We thought that let's have a resource person who not only teaches in the judicial academy as such and whose sessions have been immensely popular on YouTube as well as on the Facebook and on this. Consequently, when we requested Mr. Sundar Mohan, as usual he was gracious enough to accede to the request on behalf of the team of Beyond Law CLC as is the next groups and the study circle, the TSE Chennai whose team has always been on the forefront sharing knowledge. And when two people with the same mindsets, that is the teams two teams decide to bring a good resource person. I'm quite sure that the session will have its own way understand things. Before we request Mr. Sundar Mohan to take things forward. We are enamoured by the fact that Justice P.S. Narayan has joined us on this platform, and it gives us an immense boost and asked sir to unmute himself for some brief comments upon this entire session, and it will be quite great. Justice P.S. Narayan. So we are going to unmute. Yeah, just try that. Yes, sir. You are able to hear me. Yes, sir. Everyone is able to hear you and we are all enamoured by the fact that you have joined us again. Oh, fine, giving to all of you. Good evening sir. Excellent topic you have chosen. I will also follow. Okay, okay. Thank you sir, thank you. Thank you Mr. Suresh for logging in. The entire team of TSE. Suresh is also one of the backbone of the TSE. We all have heard about TSE from down south, but TSE is a new thing which has been offered. What do you Mr. Sundar? Good evening friends. Nice to meet you all again. The topic for today is chapter four of the vinyl code, which is titled General Exceptions. In my view, this chapter and chapter two on general explanations are the two most important chapters for the defense lawyer, for a defense lawyer, and therefore this topic, I think, assumes importance. Now as the name suggests, these are all called general exceptions, as against special exceptions which we have for certain other offenses like defamation, murder, and a few other offenses where the definition clause itself provides for exceptions. They are called the special exceptions, but this chapter deals with general exceptions and it is applicable to all the offenses, not only the definition clauses, but also to the illustrations to this definition clause. Now, therefore before we start discussing about the provisions of under this chapter, one must know that this is applicable to all the offenses. This is a general exception which is applicable to all the offenses and therefore kindly see section six first before we go to this chapter itself. Section six of the Indian Criminal Code, I'll try and share it or I'll read it for you. Mr. Vikas, can I share this screen please? I hope you can see this section six. This is what it says, throw this code, every definition of an offense, every penal provision and every illustration, this is very important, not only definition, penal provision, but also every illustration of every such definition or penal provision shall be understood subject to the exceptions contained in the chapter entitled general exceptions, though the exceptions are not repeated in such definition, penal provision or illustration. Therefore, all these general exceptions have to be read with the provision. As you read a provision, you would have to read the general exceptions as well. Therefore, these are, this is a very, very important chapter. Now, let us see, go to the topic itself or the chapter four. Now, if you see, this has got about roughly about 30 provisions. Some of it are explained in nature, some of it are not exceptions in that sense. What does it, if you have to classify this chapter, you'll find that the offenses which have been committed either with no criminal intent or which are justified in law or on facts. Those are exceptions and they cannot be punished. The doer cannot be punished if he falls within these exceptions which can be broadly classified into two.  So, this can be broadly classified. Now, let us deal with 76 and 79 together. So, as you can see, 76 is shown on the screen. Nothing is an offense which is done by a person who is or was or who by reason of a mistake of fact and not by reason of mistake of law in good faith believes himself to be born by law to do it. Before we go into section 76, I forgot to tell you one more aspect. Now, if you have to fall under these exceptions, the burden is on the doer. The burden is on the accused to establish that he falls under these exceptions. So, that is the first principle that you will find in section 105 of the Indian Evidence Act. Let us go to 105 of the Indian Evidence Act, which reads as follows. When a person is accused of any offense, the burden of proving the existence of circumstances bringing the case within any of the general exceptions in the Indian criminal court or within any special exception or proviso contained in any part of the same court or in any law defining the offense is upon him. And the court shall presume the absence of such circumstances. Please underline these words. Therefore, there is a presumption of absence of exceptions. So, when there is a presumption of absence of exceptions, it is the burden is on the person who has to who says that there are exceptions to establish it. Therefore, the burden of proof is on the person who wants to say that his case falls within the exception. So, that is the first rule. Alright. What is the standard of proof? Now, is it the same as proof beyond reasonable doubt? No. The standard of proof is like in any other civil case, preponderance of probability. You will have to establish that your version is more probable than the prosecution. Therefore, it is on the basis of preponderance of probability. So, that is the standard of proof required for so far as to establish exception by a doer of an act. Alright. Now, to show that the standard of proof is only preponderance of probability. There are several judgments. You can make a note of a couple of judgments. These are not very important, but you can still make a note of it. 1974, 4 SCC, 764 and 1964, 7 SCR, 361 which says that standard of proof is by preponderance of probability. Alright. Now, let's go back to 76. Nothing is an offense which is done by a person who his or who by reason of mistake of fact and not by reason of mistake of law in good faith believes himself to be bound by law to do it. Now, you see this provision has two parts. The first part says nothing is an offense which is done by a person who has stopped there. Cut the line which is between the two commas and read it from bound by law to do it. This is the first part. So, nothing is an offense which is done by a person who is bound by law to do it. So, this is very simple. There is a law if a person is bound by law to do something, he is exonerated. So, there is no difficulty about understanding this part at all. And there are not many case laws on this first part. The law is very clear and if a person is bound by that law to do a particular act, then he is exempted or he falls within the general exceptions. For example, you see illustration B to section 6. Let me go back to section 6. This will illustrate the first part. A police officer without warrant, Apparence EZ, who has committed murder. Here, A is not guilty of the offense of wrongful confinement. For he was bound by law to Apparence EZ and therefore the case falls within the general exception which provides that nothing is an offense which is done by a person who is bound by law to do it. Now, this first part is illustrated in section B to section 6. Now, the difficulty normally arises in the second part. Now, what is the second part? Now, we will have to read with those words in between the commas to understand the second part. Nothing is an offense which is done by a person who by reason of mistake of fact and not by reason of mistake of law in good faith believes himself to be bound by law to do it. Now, here the law does not bind him to do a particular act, but he in good faith believes that by reason of a mistake of fact is bound by law to do it. This is where the difficulty arises. Now, here there is, it involves an adjudicative process where one has to determine facts to see whether the person has really done this in good faith by reason of a mistake of fact. Now, if he says it is a mistake of law, not by reason of mistake of law. If he says it is mistake of law, that is no excuse. All of us know ignorance of law is not an excuse. Therefore, it has to be by a mistake of fact believes himself to be bound by law to do it. Now, here you see illustration B to this. This will illustrate the second part which says an officer of a court of justice being ordered by court to arrest Y. And after due inquiry believing EZ to be Y, arrest EZ, EAS committed no offense. So, here E is not bound by law to arrest Y, sorry, arrest EZ, but he arrests Y believing him to be EZ. Therefore, that is the mistake of fact. Therefore, E is also protected. The person who in good faith by reason of a mistake of fact is also protected. Now, there is another interesting case dealt with by the Honorable Supreme Court in the year 1981 where a superior officer directs his subordinate to open fire on a protesting mob. Now, if the superior officer was bound by law or within law to direct the subordinate officer to open fire, there is no difficulty. Both of them will fall within the first part which says they are both bound by law to do it. Now, if what if the superior officer had exceeded his powers and illegally ordered opening of fire to his subordinate. Now, if the subordinate knows that the order is illegal and yet proceeds with the firing, then E is not protected. Now, please understand this distinction. If the subordinate knows that the superior is making an illegal order by directing him to open fire on the mob, then E is not protected. But if the subordinate by a mistake of fact believes in good faith that his superior was justified in giving the command, although the superior was not justified, then E is protected under 76. Now, this distinction is beautifully elaborated in this particular judgment. Please go through that. In 1981-4, SCC page 2, state of West Bengal versus Shio-Mangal Singh, there they make a distinction between where the superior officer, in that case they hold that the superior officer was justified. Therefore, on facts they hold that they are both bound by law to do it. But then they make a distinction where if the superior officer was not justified and the subordinate by a mistake of fact in good faith believes that he was right and he executes that order, E is also protected under section 76 part 2. So, there are two parts in this. So, please remember that one is a person is bound by law to do it and the second is even though he may not be really bound by law to do it, but by a mistake of fact he believes in good faith that is bound by law to do it. So, this is about 76. Now, let's go to 79 which is similar and then we'll deal with 77 and 78. Now, here you'll see the words used are very similar except for the fact that where we saw in 76 it says bound by law. In 79 it says justified by law. What is the distinction? Now, let's see what is the distinction? Nothing is an offense which is done by any person who is justified by law or who by reason of a mistake of fact and not by a mistake of law in good faith believes himself to be justified by law in doing it. Now, here again what do you mean by justified by law and bound by law? In 76 we saw bound by law means there must be a specific law which binds that person to do a particular act. Now, here there need not be any specific law. When you say justified by law there need not be any law which justifies a particular act. It only means all those you are permitted to do all acts which are not prohibited by law. So, you have to understand it that way. So, that is the difference between 76 and 79. For 76 there must be a specific law but 