Module 2: General exceptions

A] MISTAKE OF FACT

Mistake of Fact — Section 14 & Section 17, Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita

2023

Introduction

Under criminal law, a wrongful act is punishable only when

accompanied by a guilty mind (mens rea). If a person acts under a
mistake of fact, without any criminal intention, the law recognises it
as a general exception. The Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023, in
Sections 14 and 17, provides protection in such cases, distinguishing
them from mistakes of law — since ignorantia juris non excusat
(ignorance of law is no excuse).

Section 14 — Act done under mistake of fact believing oneself

bound by law

Statement of Law:

"Nothing is an offence which is done by a person who is, in good

faith, bound by law to do it, by reason of a mistake of fact and not
by reason of a mistake of law."

Explanation:

 The act must be done under a good faith belief of being

bound by law.
 The belief must arise from a mistake of fact, not a
misunderstanding of legal provisions.
 "Bound by law" means having a legal obligation to perform
the act.
 Good faith under §3(22) BNS means due care and attention.
Example:
A police officer arrests B, believing in good faith that B is a
proclaimed offender because B’s name and description match a
wanted criminal. Later, it turns out B is innocent. The officer is
protected under §14 because he acted under a mistake of fact in
good faith, believing he was legally bound to arrest.

Section 17 — Act done by accident or misfortune

Statement of Law:

"Nothing is an offence 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 with proper care and
caution."

Explanation:

 The original act must be lawful and performed lawfully.

 The outcome must be purely accidental, not intended or
foreseen.
 The person must have acted with proper care and caution.
 There should be absence of mens rea — no intention or
knowledge to cause harm.

Example:
A is lawfully repairing a roof. Despite taking all precautions, a tile
slips and falls on a passer-by, injuring him. The harm was accidental
and without negligence, so A is protected under §17.

Conclusion
Sections 14 and 17 embody the principle that criminal liability
requires both a wrongful act and a guilty mind. A person acting
under a genuine mistake of fact (§14) or due to accident without
negligence (§17) is exempt from punishment. These provisions
strike a balance between protecting honest actions and punishing
wrongful intent.

B] JUDICIAL ACT

Judicial Act — Section 15, Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita 2023

Introduction

The law recognises that judges and persons acting judicially must
be protected from criminal liability when performing their official
duties in good faith. This protection ensures judicial independence
and prevents fear of personal prosecution from influencing judicial
decisions. Section 15 of the BNS, 2023, provides such immunity
when acts are committed under a good faith belief of jurisdiction.

Section 15 — Statement of Law

“Nothing which is done by a Judge when acting judicially in the

exercise of any power which is, or which in good faith he believes
to be, given to him by law, is an offence.”

Essential Ingredients

For protection under §15, the following must be satisfied:

1. The person must be a Judge or acting judicially

 o Includes those officially authorised to decide cases and
pass orders.
2. The act must be done in exercise of judicial powers
o Acts outside judicial capacity (e.g., private acts) are not

covered.
3. Jurisdiction must exist, or be believed in good faith to exist
o Even if there is a lack of actual jurisdiction, the judge is

protected if he genuinely believed, with due care, that

he had jurisdiction.
4. Good faith is essential
o Defined under §3(22) BNS as acting with due care and

attention; reckless or malicious acts are not protected.

Example

A Magistrate orders the arrest of a person believing, after due

inquiry, that the person committed contempt of court. Later, it is
found that the matter did not fall within his jurisdiction. Since the
order was passed while acting judicially and in good faith belief of
having jurisdiction, the Magistrate is protected under §15.

Got it — here’s the structured note for Section 16, Bharatiya Nyaya
Sanhita 2023 in the same intro → section statement → essential
ingredients → example style.

Section 16 — Act done pursuant to judgment or order of Court

Section 16 — Statement of Law

“Nothing which is done in pursuance of, or which is warranted by
the judgment or order of, a Court, if done whilst such judgment or
order remains in force, is an offence; 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.”

