notes — Complete IPC to BNS section mapping — BNS Chapter III General Exceptions overview
→ BNSS vs CrPC: Complete Section-Wise Comparison for Judiciary Exam — Criminal procedure for trials involving General Exception pleas under BNS
→ Bail Law India 2026: Section 479 BNSS, Types of Bail and SC Cases — Bail in cases where accused pleads insanity or private defence under BNS
→ Zero FIR Meaning: Section 173 BNSS, How to File and 2025 SC Cases — FIR registration in private defence cases — Section 173 BNSS procedure
→ RJS Online Coaching — Live Classes and Verified Results — BNS General Exceptions tested in RJS Prelims MCQs and Mains criminal law paper every cycle
→ Best Gujarat Judiciary Coaching — GJS Results — General Exceptions BNS Sections 14-44 — tested in GJS Mains criminal law paper
→ Best Haryana Judiciary Coaching — HJS Exam Pattern and Online Classes — BNS General Exceptions — tested in HJS Prelims MCQs and Mains Paper II criminal law
All the best — from Jyoti Judiciary Coaching
Written by Advocate Jyoti Saxena — LLB, LLM, CS, Bar Council of Rajasthan, practising at Jaipur Family Court, Jaipur District Court, and the Rajasthan High Court. General exception pleas — insanity, private defence — are part of criminal court practice. All BNS references verified from the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita 2023 (Act No. 45 of 2023). BSA references verified from BharatiyaSakshyaAdhiniyam 2023. SC citations verified from SCC Online and main.sci.gov.in. Contact: +91 99290 96546 | jyotijudiciary.com