79 then if there is no prohibition under law you are justified by law to do it. So, that is the distinction please make that please understand that distinction. Now, you see the other words are very similar like nothing is an offense which is done by a person who is justified by law. Supposing you walk on the road it's just you know no law says that you can walk on the road but it's not prohibited. So, that is justified by law. But the second part is what is again which troubles is or by reason of a mistake of fact or not by reason of mistake of law in good faith believes that is justified by law to do a particular act. Now, how do you illustrate this second part? Now, you see the illustration explains that very nicely. A, C, Z commit what appears to A to be a murder. A, in exercise to the best of a judgment exerted in good faith of the power which the law gives to all persons of uprending murders in the fact, C, Z in order to bring Z before the proper authorities. A has committed no offense though it may turn out that Z was acting in self-defense. Now, here you see Z actually has not committed any offense but the man, the person who is uprending thinks that he has committed an offense. It appears to him that it is a murder and therefore he apprehends him. Here in good faith he believes that he is justified in law to apprehend him. So, this is one example. Now, in a Supreme Court, in a case before the honorable Supreme Court, a very interesting issue came up. The producers of a movie called Satyam Shivam Sundaram were prosecuted for screening obscene scenes, under section obscene obscene scenes and therefore liable for offenses under section 292 IPC. Now, the difference of the producer and the other actors, others who are prosecuted were that maybe these scenes are obscene or it may or may not offend section 292 of the Indian Penal Code but we have got a censor board certification. So, the Supreme Court went into this question and said whether or not this censor board certification will have the effect of neutralizing section 292, we will not go into that question. In any case, because they had a certificate from the censor board, they in any case in good faith by reason of a mistake of fact believed that they are entitled to screen this movie. So, it is not a mistake of law. They said it is a mistake of fact. They believed that in good faith that they are entitled to screen this movie as such in view of the censor board certification. Therefore, their act was brought within the second part of section 79 and you will find this in AR 1980 Supreme Court 605 Raj Kapoor versus Lakshman. Raj Kapoor was the person who was prosecuted and this is a very interesting case on section 79 second part. Now, there are other similar cases. For example, if a person is accused of adultery and he is able to show that he was not sure or by verification he could find out whether that lady was married. A man is accused of adultery and say if A is accused of adultery with having a connection with D, let us say B and B is an husband prosecutes A for adultery. Now, A can take a defense that he had made all reasonable enquiries and could not find out whether B was or he was made to believe that B was unmarried and therefore he had a physical relationship with B and he is entitled to a protection in the 79. But provided he must be able to establish that it was a mistake of fact and in good faith he believed that she wasn't unmarried. So that is a defense that is possible in adult cases where people are not aware of the fact that she is married or the lady is married. Likewise, if you see where there is a physical relationship with consent of a minor girl and the person is prosecuted for rape. Now, if it is a minor girl it is rape whether with or without consent. Now, if the doer is able to or the person accused of rape is able to show that he bona fide believed by a mistake of fact that this girl was above 18. She was able to show some certificates of thought. She came across some certificates of the girl etc. Then he will also fall under this particular exception. So these are some illustrations to suggest that how though he may not be justified by law by a mistake of fact or not by a mistake of law in good faith believe that he is justified by law. So this will fall under section 79. Now, 76 and 77 and 78 are acts done by judges or done pursuant to a judgment or order. So this is very simple. This doesn't need any elaboration. Let us read it for the purpose of completion. Nothing is an offense which is done by a judge. Now, who is a judge is defined in the section 19 of the Indian Penal Code. The word judge denotes not only every person who is officially designated as a judge, but also every person who is empowered by law to give in any legal proceeding, civil or criminal, a definitive judgment or a judgment which if not appealed against would be definitive. Or a judgment which is confirmed by some other would be definitive or who is one of a body of persons which body of persons empowered by law to give such a judgment. Now, you will see the illustrations where there is a power confirmed on any person to adjudicate any dispute and that judgment is definitive if not appealed against or if confirmed by self-maudhati is definitive. He will be called as a judge whether or not he is officially designated as a judge. Now, let's go back to 76. So it is applicable to not only persons who are officially designated as judges, but also persons who have this power to adjudicate disputes. Now, nothing is an offense which of course there are subtle distinctions. Now, the arbitrator is not a court judge etc. But let's not go into that. For the time being, let us understand this way. Read it along with sections 19 and 77. Nothing is an offense which is done by a judge when acting judicially in exercise of any power which is or which in good faith he believes to be given to him by law. 78 is nothing which is done in persons of or which is warranted by a judgment or order of court of justice. If done while such judgment or order remains in force is an offense notwithstanding the court may have had no jurisdiction to pass such judgment or order provided the person doing the act in good faith believes that the court had such jurisdiction. Now, if you see all these provisions, it is the doers perception on a mistake of supposing he perceives that to be a legal order and executes it, then he is protected. Now, this is the subtle distinctions but then the burden is on him to show that he had done it in good faith. So, this is about 77 and 78. There are not many cases on these two provisions but as the provisions are very clear, it doesn't require much elaboration. Now, let us go to section 80. This particular provision has given trouble to the courts while interpreting. I'll tell you why. Although the act, the section is very short and looks innocuous, but it is not so. Now, let us read the section. Nothing is an offense which is done by accident or misfortune and without any criminal intention or knowledge in the doing of a lawful act in a lawful manner by lawful means and with proper care and caution. Now, all of us know that for an act to constitute an offense, there has to be two elements, two key elements, one is mensaria and the actresses. And absence of mensaria will not constitute, if there is no mensaria, that act cannot be called as an offense. Merely because bad consequences or a consequence follows from a particular act, it does not become an offense. All of us know that. The resultant act or the mere fact that a bad consequence has followed does not constitute an offense. So, what is important is the criminal intention or the knowledge or what we call as mensaria. Now, in the absence of mensaria, it automatically is not an offense.  Now, that is why this particular provision was not found in the original draft which was submitted by Lord Macaulay to the Governor-General in the year 1837. This was, this particular provision was incorporated by the subsequent drafting committee and incorporated in the 1860 act. Now, the difficulty is because of these too many conditions, you can't really bring it under ATI and this particular provision is actually redundant provision because the moment you say there is no criminal intention or knowledge or mensaria, then there is no offense at all. But to bring it within this exception, you see what all you have to establish. Nothing is an offense which is done by accident. First, you have to show that it is accident or misfortune. What is misfortune has not been defined. What is accident is also not been defined and without any criminal intention or knowledge. So, this is the most important thing, without any criminal intention or knowledge. In the doing of a lawful act, now he has to do a lawful act in a lawful manner by lawful means and with proper care and caution. So, with proper care and caution. Now, why not we ignore this section one may ask. Now, the difficulty, I'll give you two illustrations. Now, let us say a boatman takes passengers in his boat and he does not notice a particular stone or in one portion of the lake means let us say and therefore the boat collides on the stone and then ultimately the passengers are killed. Now, here you see he will be protected under this particular section for he would not be guilty of murdering or killing these people because it is an accident. What he has done is only transporting people, he has done it in a lawful act in a lawful manner by a lawful means with proper care and caution. Now, in the same illustration, let us assume that he's taking slaves or smuggling some goods along with some people, which is an illegal act and which is and which is definitely not by any lawful means. And he does the same act and it kills these people. Now, will he be liable for murder? No, but a reading of this section 80 says that since he has not done in a lawful act in lawful manner, generally people tend to say that the protection under section 80 is not available. So, minus section 80 also is protected under because he is protected because there is no criminal intention or knowledge in killing. He may be guilty of an illegal act. He may be guilty of an unlawful means in doing that act, but he may not be guilty of actually committing the crime for which he is charged. Now, another illustration is given in this lecture on criminal law by Uda, the beautiful book, where the learner author gives another example. So, he says a person with unlicensed gun goes for hunting. Let us say, so what does he do? Hunting is prohibited. The unlicensed gun that is also an unlawful act that he's doing and he accidentally kills a person who was found behind a bush thinking that he was killing an animal. He kills a person, let us say. Will he be guilty of murder? He will not be guilty of murder, though he's doing an unlawful act in an unlawful manner, but yet he will be liable only for those unlawful acts and not for the act of murder. So, this section, it is for the, in my view, and it is for the audience to ponder and think as to how this is relevant. In fact, that is why this particular provision was not found in the previous code submitted by the draft submitted by Lord McCullough. So, this is about section 80. So, what you have to understand is, when there is no intention and knowledge, that is good enough. That itself will observe you from the offense. There is no, there's no other thing required. But all other words are redundant. Therefore, in my humble view, this particular provision is a redundant provision. Now, let us go to the next provision. This is a very interesting provision, again misunderstood by many people. It is understood to mean that to prevent a greater harm, one can cause a slight harm to a third party. Now, let us read this provision and this is the impression that many people give, not only because on the plain reading of this provision, but also after reading the illustrations. Let us read