Essential Ingredients

1. Act must be done pursuant to a judgment or order of a court

o Execution or enforcement of a judicial directive.

2. Judgment or order must be in force at the time of the act

o If stayed, suspended, or set aside, protection will not

apply.
3. Jurisdiction may actually exist, or be believed in good faith to
exist
o Protection applies even if the court lacked jurisdiction, if

there was a genuine good faith belief.

4. Good faith is essential
o As per §3(22) BNS, it must be with due care and

attention, not reckless or malicious.

Example

A court orders the police to attach property in execution of a

decree. Later, it is found that the court had no jurisdiction over the
property. The police officer who attached the property will not be
liable, as he acted in good faith pursuant to the court’s order while
it was still in force.
C] Accident as a Defence (Section 18, BNS 2023)

Introduction

The criminal law recognises that not every harmful act should lead
to punishment—especially when it occurs without criminal intention
or knowledge. Section 18 of the BNS provides that acts done by
accident, in the course of lawful conduct, without criminal intent,
are not offences. This ensures fairness and protects individuals from
liability for unintended consequences.

Section 18 — Statement of Law

“Nothing is an offence 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.”

Explanation

 Accident refers to an unplanned and unexpected event

resulting in harm, which could not have been foreseen or
prevented by reasonable care.
 The section protects only those acts that are:
o Lawful in nature

o Done lawfully and with due care

o Without criminal intention or knowledge

 If negligence or recklessness is involved, the defence will not

apply.
Essential Ingredients

1. Act must be accidental or due to misfortune

o Outcome not intended, anticipated, or desired by the

doer.
2. Absence of criminal intention or knowledge
o No mens rea for causing the harm.

3. Act must be lawful in itself

o Example: driving within speed limit.

4. Act must be done in a lawful manner, by lawful means

o Following legal rules, procedures, and safeguards.

5. Proper care and caution must be taken

o As per reasonable man’s standard; lack of care may lead

to liability under negligence provisions.

Examples

1. Example 1 – While hunting in a forest with legal permission, a

person shoots at a deer but the bullet ricochets and injures
another hunter. If the shooter took all reasonable precautions,
this is an accident under §18.
2. Example 2 – A driver, driving within speed limits and following
traffic rules, suddenly hits a pedestrian who jumps onto the
road unexpectedly. The act may be protected under §18.
3. Example 3 (Not Protected) – A person driving at high speed
in a crowded market injures someone. Here, lack of proper
care and caution negates the defence.

D] ABSENCE OF CRIMINAL INTENTION

Absence of Criminal Intention as Defence

Intro

In criminal law, liability generally requires both actus reus (guilty

act) and mens rea (guilty mind). The Bhartiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023,
through Sections 18 to 32, recognises situations where an act,
though causing harm, is committed without criminal intent or
knowledge. In such cases, the accused is exempt from liability.
Sections 19–24 and 30–32 enumerate specific scenarios where this
principle applies.

Section 19 — Act likely to cause harm, but done without criminal

intent, and to prevent other harm

Intro

In criminal law, an act causing harm can be excused if it was done

in good faith and without criminal intent, with the aim of
preventing greater harm. This principle balances individual liability
with societal benefit — recognising that sometimes harm is
unavoidable to avert a larger danger.

Statement (as per BNS)

Nothing is an offence merely because it causes, or is likely to cause,

harm if it is done:

1. Without criminal intent,

2. In good faith,
3. For the purpose of preventing or avoiding other harm,
4. And the harm caused is less than the harm sought to be
prevented.
Explanation

The section is based on the Doctrine of Necessity — when two

harms are unavoidable, the law excuses the choice of the lesser
harm, provided there is no criminal intent and the act is
proportionate to the danger avoided.

The harm caused must be less serious than the harm averted. The
act must also be done in good faith, meaning with due care and
attention, not recklessly.

Example

A driver swerves suddenly to avoid hitting a group of school

children crossing the road, and in the process, damages a parked
vehicle. Although harm was caused (damage to property), it was
less serious than the harm sought to be prevented (death/injury of
children). Hence, Section 19 applies.

