The Defence of Compulsion And Necessity..

The law provides with general exceptions under S76 to 106 of the IPC. These sections identify situations where the criminal liability is relieved. Since the proof of any of these defences exempts the accused from criminal liability altogether, these are also known as complete or total defences. Most of these sections are quite exhaustive in nature. There are about 36 sections but here u would like to talk about just 1 and that is S81 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860.

Section 81 provides for the defence of Compulsion and Necessity.

There are many circumstances in which a person is put to the threat of 2 evils or dangerous situations and it is inevitable for him to face one of the two. In such a situation he is left with no other alternative except to choose the lesser danger rather than the greater. Here the law justifies his actions and protects him by exempting from criminal liability as a consequence of such action.

Such protection or exemption from criminal liability is explained under the “Doctrine of Necessity and Compulsion or Jus Necessitatis.”. It is enshrined in the maxim “Necessitas non habet legem”, which means “Necessity knows no laws”.

Act likely to cause harm, but done without criminal intent, and to prevent other harm (S81): “Nothing is an offence merely by reason of its being done with the knowledge that it is likely to cause harm, it if be done without any criminal intention to cause harm, and in good faith for the purpose pf preventing or avoiding other harm to person or property”.

There is a well known case in which the defence of this section was taken. Three seamen namely Dudley, Stephens, Brooks and a cabin boy of 18 yrs were the crew of an English Vessel. While prosecuting voyage on highseas, due to a ship-wreck the three seamen and the boy escaped and landed into an open boat. They had no food and water for several days. On the 20th day, Dudley and Stephens killed the boy and fed on the flesh and blood to survive. Later they were picked by a passing vessel and after reaching the shore they were prosecuted and tried for the murder of the small boy. The accused pleaded the defence of “necessity” to get exemption from criminal liability.

The Privy Council held the accused guilty of murder and convicted on the grounds-
1) self preservation is not an absolute necessity ;
2) no man has the right to take another’s life to preserve his own;
3) there is no necessity that justice homicide.


Thus the person claiming the defence of S81 must prove that he did not possess any criminal intention to cause harm and that his purpose in good faith was to prevent or avoid other harm to person or property.