this provision. And then I explained to you, that's not the only meaning that it should be given. That's not the only meaning that can be given to this provision. Nothing is an offense merely by reason of its being done with the knowledge that it is likely to cause harm if it be done without any criminal intention to cause harm and in good faith for the purpose of preventing or avoiding other harm to person or property. Now, you see here, now here's the knowledge, there are two, all of us know, when you talk about minceria, there are two types of mental states, two types of minceria. One is doing an act with the knowledge and the other one is doing the knowledge act with the criminal intention. So criminal intention is far worse because you not only have the knowledge that you are going to likely to commit the weapon, but also one more thing that you want to do it. But in knowledge, you have the only, there's only one part of that criminal intention. That is, you have knowledge, but criminal intention is something more than knowledge. You have not only the knowledge, but also the wanting to do that intention to do that, wanting to do that particular act. So here, therefore if you see that distinction you will have to make while you're reading section, the provisions and general exceptions, also any other criminal provision will have to make the distinction about these two mental states difference. That is, one is knowledge and the other one is intention. Now, here you see the act is done with the knowledge that it is likely to cause harm. So that knowledge part is there, but if it be done without any criminal intention, he does not intend to cause harm. That is very important. If he intends to cause harm, then he does not fall within that exception of section 81. Therefore, first thing is, even though he has knowledge that he is likely to cause a harm, but he does it without any criminal intention and in good faith for purpose of preventing or avoiding other harm to either person or property. Now, it is a question of fact in such a case whether the harm to be prevented or avoided was of such a nature and so imminent as to justify or excuse the risk of doing the act with the knowledge that it was likely to cause harm. So it is a question of fact is what the explanation says. Now, let us read the illustration. A, the captain of a sea vessel suddenly and without any fault or negligence on his part finds himself in such a position that before he can stop his whistle, he must invariably run down a boat B with 20 or 30 passengers on board, unless he changes the course of his vessel. And that by changing his course, he must incur the risk of running down a boat C with only two passengers on board, which he may possibly clear. Here, if A alters his course without any intention to run down the boat C and in good faith for the purpose of avoiding the danger to the passengers in board B, he is not guilty of an offense. Here you see the captain's intention was to not run down the passengers in board C. His intention was to save the passengers in board B, where the number is more. Therefore, his intention is only to save and not to cause harm to the board C, though he is aware that he has knowledge that by altering the course is likely to cause damage or danger to the passengers in board C, which has got lesser number of passengers. Now here, one may immediately conclude by reading this illustration that to prevent a greater harm, you can cause a slight harm. But this act, if you see the provision does not say anywhere about greater or lesser harm. Now, there are three types of situations that one can visualize under section 81. First is to prevent greater injury, you cause harm to someone which is lesser in gravity, just as we saw in the illustration. That is the first illustration, that is the first situation that one can think of. A second situation is when you talk about avoiding harm, other harm to a person or property, it includes harm to oneself. Now, if you have to prevent greater harm to yourself or to your property, you are justified in causing a lesser harm to another person. That is the second situation. If a smaller injury is caused to another person to prevent greater injury oneself, that is the second situation. Now, the third type of situation is to prevent injury to a person and when that person is put to an equal or a greater injury, let me illustrate this. Now, you are putting that person to a particular type of, you are risking or you have the knowledge that you are likely to put that person to a particular type of injury to prevent an equal or a greater injury or even a lesser injury. Let me illustrate it this way. Now, you see a tiger attacking or the tiger fast approaching a person. Now, you will have to shoot at the tiger.  When you are shooting at the tiger, you are likely to harm that person or even kill that person. But yet, you can proceed with that act, though you know that a tiger may or may not kill that person. See, that can cause a lesser injury. But by that act, you are causing a greater injury even though that you have a knowledge that you are likely to cause a greater injury to that particular person by shooting at the tiger and missing the tiger and killing that person. You are still entitled to protection under section 81. This is even if it is a greater or a lesser injury that is sought to be avoided. But these are the situations. Now here, therefore, the explanation which makes it very clear, it is a question of fact in such a case whether the harm to be prevented or avoided was of a such a nature or so imminent to justify the excuse or risk of doing the act. Now, here, so this is about section 81. So, wherever you feel that harm or it can be prevented without any criminal attention cause another harm to third party or greater injury, then it is greater injury. So far as greater injury is concerned, it is when you want to prevent a greater injury to yourself, your intent to cause a lesser harm. You can't prevent a lesser harm to yourself and cause a greater injury to others. That is where the distinction arises. So, that distinction one must understand. So, the broad test is if it is equal, supposing there is a choice between your life and another man's life, what do you do? You can't take that life on other person. The choice is you have to take away your life. So, if the choice is equal, that is your life or the other man's life, you have to take away your life. That is the test that is applied by a court. So, the explanation also would suggest whether to harm to be prevented such a nature or to imminent to justify or excuse the risk of doing the act. All right. Now, this is about section 81. Now, let us see section 82. So, 82 is founded on the principle of doli incapac. Doli means crime, incapac means incapable of committing a crime. So, doli incapac means incapable of committing a crime. So, the law presumes that a child below seven years is incapable of committing an offense and this presumption is conclusive. So, there is no rebuttal and the prosecution cannot prosecute a person who is aged less than seven years of any offense. So, this is very, very clear. Nothing is an offense which is done by a child under the seven years of age. Now, 83 is slightly different where there is a rebuttable presumption. Now, here also there is a presumption that a person below 12 years is incapable of or does not have the sufficient maturity of understanding to judge the nature and consequences of his conduct on that occasion. So, that is a presumption but it is rebuttable. The prosecution can establish that the person who committed the offense was at the sufficient or attained the sufficient maturity of understanding to judge the nature and consequences of his conduct. So, in 82, it is a conclusive presumption that it is incapable of committing an offense. Here it is a rebuttable offense. Therefore, unlike the other general exceptions, so far as Section 83 is concerned, the burden is on the prosecution to show that the child between the age of seven and twelve was at the sufficient maturity of understanding to judge the nature and consequences of conduct. So, here, so you can take it that a person below 12 years is incapable of committing an offense. But if he is between seven and 12, the prosecution if it is able to show that the person is capable of understanding or the doer is capable of understanding the nature and consequences of act, he is also guilty. So, that is a rebuttable presumption. Now, some of the interesting illustrations you will find in cases where a boy of 12 years at some, along with his brothers attacks his uncle for some property dispute and he wields a knife and on the neck of the person, on the victim. So, there the court found that this person who was able to wield a knife was 12 years, was able to wield a knife, understood the nature and consequences because he knew that neck was a vital part and if you attack a person in the neck, he is likely to die. And therefore, he was prosecuted and he was also convicted for attempt to murder. I am not sure of where you can have a look at the judgment. In 1977, for a CC page 44, this is an interesting date, please go to the document where they discuss about, in fact, they discuss about juvenile justice, the juvenile justice actor then not coming to force, but then they say, the juveniles cannot be punished at that. But then they had, at that point of time, they were confined, they were bound by the law and therefore they are constrained to convict the accused of 12 years, who was aged 12 years. So, this is about, so the only distinction here is the, it is on the burden was on the prosecution here unlike the other general exceptions, the presumption is rebuttable and the child between 7 and 12 years can be prosecuted if he's got sufficient which you can understand. The next is a very important provision, which you all often discuss about, is the act committed by a person of unsolved mind. Now, let us see what this provision actually tells us. Nothing is an offense, which is done by a person who at the time of doing it, by reason of unsolved of mind is incapable of knowing the nature of that or that is doing what is either wrong or contrary to law. Now, this provision also was not found in the original draft. The original draft said, nothing is an offense, which is done by a person who suffers from mediocrity. That was as simple as that. Now, there's no such thing as unsolved of self-mind or incapable of knowing the nature of that or that is doing what is either wrong or contrary to law. Then, how did this particular provision come up? What had happened was, there was a case in London where one magnotin had, was suffering from some stent disease of illusion and he suffered, he thought that the prime minister was the cause for all his problems in life. And therefore, he goes and kills his personal secretary, one Edmund Drummond, thinking that he is the prime minister. So, the defense taken by him was that he suffered from insanity and therefore, he should not be punished and his defense was, he was accepted and he was acquitted. And this issue came up for debate before the House of Lords, then they wanted a definitive opinion from the House of Lords. Five questions were put to the House of Lords based on this particular case and the House of Lords answered it. The answers to questions number two and three were incorporated in this particular section. They said, if any person who suffers from unsoundness of mind is incapable of knowing the nature of act or that is doing what is either wrong or contrary to law, then he should be accepted and he should not be guilty or made guilty of the offense. Now, the rules and the questions and answers to this, what was placed before the House of Lords is extracted in a judgment of the Honorable Supreme Court in 2010, 10 ACC page 552, 582, Sudhakaran versus state of Kerala. Please go to this judgment, very interesting