Essential Ingredients

1. Harm caused — There must be some harm or likelihood of

harm.
2. Absence of criminal intent — No malice or wrongful motive.
3. Good faith — Action taken with due care and caution.
4. Purpose — To prevent or avoid other harm.
5. Proportionality — Harm caused is less than harm avoided.

Section 20 — Act done by a child under seven years of age

Intro

The criminal law recognises that a very young child lacks the
mental capacity to form criminal intent (mens rea). Hence, an act
done by a child below a certain age is not considered an offence,
regardless of the nature of the act. This principle is rooted in the
Latin maxim doli incapax, meaning “incapable of crime.”

Statement (as per BNS)

Nothing is an offence which is done by a child under seven years of

age.

Explanation

The law conclusively presumes that a child below seven years

cannot understand the nature and consequences of their actions.
This is an absolute presumption — no evidence can be given to
show the child had the capacity to commit the crime.

The immunity applies irrespective of the seriousness of the act —

whether theft, assault, or even homicide — because the mental
element (mens rea) is considered absent.

Example

A six-year-old, while playing, throws a stone at a shop window and

breaks it. Even though this would normally be mischief under the
law, the child cannot be prosecuted, as they are under seven years
old.
Essential Ingredients

1. Age limit — Child must be below 7 years at the time of the

act.
2. Absolute presumption — No proof is needed; incapacity is
assumed by law.
3. Complete immunity — No criminal liability, regardless of the
nature of the act.
4. Applies to all offences — From minor to serious acts,
provided the child’s age is under the threshold.

Section 21 — Act of a child above seven and under twelve years of

age with immature understanding

Intro

The law makes a distinction between very young children (below 7

years) and those slightly older (7–12 years).
While the latter may have some understanding, their mental
development is still incomplete. Therefore, they are only criminally
liable if it is proven that they had the capacity to understand the
nature and consequences of their actions. This is a qualified
application of the principle of doli incapax.

Statement (as per BNS)

Nothing is an offence which is done by a child above seven years

of age and under twelve years of age, who has not attained
sufficient maturity of understanding to judge the nature and
consequences of his conduct on that occasion.
Explanation

Unlike Section 20, this section applies a rebuttable presumption.

Initially, it is presumed that the child is incapable of committing a
crime, but the prosecution can disprove this by showing that the
child had enough maturity to understand what they were doing
and that it was wrong.
This understanding can vary based on the child’s background,
intelligence, and the circumstances of the act.

Example

 Not liable: A 10-year-old takes a toy from a shop without

paying, genuinely believing it to be free. Lack of
understanding means no criminal liability.
 Liable: A 9-year-old steals money from his father’s wallet at
night and hides it, knowing it is wrong. Here, maturity of
understanding can be proven — criminal liability may arise.

Essential Ingredients

1. Age range — Child is above 7 and under 12 years at the time

of the act.

 Immature understanding — They lack sufficient maturity to

understand the nature and consequences of their conduct.

Burden of proof — Lies on the prosecution to prove the child

had the necessary maturity.
 Case-specific — Depends on evidence such as planning,
concealment, motive, or prior warnings.

The Queen v. Begarayi Krishan Saranu (1883)

Facts

 A boy aged between 7 and 12 years took a necklace (valued

at Rs. 2–8–0) from another child.
 The accused, Saranu, acquired this necklace from the boy for
a nominal amount (five annas).
 The boy was discharged under the doctrine of doli incapax,
but the accused was convicted of receiving stolen property
under IPC Section 411.

Argument

 Legal counsel argued that because the child witness was

discharged due to age, the offence of theft was not proven.
Therefore, the necklace could not legally be considered
“stolen property” under Section 410 IPC, making receiving it a
non-offence.

