How far the plea of compulsion as a defence is available to the charge of committing an offence under I.P.C?

Question: How far the plea of compulsion as a defence is available to the charge of committing an offence under I.P.C?

Or

In what cases and to what extent will a plea of compulsion or necessity be a sufficient defence against a charge of a criminal offence? Does it give absolute protection?

Find the answer to the mains question only on Legal Bites. [How far the plea of compulsion as a defence is available to the charge of committing an offence under I.P.C?]

Answer

Acts done under compulsion or necessity are justifiable acts and ultimately exempt an individual from criminal liability. In this regard, Section 94 of IPC runs as follow-

“Act to which a person is compelled by threats.—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.

Explanation 1.—A person who, of his own accord, or by reason of a threat of being beaten, joins a gang of dacoits, knowing their character, is not entitled to the benefit of this exception, on the ground of his having been compelled by his associates to do anything that is an offence by law.

Explanation 2.—A person seized by a gang of dacoits, and forced, by the threat of instant death, to do a thing which is an offence by law; for example, a smith compelled to take his tools and to force the door of a house for the dacoits to enter and plunder it, is entitled to the benefit of this exception.”

The doctrine of compulsion is based on the well-known maxim, ‘actus me invito factus non-est meus act‘, i.e. an act committed by me, is not my act against my will, and therefore I am not liable for it. It is therefore extremely just and fair for a man to be excused for his actions which are done through force and coercion that are unavoidable.

The advantage of this provision would apply to all crimes under this Code except for the two specifically excluded in the clause, namely a) murder and b) death-punishable offences against the State.

In Emperor v. Antar [AIR 1925 All 315], the accused assisted in removing the dead body of a person following the murder of the accused’s mother, under the master’s threat of killing him if he declined to assist him in removing the dead body, the accused who would otherwise have been guilty under section 201 was excluded from punishment under this chapter.

In Zahid Beg v. Emperor [AIR 1938 All 91], it was held that it is sufficient if the immediate death is caused to him if the person does not take action. It is reasonably apprehensible. Whether or not the immediate death risk is valid, if circumstances indicate that the accused at the time of the crime is reasonably apprehended that if the accused doesn’t commit the act, immediate death would be caused, then such a reasonable apprehension of immediate death is sufficient to exempt the accused from the criminal liability under this chapter.

---

Important Mains Questions Series for Judiciary, APO & University Exams

1. IPC Mains Questions Series Part I: Important Questions
2. IPC Mains Questions Series Part II: Important Questions
3. IPC Mains Questions Series Part III: Important Questions
4. IPC Mains Questions Series Part IV: Important Questions
5. IPC Mains Questions Series Part V: Important Questions
6. IPC Mains Questions Series Part VI: Important Questions
7. IPC Mains Questions Series Part VII: Important Questions
8. IPC Mains Questions Series Part VIII: Important Questions
9. IPC Mains Questions Series Part IX: Important Questions
10. IPC Mains Questions Series Part X: Important Questions