there, where they say as to how this particular provision came about. So, that's about the history of this particular provision. Now, let's go back to the section as to what it means actually means. Now, what does the doer has to establish three things. One, that at the time of doing it, that must be relevant, it must not be a past event. At the time of doing it, he must suffer from unsoundness of mind. That's the second thing that he must establish. And not only that, because of that unsoundness of mind, he was incapable of knowing the nature of the act. So, it doesn't stop with unsoundness of mind. Because of that unsoundness of mind, he was incapable of knowing the nature of the act or that is doing what is either wrong or contrary to law. So, these three things have to be established. Now, here at the time of doing it is very clear. So, he must at that particular point suffer from that unsound of mind and incapable of knowing the nature. So, what is unsoundness of mind? This has not been defined. This has not been defined. It has, we have all often said that it refers to insanity. Now, insanity is again not defined. Therefore, the quotes have come up with theory that insanity means he must first suffer from some kind of a medical insanity. So, once there is a medical insanity established, the, that by itself, if so factor will not absolve him of the efforts. There must be something called legal insanity. What is legal insanity? That must be something more. What is that something more that apart from that medical insanity, he must be incapable of knowing the nature of act or that is doing what is either wrong or contrary to law. Now, therefore, all those persons who are medically unsound are not protected or will not come under within these exceptions. So, medically unsound person must further establish that because of his unsoundness or because of that particular insanity, he was incapable of understanding the nature of the act or that is doing what is either wrong or contrary to law. Now, this is established. Now, how do you show that he was incapable of knowing the nature of the act? That is again his mental process. How do you establish that? How do you, how is the, how can a difference establish that? Again, the courts have laid some tests based on some suggestions made by the great jurist, John D. Maine. He suggests some tests for seeing whether this particular person was really incapable of knowing the act or what was doing was either wrong or contrary to law. Now, the tests are like this. The first test is whether there was a deliberation and preparation by the doer for doing that act. If the answer is yes, then he was capable of knowing the nature of the act. If the answer is no, then that is the first test that he has passed. That is, he was, he had not done this act by any kind of a deliberation or preparation. That's the first test. Then, whether it was done in a manner which showed the desire to conceal the offense. Supposing the man did that offense and tried to conceal it by say, for example, washing the blood stains off or any other manner of concealing it, then again, he was capable of knowing the nature of the act. So, if the answer to the question is, desire to conceal was there, if the answer is yes, then again, he was capable of knowing the nature of the act. He fails in that test. So, if he passes in these two tests, then the third test is after the crime, if the offender shows consciousness of guilt and made efforts to avoid detection. Now, supposing he runs away and he made efforts to avoid detection, that's the third test. There also, he is capable of knowing the nature of the act. Then the fourth test is whether he gave false excuses and false statements after others. Now, all these tests, John DeMaine says are not conclusive. They at best will show you inferential insanity. This can be fake. All these symptoms or all these tests can be passed by faking it. Now, therefore, these are not conclusive. Therefore, again, it is for the courts on facts to determine whether maybe they can use this test as a guidance. Supposing, in a broad daylight, a person commits a murder in the presence of, say, a few policemen and walks directly to them without any effort to conceal it or without any repentance, that all those might indicate that he is incapable of provided, is otherwise supposed from medical insanity also. So, this is an, in fact, in one of the cases, they discuss a very interesting situation where a person was prosecuted for murder. The man in which he committed murder was very ghastly. He cuts the, he chops the head off of his friend who was sleeping next to him and then puts the head in the cupboard. And then he says when the police and sleeps with the dead body. Next day morning when the people come and ask him as to what happened, he says, I wanted to play a prank on my friend. I wanted to take his head off and keep it away so that he goes in search of it. So, this is a clear case of extreme case of unsoundness of mind and where you see the conduct, he not only does that, he sleeps with the, he does, there's no effort to conceal, there's no effort to escape, etc. So, this is one extreme case of unsoundness of mind that courts have discussed in one particular case. Now, the interesting case laws on this subject, you can make a note, are reported in 2011, 11 ACC page 495, Surendra Mishra was the state of Jharkhand and then Bapu was the state of Rajasthan, 2007, 8 ACC page 636. Then Sikant Anandrao was the state of Maharashtra, 2002, 7 ACC page 748. So, here therefore what does the doer got to establish if he wants to be protected under this or come under within this exception, he must say that at the time of doing it, he suffered from some kind of unsoundness of mind. And because of that unsoundness of mind, he was incapable of knowing the nature of that or that he's doing that, what is he either doing or wrong or contrary to that. So, there is a general presumption, like there is a presumption that the courts will always have, draw the presumption that there are no exceptions in a particular case. It is for the doer to show that he falls within the exception, whether it is general or special. Likewise, there is a presumption that every person is sane. So, to show that he is insane is for the person who wants to establish that he is insane. Section 85 is again very similar. Only difference is the unsoundness of mind is replaced by intoxication. So, nothing is an offense which is done by a person who at the time of doing it is by reason of intoxication incapable of knowing the nature of that or that he is doing what is either wrong or contrary to law provided that the thing which is intoxicated was administered to him without this knowledge or against his will. Now, here the law presumes now a reading of this section says a law presumes that by reason of intoxication a person may or may not be incapable of knowing the nature of that if he is intoxicated. Now, so intoxication here again like you saw in unsoundness of mind, here again intoxication by itself is not a difference. He must not only be intoxicated, one that intoxication must have been administered to him without his knowledge or against his will that's the second condition. And third condition is very, very important because of that intoxication he was incapable of knowing the nature of that or that is doing what is either wrong or contrary to law. Again, this third aspect of incapable of knowing the nature like I told you in section 84 Insanity is also have to be determined also have to be determined on the basis of facts. Supposing his conduct was such that he was incapable of knowing the nature of that then he will be protected, provided the intoxication is administered to him without his knowledge. There are not many cases on this provision as well because there are very rarely you come across situations where a person will fall under all these things. Firstly, he must be intoxicated, intoxication must be administered to him without his knowledge or against his will and then he commits an offense. So, it's a very rare combination so you can't find many cases under section 85 also. Now, here 86 is important 86 is not an exception. Now, you understand in fact it should not have come under the general exceptions because it is not an exception. It is only an explanation section 86 if you read it very carefully is an explanation. Let me read the story for you in cases where an act done is not an offense unless done with the particular knowledge or intent. A person who does an act in a state of intoxication shall be liable to be dealt with as if he had the same knowledge as he would have done if you have not been intoxicated unless the thing which intoxicated him was administered to him without his knowledge or against his will. Now, let us take an example of a person who is intoxicated on his own will or voluntarily intoxicate himself. So, if that person commits an offense, like I told you in 85 the law presumes that sometimes the intoxication will tend to make a person incapable of knowing the nature of the act. So, if a person whether it is voluntarily administered or against his will the liquor or the intoxication has the effect of making him unable to understand. So, they wanted to make that very very clear. If a person voluntarily intoxicates himself and even if he is unable to understand the nature of the conduct he is still liable because he can then take the defense that I did not have the requisite ministry or knowledge. He may not have had the requisite ministry or knowledge, please understand this distinction very clearly. He may not have had the requisite ministry or knowledge which would have otherwise absolved him of the offense. But if he had intoxicated and voluntarily and even if he was incapable of understanding or the nature of the conduct is still be liable by virtue of the explanation. I may call it explanation, it is not an exception under section 86. I hope I have made myself clear. The only distinction between 85 and 86 is 85 is an exception that if it is administered without his knowledge or against his will and he has done something without knowing the nature of the act then he is accepted under 85. But under 86 the law makes it very very clear that even though a particular person may not have had the requisite ministry or he is still liable if he had voluntarily intoxicated himself and committed the act. Now, here it says with a particular knowledge or intent again the so that these two menstrual are also presumed if he had voluntarily intoxicated himself. So, this is an explanation and not an exception. So, please understand this is the distinction between 85 and 86. Now 87 to 92 fall under one category. Those are categories where harm is caused to a person who has consented to suffer that harm. Now, what is the distinction between all these five sections? You will find that they are very interestingly divided and classified into five different provisions. The first thing is about, first thing, first provision is section 86, 87. When an act, let me read the section provision and then explain to you nothing which is not intended to cause death or give a set and which is not known by the doer to be likely to cause death. So, please understand, please make a note of these two intentions. First of all, the doer must not intend to cause death or give a set and he must not have the knowledge also that that act is likely to cause death or give a set. So, this is very, very important. If these two conditions are satisfied, that is not enough. By reason of any harm which it may cause or intend to be caused by the doer to cause to any person above 18 years of age who has given consent, whether experts are inclined to suffer that harm or the reason of any harm which it may be known by the doer to likely to cause any harm such person who was concerned to take that risk of that harm.  