Judgment

 The court held that the boy's act—taking and immediately

selling (or pledging) the necklace—demonstrated sufficient
maturity to understand his action.
 Consequently, the act constituted theft despite his age.
 Since the necklace was stolen property, the accused, knowing
this, was lawfully convicted under Section 411.
Legal Principle

 Rebuttable Presumption of Incapacity (doli incapax): Children

over 7 and under 12 are presumed unable to comprehend the
nature of their acts, but this presumption can be rebutted by
evidence showing maturity.
 In this instance, the child’s behavior demonstrated enough
understanding to override the presumption.

Act of a Person of Unsound Mind – Section 22, BNS 2023

Introduction

The criminal law recognises that criminal liability requires mens rea
(a guilty mind). A person suffering from unsoundness of mind may
not understand the nature or wrongfulness of their act. Therefore,
such a person can be exempted from criminal liability. This
provision is rooted in the McNaughten Rules and protects those
who lack the mental capacity to form criminal intent.

Section 22 – Statement

“Nothing is an offence which is done by a person, who, at the time

of doing it, by reason of unsoundness of mind, is incapable of
knowing the nature of the act, or that what he is doing is either
wrong or contrary to law.”

Explanation
  This section provides a complete defence if the accused
proves that, at the time of committing the act:
1. They were suffering from unsoundness of mind, and
2. Because of that unsoundness, they could not
understand either the nature of the act or that it was
wrong/illegal.
 The focus is on the mental condition at the time of the act,
not before or after.
 The burden of proof is on the accused (Section 105, Indian
Evidence Act).
 Mere mental illness is not enough — there must be total
incapacity of understanding.

Essential Ingredients

1. Unsoundness of mind – medically recognised mental disorder

or insanity.
2. Existence at the time of the act – the condition must be
present during the offence.
3. Incapacity to know –
o Nature of the act, or

o That the act is wrong or contrary to law.

4. Direct link between unsoundness and incapacity.

Examples

 Example 1: A person in a state of delusion kills another

believing them to be a wild animal. Here, they do not
understand the nature of the act — defence applies.
  Example 2: A man with a history of schizophrenia kills
someone during a psychotic episode and could not
comprehend that the act was wrong — defence applies.
 Example 3: A person with mild depression commits theft —
depression alone does not prove unsoundness of mind or
incapacity — defence fails.

Case Laws

1. McNaughten’s Case (1843) – Laid down

the test for criminal insanity.
2. Dahyabhai Chhaganbhai Thakkar v. State
of Gujarat (1964) – Burden is on the
accused to prove insanity; standard is
preponderance of probabilities.

Act of Person Incapable of Judgment by Reason of Intoxication

Caused Against the Will – Section 23, BNS 2023

Introduction

Criminal liability generally assumes that a person acted with a

sound mind and free will.
However, when a person is involuntarily intoxicated (e.g., drugged
without consent), their capacity to judge right from wrong is
impaired. The law recognises this as a valid defence because the
accused did not voluntarily put themselves in a state that caused
the offence.
Section 23 – Statement

“Nothing is an offence which is done by a person who, at the time of

doing it, is, by reason of intoxication, incapable of knowing the
nature of the act, or that what he is doing is either wrong or
contrary to law, provided that the thing which intoxicated him was
administered to him without his knowledge or against his will.”

Explanation

 The defence applies only when intoxication is involuntary —

i.e., administered:
1. Without knowledge (e.g., secretly mixed into food/drink),
or
2. Against the will (e.g., forced intoxication).
 The accused must show that due to this intoxication, they:
o Could not understand the nature of the act, or

o Could not understand that the act was wrong/illegal.

 Voluntary intoxication is not a defence under this section — it

is covered differently under Section 24.

Essential Ingredients

1. Involuntary intoxication – given without knowledge or against

will.
2. Existence of incapacity at the time of the act – must coincide
with the offence.
3. Inability to know –
o Nature of the act, or

o That it was wrong/contrary to law.

4. Direct link between intoxication and incapacity.

Examples

 Example 1: X’s drink is spiked at a party without his

knowledge; in a confused state, he damages property
thinking it is his own — defence applies.
 Example 2: Y is forced to drink alcohol at gunpoint; later
assaults someone without understanding the act — defence
applies.
 Example 3: Z voluntarily gets drunk at a bar, then commits
theft — defence does not apply under Section 23.