That particular harm will not extend to either death or grief was hurt. Please understand, this will not extend to either death. Sorry, nobody can give concern to kill oneself. That is not what is contemplated under section 87 that even if a person gives a consent also, the other person has no right to cause death or grief was hurt unless it falls within any of the exceptions that you would now presently leave 88 to 90. So, here the doer of the act does not intend to either cause death or grief was hurt or does not have knowledge that it is likely to cause death or grief was hurt. Causes harm to another person who has given concern to suffer the term. For example, how do you give concern to either implied or express supposing there is a sports event like for the illustration as it suggests A and Z agreed to fence within just for amusement. Now, here both of them agree that it is likely to cause harm. Both of them concern to the other person that by agreeing to indulge in Z score they are causing harm to they are likely to cause harm to each other. They are both protected provided both did not intend to cause death or did not have the knowledge to cause death or grief was hurt. Very important is grief was hurt also. So, here therefore if these two conditions are satisfied, neither knowledge nor intention to cause death or grief was hurt is not there. Then the consent by a person above A is that then he is protected under section 87 or any other sport for that exam and boxing you can take boxing you can take even cricket. There is no intention to cause death, but there are people who have died of the cricket field. Now, section 88 is slightly different. Now, section 88 gives one more concession that is the doer of act does not intend to cause death, but he knows that it is likely to cause death. Now, the distinction between 87 and 88 here is one mensaria is only ruled out the intention to cause death is ruled out. But there is a knowledge that it is likely to cause death, but yet he does that act because in good faith he believes that it is to prevent another harm. For example, it applies to surgeons, surgeon knowing that a particular option operation is likely to cause the death of Z. He knows you remember unlike 87 here he knows there is a knowledge also who suffered under the painful complaint, but not intending to cause death. And intending in good faith that for death benefit performs that operation on Z with death content he has committed no offense. So, here you see the doer of the act knows while performing that operation for let us take the case of our doctor. While performing the operation he knows that it is likely to cause death, but yet he is protected because the reason is he knows that it is he is doing that for the benefit of the person who is given that consent. So, therefore he is protected under section 88 and there are number of cases where doctors have been prosecuted who will fall under the exception to section 88. Before we I think maybe we can stop here and the remaining sections we can do in part two. What do you say Mr. Vikas? We have already done more than I think the attention span may. We will do part two especially we have also written on the creative also from its part one. Yes, yes, yes we will do it in part two. See that as it may one can connect with this session and thereafter they can also log in for the second session. Yes, yes, yes. Yeah, one question has come can I a person intoxicated in the section under 86 take defense of an accident as there is no knowledge and intention. Intoxication? Let's assume a person is an intoxicated and there is an accident. Can he say take the defense of accident under section 80? No, see if it is done with the if if we had not done with the intention now there is a recent judgment of Audubon Supreme Court he says knowledge can be presumed if a person is intoxicated. Knowledge that it is likely to cause harm to another person can be presumed if he's intoxicated therefore he cannot have that difference under section 80. So there are two mental states I telling you either intention or knowledge. So the knowledge can be presumed if a person intoxicates himself voluntarily and causes accident and say for example causes death of another person. He prosecuted for 304 part two where he's presumed to have had knowledge of the desired consequences. The, not the desired consequences knowledge of the consequences. This is the complainant is the aggressor push the accused accused right to save himself and push them away. The complainant fell down and fractured the arm. Can the accused claim exception of self defense. Yes, yes. So we had only two questions. Yes. Next session. Yeah. One more has come.  Will the other person be guilty? He will not. The other person will be guilty of culpable homicide because he will fall under exceptions. He will not be totally exonerated even if the other person concerns he has no right to kill. Another is when Naveen Kumar he says kindly explain the doctrine of necessity at the section 81. Yes, doctrine of necessity again it is based on facts as we saw the illustrations or the explanation to the section. It depends on facts of each case. There are three situations that are usually we should have that will come under that provision. Like you saw preventing a greater arm, you, you cause a lesser on to some person or to prevent a great injury to oneself, you cause a lesser on to another person, or you know that there's a equal injury or harm is likely to be caused to a particular person. You cause a greater injury. So these are the three situations all depends on facts. The expression is very clear to that person. Any other question? That is merely asking. Yes. When will be the next session I said that we can connect on the WhatsApp number. Yeah. So thank you Mr. Sundar for helping us to understand the nuances of the general exceptions. Normally as a student and as a lawyer one does redevelop it. But what would be the legal journey and what could be the differences as you rightly said for a defense counselor to understand all this. After you have the insights. Then they can understand the much better way subsequently because you are once you have the, as they say then you can push the envelope of thought processes to understand the things in the better way. So everyone stay safe, stay blessed. And as we keep on saying those were not vaccinated. They should get themselves vaccinated. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you Mr. Suresh and thank you Mr. Justice. Thank you.


The one on the ceiling Cupchair today. We got a film. This is hi. Yay. Hi IQ moments in cricket. Oh, we won't understand it No, cuz we have zero IQ as you guys know. Let us know what you think our IQ is down in the comments below At least 23 combined mine 69 high five anyway, so I'm assuming this is like oh It was smart on their part right which will be way over our head because I'm hoping our our cricket IQ is It's getting up there though. It's better than when we started when we thought that cricket was just another version of baseball Where are the boundaries? I think it was yeah, you can hit it anywhere. Oh score Go back and watch our original cricket video. It's pretty terrible. What are those sticks sticking out of the ground behind them? Here we go. I don't think he gets enough for this either Does he catch it? No down? Oh There's a run out as well Given the illusion to under the pressure quiet that the ball is not coming to his hand Yeah, that's smart so that he Oh It's gone. Oh, it's not quite sure what's going on. Yeah, I'm not exactly sure what happened. No Did it hit the bat? It is. He didn't know where it went. Just enough. He's in here safe. No problem His foot left. Yep, cuz he thought the ball was gone. There's no idea where that's What? Caught him slipping. I'm guessing they didn't see that the ball was there. I guess I Think he was he started moving he started moving way before he hit it. Yeah, he knew he was gonna Man that could go really wrong Scott Sterling took a six. I love those. I want to see that and rewind. He did that on midair. I think Midair yep. Wow nice. That's an hour. That's yeah, that's categorized as a catch, right? Yeah, he committed no he committed Yeah, he went off Right decides to go for a ride. This is where he just Absolutely, he hides it Smart even would have to go jogging Just like a nice pitch. I don't know where that was a high IQ thing. Oh Absolutely brilliant. I'm assuming a lot of these are like they anticipated those gonna happen, right? Yeah, she's see the moves. Yep Has anybody ever thrown the ball up and it's come down and hit people on the head They throw the ball I just see right that he was doing the split and then changed it does so well He just does that so well and so easily You are showing off if you're in the ground and you're watching this Lepid all up. This is fantastic Oh Watch that ticking the presence of mine. Oh, oh he faked the throw. Did you see that? No, I didn't the guy in front fake to throw as if he had the ball and he didn't and it was the guy behind him Who was getting the ball watch this guy fakes throw? And then he gets the ball so it's it made them stutter smart That's a good delivery Another slower one Henry way out in front for commitment She drifting she's waiting waiting If you just pick your toe upset today over the line run it down run it down The great play great catch that quick hopped Yeah, he probably wasn't expecting it coming in what just happened. I don't even know what just happened Okay, there it is Did it go into his shirt? It's in his shirt.  It is. I'm so confused. I don't know what happened there It's the first time I've seen them giving signals. Yeah, maybe two We've talked about that. Oh I think it the wicket keeper nobody else though Right there he looked at his foot up.  I'm guessing that's why in the in the book It is but I think we know about 80% is yours For a lot of balls So you knew is that you knew the backhand that had to be forceful though didn't you? 121 for four overnight New Zealand still had hopes of saving the game Despite losing young another one out looking Thompson stood there posing watch now.  I think we got the majority like we got most of yeah and a lot of it's like that that that moment of Of the I'm sorry. I don't know the specific name of the catcher of them the ball kind of knowing and and hiding and and and all that kind of stuff of of of doing kind of it's not tricking or anything, but it's like kind of the kind of Gamesmanship that you need to have at that position. I guess because Obviously if you catch it and you want you don't want the guy to know where the ball is really right because then he could pick up his Well, also, I do have a question. So obviously they're going What's he waiting for do they just lose that balance? Yeah, oh What's who waiting for the guy anyone with the ball or the the batsman? I Think the batsman is waiting to regain balance to come back Across the line back what they're supposed to be When they when they freeze there. Yeah, I think they're either waiting for that or maybe for there to be a time called Well, I know obviously if the if the ball had gone farther They would have ran obviously yeah, and so are they just trying to figure out where the ball is if it is going? Obviously, they would run right and if but if you thought it you don't want to commit you saw a lot of them that were like That was cool though. I enjoyed that I did Because we know the game extremely well. Oh, yeah, I think our IQ went up about 57 points right there. Dang it I would have stayed at 69. Yeah, no.  That's now completely wasted Anyways, let us know what other cricket videos that we should react to down below


I will start by saying I really miss going to DefConf in person. I see some familiar names on that attendee list and I remember in prior years hanging out and talking to people and it's tough because every time I would leave the conference very energized and it's just not the same talking like this but I hope DefConf will happen in person again and get to see some of you guys. So what I wanna talk about today is what's new in our PMO Stream as the title says. This is the 2022 edition. I've given some related talks to this at prior DefConf and I know a lot of you come from a mix of backgrounds like some of you may not even know what this is. Some of you may use our PMO Stream based systems. So I'm gonna, there's gonna be a lot of ground covered. I'm gonna try and save some time for questions because they're already coming in. So anyways, let's just dive in. So I do like to start every talk who I am. Yeah, I'm calm waters. I work on Fedora and OpenShift, Red Enterprise Linux, the CoreOS ingredients go into those. But I like to start every talk by talking about why I do what I do because I think that's equally important. I think it's sort of an uncontroversial fact that computers are essential to our society today for better or worse. My, one of my favorite examples of this today is if you're growing grape for wines, if you're running a vineyard, today you might have a drone that's flying over your vineyard and it's taking pictures, maybe even has a thermal imaging camera and is assessing the heat, the health of your grapes. And it's one of those things where, yeah, and then you take that data and you do analysis on it. It's just like a perfect example of like where computers are pervasive, right? On manufacturing floors everywhere. Everyone knows this. And I think free and open source software is really essential to making sure that we have control of the computers and not the other way around. There's the rise of proprietary cloud services and we can't escape using some of those, but I like to work on free and open source software because it helps us make sure that we're in control of this foundation for our society. So how does that translate though into this OS tree? How's it translate into what I do for a database Linux? So if your business or your personal life is involves computers, right? You have data in there that's important to you. You have things that those computers do that need to run. And unfortunately, computers have flaws. Software has flaws. Like one example is there's been flaws in the Linux kernel Bluetooth stack, right? So you could even be vulnerable to a drive by attack where someone just has a device that's out there trying to exploit the Bluetooth stack and just drives by your place of business. Maybe that vineyard earlier and happens to exploit your kernel and take it over. And then maybe you're in a ransomware scenario, right? Not even you weren't even directly targeted. It's just something that just sort of happened, right? Because computers have flaws. So keeping your OS up to date is the best thing that we can do here. I mean, obviously we have, there's a lot of other things to do. You can turn off Bluetooth for one thing. But so applying OS updates is critical. I like just think that we're making computers better more than we're making them worse overall. And if you're running a computer, you wanna apply an OS update in such a way that it's not gonna take down what's running. So what OS tree does is it basically constructs a new route that doesn't affect what's currently running. So it's very different from like traditional package systems. It's more of an image system. And that happens on the background and you take a reboot. I'll talk about live OS changes a little bit later. And there's some links in here, it's image-based. So if you're running, especially a core OS-based system, we build an image in our CI and we test that in the cloud. For example, we verify that we can run pod-man containers in Google Compute Engine and Azure. And then only then once that CI has passed, that image ships to your system and you're running exactly something that's tested. Something very similar is true of OpenShift 4.2. There's a lot of other things going on here. Separating applications into containers helps make sure that you can apply those kernel security updates faster. For example, getting GCC and developer tools out of your workstation's root file system. It's just a good idea, because it'll let you update the OS faster. But so we just don't live in a duality here between RPMOS tree and OS tree. OS tree is a little bit more like Docker or a pod-man. It's agnostic to what you put in it. The idea of RPMOS tree here is that it has really tight integration with the RPM ecosystem. For example, one of my favorite examples here is, it's not a lockdown system by default. So if at some point you need to test a new kernel, you can take the same kernel RPM that comes out of the Fedora build system and override that locally. You can say RPMOS tree override replace kernel. And that's a first-class operation to test and replace parts of that base image because it's essential to, yeah, having you be in control of your computer. So, yeah, there's a bunch of places that RPMOS tree is used today. The first two are products from my employer, Red Hat. Relfor Edge is designed to make custom images in many different forms. Supports outputting RPMOS tree. There's a lot we could talk about that. I will mostly skip that for now. OpenShift 4, we basically encapsulate OS updates in a container. I'm not gonna talk about that too much today either. Fedora Silver Blues, a desktop-based system.  Yeah, and briefly touching on the OS tree aspect again, it's really hard to work on general tooling. So OS tree is software that can be used outside of RPM-based distributions, right? Again, it's agnostic to what's put in it and there's a pretty big user base for it. People are using it with Debian-based operating systems, open embedded slash octo, a bunch of things I don't even know about. And actually, I've been kind of trying to drain some of the higher level logic out of RPMOS tree and into OS tree slowly. That's gotten easier with Rust. Cool, so some of you may have known most of that. So I wanna talk about what's new. This OS tree native containers change is definitely one of the biggest things that's been happening in the last year. So that's what I'm gonna talk about the most. I'm gonna skip it, I'll circle back to that in a minute. I'm very excited though to note that we've been increasing our usage of Rust because, yeah, applying and managing operating system updates sort of demands, you really want your code base to be fast and efficient and you want it to be memory safe. So you're not subject to buffer overflows and all those classic type of things. So Rust has really helped us out here. So we could touch on here because we've invested a lot in bridging between C and Rust and stuff like that because we can't rewrite everything either. Another thing that's happened in last year in case you missed it is RPMOS tree now has full support for modularity that mostly fell out of the fact that a lot of the modularity logic drained from DNF into libDNF which RPMOS tree uses but there was a lot of other details there. So that's there. One of the things that was cool is someone just showed up and did this very cool patch for making sure that the RPM database inside the build is reproducible. He basically went through and fixed all the embedded timestamps there with someone who just kind of showed up one day with a giant patch and it was very good code. That's one of the things I love about working on free and open source software is that that time when someone just shows up with a big, cool patch like that. What is that person doing with RPMOS tree? I had no idea. There is the change to the SQLite RPM database. A lot of details there around supporting cross builds like where we run RPMOS tree in a Fedora container and then generate rel content. So we need to have the new RPMOS tree be still be able to output the old Berkeley DB format. I think we spent at least a solid week talking on and off about system DE and rebooting, circling back to that automatic OS update scenario where you're automatically rebooting periodically. If you have a scenario where you say, you need to hold an OS update briefly, how do you do that? What's the best pattern, right? Like you need to, you need to debug something on that node or machine. You need to, you need uptime for just the weekend suddenly because you got a sum birth of traffic. What we ended up settling on is system DE inhibitors. So if you have RPMOS tree automatic upgrades on, you can type system DE inhibit and that will block that upgrade because of historical reasons for system DE this is opt in. So we had to do some work. Dnf count me, another cool thing. I'm pretty excited was in 2021.1 release, the first release of 2021, we rewrote the apply live code. So when you talk about duality RPMOS tree, yeah, supports OS tree and RPMs, that's one of the dualities. It is an image-based system, but it also, we also invested a lot in being able to cherry pick and apply live changes to your running root file system in a safe way. So again, in case you missed it, you can now type RPMOS to install dash A, some package and that should generally work. Yeah, another cool thing is we actually switched to being the main function is now Rust code and it basically the rest of the logic that was there before is now a C++ library, C and C++ actually, which is its own story. There's a lot of work in reworking the build system there around auto tools and a bunch of stuff. I hope eventually the build system, you just type cargo build into work. Okay, so this is problem. So that's a bunch of other stuff that's happened, but I know there has been a lot of interest in this OS tree native containers. So the way I like to summarize this is, yeah, what you see up here at this very front is like the sort of what you can write a Docker file that looks like this today, where you take our base image, add some content, add some binaries, maybe it's extra packages, maybe it's something else, add configuration, and then you can boot it. So you build it as a container, the output is a container, but then you just type our png mystery rebase and it can pull that container. And we'll dive in this more. So why are we doing this though? One answer here is that I think we've been fairly successful so far with the strategy of keeping your container host small and running your workloads as containers. That's generally worked out well, but there's a lot of cases that are in between where people have security scanners or agents and things like that. So basically by, and we wanna keep supporting that, like if you're a happy user of one of these our png mystery systems today, we're not gonna break anything, I'll touch on that too. But if you wanna do non-trivial customization, we're giving you a lot more power with this and more responsibility. So yeah, this is basically bridging, bridging the worlds of configurability is the way I like to think about it. Like you, we're giving you a new way to configure things. Another bridge that was created as part of this effort is in the container ecosystem, Go is obviously very popular.  