Case Laws

State of Maharashtra v. Ashok Yashwant Atigre

Facts: Accused consumed alcohol at a party, returned home with a

loaded revolver, behaved oddly, but showed he understood what
he was doing.

Defence: Claimed intoxication under Sec. 23 BNS made him

incapable of knowing the nature of his act.

Held: Court rejected defence—intoxication must be so extreme

that the person cannot understand the act or know it’s wrong.
Here, his coherent actions showed awareness.

Principle: Voluntary intoxication is no defence unless it completely

destroys criminal intent.
Section 24 – Offence Requiring a Particular Intent

🔹 Introduction:
Under criminal law, some offences require not just a general
intention (mens rea) but a specific or particular intent to commit
that offence. Section 24 BNS provides that when an act is alleged
to constitute such an offence, the absence of that particular intent
can be a valid defence.

🔹 Statement of Section 24 (BNS):

"When an act is done without the particular knowledge or intent
required to constitute the offence, the person shall not be guilty of
that offence."

🔹 Explanation:

 Certain offences—like theft, cheating, criminal breach of

trust—require a specific state of mind.
 If the prosecution fails to prove that the accused had that
particular intent at the time of the act, the offence is not made
out.
 However, the accused may still be liable for any lesser offence
that does not require such intent.

🔹 Essential Ingredients:

1. The offence alleged must require a particular intent or

knowledge in its definition.
2. The accused must have done the act without that specific
intent or knowledge.
3. The absence of such intent must be proved or inferred from
circumstances.
🔹 Example:
If a person takes another’s property thinking it’s abandoned, they
lack the dishonest intention necessary for theft (Sec. 303 BNS).

🔹 Case Law:

 Sukhdev Singh v. State of Punjab – Court held that in offences

requiring dishonest intention, mere possession or act is not
enough; the prosecution must prove the specific intent
beyond reasonable doubt.

🔹 Principle:
Mens rea in the form of particular intent is a mandatory element for
certain crimes, and its absence can exonerate the accused from
that specific charge.

Section 30 – Act Done in Good Faith

🔹 Introduction:
The law recognizes that a person acting honestly and with due care
should not be punished for unintended harm. Section 30 of the
Bhartiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 provides protection to individuals
whose acts, though causing harm, were done in good faith for the
benefit of others.

🔹 Statement of Section 30 (BNS):

"Nothing is an offence which is done in good faith for the benefit of
a person, even without that person’s consent, if the circumstances
are such that it is impossible for that person to give consent."
🔹 Explanation:

 “Good faith” under BNS (Sec. 3(22)) means an act done with
due care and attention, not merely with honest belief.
 Protection is given when:
1. The act is done honestly and with due care.
2. The intention is to benefit the person affected.
3. The situation makes it impossible to obtain consent (e.g.,
unconscious patient in emergency surgery).

🔹 Essential Ingredients:

1. Act must be done in good faith.

2. It should be for the benefit of the person affected.
3. Consent of that person is not possible due to the situation.
4. No intention to cause harm.

🔹 Example:
A doctor performs emergency surgery on an unconscious accident
victim to save their life. Even if complications arise, the act is not an
offence because it was done in good faith for the patient’s benefit
when consent could not be obtained.

🔹 Case Law:

 R v. Dudley and Stephens (although dealing with necessity, it

reflects that good faith acts are assessed based on necessity
and benefit).
  Poonam Verma v. Ashwin Patel – Court clarified that “good
faith” requires due care, not just honesty.

Section 31 – Communication Made in Good Faith

🔹 Introduction:
Certain communications, though they might hurt someone’s
feelings or cause them some harm, are protected under law if they
are made honestly and with the intent to help that person. Section
31 of the Bhartiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 recognises this as a general
exception.

🔹 Statement of Section 31 (BNS):

"No communication made in good faith for the benefit of the person
to whom it is made is an offence by reason of any harm caused to
that person by such communication."