Mixing Go and C and C++ is not the best. And so I really struggled with this for a long time because in the OSTU stack, we've been investing a lot in Rust and we have, for example, LibRPM is C. It's just not gonna change tomorrow, right? And I didn't wanna link in Go. So basically what we ended up doing, if you click on this link, you can find more, but basically there's a new IPC mechanism for the containers go, containers slash image library, basically as part of the Scopio binary. And so our PMOS team now knows how to fork off Scopio and delegate a lot of the pulling container stuff to Scopio. Just as one example, in the containers ecosystem, there's good support for GPG signatures of containers. There's good support for like mirroring. And basically we want all that. We don't wanna rewrite the container stack. We wanna leverage what exists while still being able to use it for OS updates. Yeah, the current proxy is basically between Rust and Go, but nothing stops you from writing, say, Python code that talks to this proxy. Okay, so I sort of mentioned this before. So we're kind of rethinking of our PMOS tree and especially OS tree as like we're producing a base image that you can boot. And I really have to emphasize, we've built up a lot in the OS tree and especially our PMOS tree stack. Like, so for example, you have client-side overrides. I touched on the RPOS tree install stuff. I touched on the fact that you can replace your kernel when you need to. All that is gonna keep working. If you're using OS tree today, it's gonna keep working. We're not dropping anything. If you're using OS tree for an embedded system and using OS tree is really efficient static deltas, it's gonna keep working, okay? But what we've done is add a whole other backend basically. So I am hopeful though as part of this effort, if it works out that we will switch probably Fedora and the derivatives to use this new to use containers on the wire instead of OS tree on the wire. And there's a lot of stuff involved in that. One cool thing, and I'll demo this later, is it now actually becomes much more first class to add in custom non-RPM content into your booted OS. And it also, yeah, also talk about binding configuration and code. One thing that could be its own whole sub talk of courses, if you haven't kept track, there's a lot of RPOS tree stuff going on in Fedora. We could actually rethink of things, how we built things so that for example, Fedora Chorus or maybe some part of Fedora Chorus was actually used as a layer and then the desktops were built from it. Should the desktops have a common base image layer? A lot of interesting stuff going on there that we could do with this. So probably one of the things you're wondering is I gotta emphasize all this code exists and works today. Like there's links here from the tutorial. You can try it out, but there's stuff that's not implemented. For example, one of those things is we don't garbage-collect container image layers yet. So container image layers will just continue to sit on your system unless you kind of manually prune them later. And we've discussed shifting some of the logic for what happens at build time actually to be inside the container. So one example of this is today, like OSD and RPM OSD have first-class integration with SE Linux and we do the labeling on the client side today, but that's really ugly. That involves running through thousands of regular expressions for every file. We basically wanna move that to the container build time. Basically to shift the OSD stuff that happens to the build time. That'll probably just involve a command you need to run in your Docker file or equivalent. Okay, yeah, this is me trying real hard to express something very detailed in a single slide and cruelly failing, but let's dive in. So if you're using Fedor OS or OpenShift for today, like there's this idea that we ship a tested image. That's the code aspect of this. That's the slash user file system. And then what you do is you take our tested image and you configure it, right? And you have your data, which we have nothing to do with your data, right?  So yeah, you per machine typically configure this image. Yeah, and I touch on that here. So for example, you could use Anaconda to configure this image or ignition with Fedora CoreOS, that sort of thing. So the thing that's new here and I think it's gonna be really interesting is that now it's much easier to bind exactly version together, the binaries with the configuration. So in an example here is, let's say you wanna add USB Guard into your OS and you wanna have a specific configuration for USB Guard or anything else, right? Maybe it's your configuration, your mirroring configuration for Podman. Maybe it's your TLS configuration for the host OS. Now what happens if you build a container with this, you can add configuration into Etsy and then when you type our PIMOS tree upgrade, you get exactly that pairing of configuration and code together as an atomic unit. And which just wasn't really possible before, like another way to think of this is it's now much easier to sort of transactionally update Etsy too, which a lot of people have wanted.  Yeah, this idea of, Nixos has a lot of cool things going on. This whole talk could be about like, well, what ideas we could steal from them. But I just want to mention it's they also sort of try and bind this configuration of your system along with the code. Yeah, the OpenShift MCO also tries to do this. And sort of people try and do this with Ansible too. Okay, so yeah, I sort of touched on this before. Here's a user story, you build your container and then you just boot it, right?  And what's going on with this OSTree unverified registry thing is I'm sort of of the opinion, very strongly of the opinion that your containers that you boot should be signed. And this is making clear it's not. So one of the OSTree things that we're carrying forward is actually OSTree has first class support for GPG signatures. And we can actually, we today embed that GPG signature inside the Flora CoreOS image and can verify it client side. So that's not something the container stack does. We're not using the container stack signature stuff yet, but we will in the future as well. And then, so the idea is, yeah, you boot that container for your system or, you know, array of systems you can enable automatic upgrades. And then let's say you wanna make a change, right? You go into your Docker file, we're actually trying to also work on a declarative build system which is its own whole subtopic I haven't touched on here. And then, yeah, you can just enable automatic upgrades. We'll probably also make it much easier to take that container and wrap like a bootable disk image shell around it, like a VMware OVA or a bare metal ISO or an Ami, Azure image, all that type of stuff that image builder does. So yeah, I'll just skip out the alternative history, but this is like one way I've been trying to describe this is like, if we just made it so yum natively understood how to boot containers like this, all this RPMOstry stuff, I don't know whether that makes sense. So here's what's gonna happen. There's a lot that still needs to happen. I mentioned the garbage collection bug, but yeah, this is what I've been doing for a while and we're pretty committed to it. There's, yeah, another thing that definitely needs to happen is right now we have like this embryonic implementation where we basically take the whole Oustry commit and we just turn it into a single giant tar ball. Container images are basically tar balls wrapped with JSON and this pull request that's in flight is basically breaking it up into a series of content address layers, which means that you don't need to redownload when there's a kernel security update, you don't need to redownload everything. So that's gonna happen and that will I think be the number one thing that will make this practical for many more use cases like outside of like a data center where you have fast networking. I do wanna get apply live out of experimental continuing our oxidation. The rethinking origins is actually another NICS thing where we basically wanna have like a YAML file in Etsy instead of typing our RPMOstry install foo, you actually edit a file and then declarative site rebuild to my desired state. And that's actually happening as part of this container stuff. If you wanna contribute to this stack, be happy to help mentor people. There's a very friendly group of people behind all this. So yeah, we're hoping to make this happen in 2022. So actually where am I in time? My session chair will say. I definitely leave time for questions. So if you want more links. Yeah, I think you are on thing. Okay, still on time. All right, so yeah, there's a bunch more information. I've been trying to drop in like announcements into this into this bugzilla. There's a lot more stuff. So just to reiterate again, most of the container stuff is actually happening in the new OS tree Rust code. So again, we're trying to still support using non RPM content in there, non RPM, no RPMs at all, whether that's Debs or whether that's open embedded or something else. But then RPM OS tree will kind of bind this stuff together with the RPM ecosystem.  So I will stop showing my screen. Yeah, we have a bunch of questions actually. There was an amazing conversation going on in the chat as well. Okay. I would like to begin with a question that popped in early. Just, how much does the oxidation affect OS tree's binary size from? Yeah. So that's a great question. In the OS tree community, like I mentioned, there's a lot of embedded users and they were very conservative. Like they basically had invested in supporting C, tool chain, C and C plus plus. And you know, there's a lot of cross compilation, which Rust supports as well, but it's a big thing. And so the OS tree core has mostly been unchanged, the OS tree C library. So the user bin OS tree binary and the C shared library do not include Rust code today. Okay. So you can use it without Rust. All the new logic basically links to it using the Rust bindings. But I would like and basically all the, so what happens is we didn't want to duplicate all the Rust logic between OS tree and our chemistry. So basically our chemistry has all the rust stuff, even though on Fedora systems at least. There's a lot of details there, but I'm trying to break existing OS tree users, if that makes sense. There were, I think you can go through the chat as well. There have been some interesting discussion going on around. I'll pick up the question from Q and A. He will go on asks, are there any example scripts of how to create an RPM OS tree commit and wrap it as a container image? Yes, yes. Megas I can just share my screen, but it's in, yeah, if you have an RPM OS tree commit, you basically type OS tree container in Capsule. And I guess I could share my screen and demo this too, but it is, it's in the docs. I, yeah, I'll dig up a little bit. So yes, that's fully supported. And like, I gotta, I guess I should emphasize, we're trying to do this really carefully. We're not throwing away what works today because a lot of stuff does work. So the build system can just, if you have something that outputs an OS tree commit today, you can just use the tooling and convert it to a container, losslessly, and then you can un-encapsulate it basically back into an OS tree commit that's GPG signed and all that stuff. Great. Another question we have from Martin Coleman is, do you know about OS tree being used on mobile devices or mobile OSes based on OS tree? Seems like a perfect fit for robust update on mobile devices. For mobile, like, yeah, especially mobile phone type things. You know, I think it's hard to overstate the 800 pound gorilla of Android in that ecosystem. You know, I think, so no, is the short answer to this. I think it's, yeah, people are, Android though really is oriented towards things that have a user interface. And so I think where people are using OS tree type systems more is headless embedded, like the IoT type space, competing in the mobile phone market as a whole other challenge, I think. Okay, great. I think with three minutes of what I'm in the questions, but chat has been interesting. Cool. Yeah, sorry, I'm just still trying to scroll through this. So I think this is actually the last talk. So I'm happy to hang out. I know for some of you guys in Europe, you may have been up for a while and want to go, but oh, actually there is the wrap up, but I'll hang out after. And you know, if anyone wants to chat, you can catch me on Fedora Devel, Matrix, Fedora, also on Fedora co-ass on Matrix, and yeah, I'll be around in the dev comp. So that's about it. Thank you for the session. It was a whole lot of crazy information for us. Thanks again. Thanks, bye bye. Thanks everyone. Thanks to the audience here.


Hello and Happy New Year! I'm Sandi Olnok, artist and paper crafter here on YouTube and I wanted to bring you a little vlog to start off the new year and talk about a little inspiration. First I want to say thank you though to everybody who sent me all these gorgeous cards behind me for Christmas this year. Oh my gosh, it was so exciting to go to my mailbox and see them all the time and especially the ones where I could see that you're learning from what I'm teaching. These were things based on classes or based on YouTube videos and it means the world to me to know that I'm having an impact on your creativity and helping you to grow. So if you want to continue sending me those cards the address for my PO box is on my contact form on my website sandiolnok.com and I would love to see what you are making. Today I thought I'd answer kind of a roundabout question that I get in a lot of different ways. It's kind of the same question at its core which is how to stay inspired. How do you keep making things all the time? People ask me because I'm always making something and that is my mantra I've always realized that I have to make something every day even if it's just getting out a sketchbook and doing a doodle. If that's as much as I can do that keeps me sane and I recommend you do the same get a sketchbook and just doodle something. You don't have to ever show it to anybody just do something and I also want to talk about how I keep my inspiration going and some ways that I share my inspiration here on YouTube. So first in getting inspired a lot of times we get stuck we look at our desk and we have a blank piece of paper in front of us and we don't know what to do we don't know where to start and what I tend to do is keep in my business I keep three to four weeks ahead which means I know what's coming up. I have videos maybe 15 to 20 of them in the queue so that I don't have any pressure. It's not like I have to have something by Monday I have to come up with something. I know what I'm doing and I have a plan for how it's all going to flow out and I can juggle things around if I need to. If I need to move something, if a blog hop comes up or something else happens I'm covered. In your own personal crafting and what I do in my personal crafting I do the same kind of a thing. I think a quarter ahead I look at how many birthdays are coming up how many anniversaries how many thank you cards do I think I'm going to need am I going to be in a season of sending thank yous for an event or something make a bunch of those. Always keep a sympathy card on hand always keep a couple get wells and some general encouragement cards and if you have a list like that then you don't get stuck with oh my gosh next week I need one birthday card and I don't know what to do because you may have been thinking about that birthday card for a longer period of time by the time that comes up and hopefully you've nailed it long before the night before the birthday. As far as what inspires me to share here on YouTube I divide my stamps and things into four categories and that helps me sort of know where I'm coming from when I'm shopping as well as when I'm sharing. The top category is the top stuff the best of the best and there's very few things that fall into that category and it's things like my coping markers my Daniel Smith watercolors and my silver brushes there's a couple stamps that fall into that category and it's like there's just a few of them by Stacy Yakula a couple of them by Birdie Brown maybe okay here's one that's amazing which is that giraffe that came out last year for impression obsession yeah that's going on my best list because I have had too much fun coloring it for months now and it's going to be around for a while in my possession the second category is the I can't wait to color that category and for me that involves a lot of stamps of course because I see something I want to color the hair I want to color the fabrics for the the jacket that little child is wearing in the stamp or I see that fuzzy bear and I want to make a really really really fuzzy or I see a scene in my head and it's like these are the stamps that I buy because I've got to color that thing and I may get it out of my system with you know stamping it and coloring maybe three or four cards and then I'm done with the stamp set it's not like that top category that's going to stick me with me for a long time but oh is it fun to color really really fun the third category would be I can teach with that and these stamps may not be the best stamps they may not be the best drawn or whatever but they are the best for teaching that thing and it's something that I wanted to teach and sometimes it's a scene or a sky or something and I needed an element to to put that sky behind or I wanted to do some fabric on something and I haven't found any that's going to be able to for me to be able to teach a certain type of thing with a lot of different things can fall into that kind of a category and I use a lot of those types of stamps because I want to teach I want you to learn something and if you're learning something then we're all good right the fourth category is the I'm so curious about that and that category for me is just playtime it's finding a crazy interactive die and just see how it works see what happens with it those chibitronics came and went right I don't know how many people are still using them a lot but boy were they fun and I did a video on them because they were fun I wanted to show you how much fun they were they're not my staple because my staple is coloring and I love to color so that's where I put the the major portion of my efforts here on YouTube I want to share a little bit of news with you that's coming up in 2018 too because there's some fun coming up one is that my book is going to come out this year it's going to be out in the fall and later on in the spring I'll be able to tell you a little more about the book and what the topic is and all that I'm building a website for it and pre-orders will start once we have that old ISBN number and a cover design and everything so as soon as we have that I'm going to be shouting from the rooftop so I can't wait to share that news with you some other news is that I'm going to be joining a design team for this year I haven't been on a design team in a really long time for a very specific reason and that's because I tend to think it takes away from my authenticity a little bit at times at least the ones that I've done in the past where I was given a stamp and said here go make something with this and it may not have been the thing that inspired me but I did it anyway and I don't want to fall into that trap so I haven't been a design team gal for a lot of reasons well this particular assignment came up or this particular offer came up and I consulted with my patrons because I trust them and their input they know me well and we had a good discussion about the pros and cons and what that can do to the authenticity of a crafter whether people believe you that you really do like the thing or you're doing it just because you were assigned it and when I told them who it was for they all said are you crazy go ahead and do it so I'm going to be on Ellen Hudson's design team now one of the reasons that I have said yes to this one and I don't say yes to others is because I love Ellen's business model I love how she runs her operation I love how she cares for her team of people that work with her on site as well as the people who work with her online she is a woman of great integrity and she's one of the very few that I found really wants everyone to succeed and that is her her real mantra as she runs her business she wants everyone to do well and sometimes that's to her own detriment and sometimes with other companies they'll tell you you can't work with so and so product you can't work with such and such and Ellen is not like that at all she has she's like go and do your own thing and just do a post for me on my site once a month and link to me from your blog once a month and I'm like okay I already do that so very little will change in that way because I already use Ellen's products on a regular basis anyhow so none of that will change I do receive her full releases when they come out each time and want to let you know that if you didn't know that already she has sent them to me and I told her no I want to buy them and she says no she will not accept a no from me I also receive MFT's new stamps and dies each month because I do a video from them an educational video for their channel and I need to have the new releases in order to do that and then I use one or two of theirs sometimes on my channel as well I get a few very rarely once in a while from a few smaller companies that want me to use their stuff I tend to try to say no to as many of those as I can simply because I want you to know that if I'm using something here on my channel it's because it fits into those four categories it's either the best it's I gotta color that or it's I can teach with that or I'm just really curious and when people send me stuff I tend to start feeling like I have to use it and I don't want that so I do say no a lot of times to those things but one of the best ones that does this for me and and I just love her for it is Michelle from purple onion designs knows how much I love Stacy Yackel's stuff she could just send me the whole new release but she doesn't do that she sends me a pdf and says which stamps would you use because there's some stamps in every release from every company that you're like yeah so yeah whatever I get to pick out just the ones that I would use and I really do appreciate that in how she works because then there's not extra product going around that is not needed the extra product that I do get that anything that's not going to be kept in my studio goes into my giveaway box and I do customer appreciation week every once in a while throughout the year I'll continue that through this year and I send it to random customers and students so you just might get a little package from me that you have no idea why you got it just says customer appreciation week on the outside and there you go get a little treat in the mail as for my schedule here on YouTube it's going to remain about the same still aiming for three videos a week four on a special week sometimes Monday Wednesday Friday we'll get split into Sunday Wednesday Friday or Monday Thursday Friday or that sort of thing when special events come along but for the most part aiming for three to maybe four videos in a week I will do a monthly vlog so if you have ideas on what you'd like to talk about in one of these monthly vlog chats let me know in the comments down below and also I have another channel my Bible journaling channel every Sunday morning I share a video there and what I'm going to do throughout the year this year is take the sketchbook that I've been doing on Instagram there's a link in the doobly-doo if you want to see the pages that I did in that and I'm going to turn those into Bible journaling pages and I will talk about how I got to that idea how I came up with that thought and found the resources to be able to draw that thing and then turn it into something that you can also transfer into your Bible because on that channel I also give you sketches for all of my original ones before I go I have a question to ask you to put in the doobly-doo in your comments and that is are Christmas cards changing? I noticed this year that I got very few with newsletters and really really few with photo cards like the pre-printed ones where they don't have to do anything they just put your address on it and put it in the mail I really have not gotten much of that this year it was a real surprise so it might be the nature of who I am it might be a trend in general but I'd love your feedback so let me know what you got in the mail this Christmas and I will see you again in my next video take care and have a really awesome 2018!