🔹 Explanation:

 Good faith under Sec. 3(22) BNS means an act done with due
care and attention.
 The protection applies only when the intention is to benefit
the recipient.
 Harm caused must be incidental, not intentional or malicious.
 Common in relationships like doctor–patient, lawyer–client,
teacher–student, parent–child.
🔹 Essential Ingredients:

1. There must be a communication—oral, written, or by

conduct.
2. The communication must be in good faith (honest + due
care).
3. It must be for the benefit of the recipient.
4. Harm, if caused, must be unintended and only incidental.

🔹 Example:
A doctor informs a patient that their test results show a serious
illness so they can start treatment. The patient suffers mental
distress on hearing this. The doctor is not liable because the
statement was made in good faith for the patient’s benefit.

🔹 Case Law:

 Chaman Lal v. State of Punjab – The court held that for

protection under this exception, the communicator must have
taken reasonable care to ascertain the truth before making
the statement.

Section 32 – Act to Which a Person is Compelled by Threats

🔹 Introduction:
Sometimes a person is forced to commit an act under the influence
of threats that create fear of instant death or grievous hurt. Section
32 of the Bhartiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 provides a defence in such
cases, recognising that the act is not truly voluntary.

🔹 Statement of Section 32 (BNS):

"Nothing is an offence which is done by a person who is compelled
to do it by threats, which, at the time of doing it, reasonably cause
the apprehension that instant death to that person will otherwise be
the consequence: provided that the person doing the act did not
cause the apprehension himself and did not place himself voluntarily
in such a situation."

🔹 Explanation:

 This defence is based on compulsion or duress.

 The threat must be of instant death, not of future harm.
 The compulsion must be such that it leaves no opportunity to
seek help or escape.
 The exception does not apply to:
o Murder

o Offences against the State punishable with death

 The accused must not have voluntarily put themselves in the

threatening situation.

🔹 Essential Ingredients:

1. Compulsion by threats from another person.

2. Threat must create reasonable apprehension of instant death.
 3. The accused did not voluntarily expose themselves to the
threat.
4. The act was done solely due to the compulsion.
5. The act is not excluded by law (e.g., murder).

🔹 Example:
A gang threatens to shoot Ramesh instantly if he does not drive
them away from a robbery scene. Ramesh, fearing for his life,
drives them away. His act is protected under Sec. 32 because it was
done under the threat of instant death.

🔹 Case Law:

 Emperor v. Tegu – The court held that for this defence to

apply, the threat must be immediate and unavoidable, leaving
no time for the accused to seek protection from the
authorities.

E] ACT DONE BY CONSENT

Section 26 – Act Not Intended and Not Known to Be Likely to

Cause Death or Grievous Hurt, Done by Consent

🔹 Introduction:
Section 26 of the Bhartiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 provides protection
to a person from criminal liability when an act is done with the
consent of the person harmed, provided the act is not intended to
cause death or grievous hurt and the doer has no knowledge that
it is likely to cause such consequences. This section is rooted in the
principle of volenti non fit injuria (to a willing person, no injury is
done).

🔹 Statement of Section 26 (BNS):

"Nothing which is not intended to cause death, or grievous hurt, and
which is not known by the doer to be likely to cause death or
grievous hurt, is an offence by reason of any harm which it may
cause, or be intended by the doer to cause, to any person, with that
person's consent, if the person is above eighteen years of age."

🔹 Explanation:

 The section protects acts done with valid consent when:

o There is no intention to cause death or grievous hurt.

o The doer has no knowledge that the act is likely to cause

death or grievous hurt.

o The person giving consent is above 18 years of age and

capable of understanding the nature and consequences

of the act.
 This section is often applied in sports, physical contests, and
risky activities undertaken voluntarily.

🔹 Essential Ingredients:

1. Absence of intention to cause death or grievous hurt.

2. Absence of knowledge that the act is likely to cause death or
grievous hurt.
3. Consent of the person harmed.
4. The person giving consent must be above 18 years.
 5. The consent must be free and informed.

🔹 Example:
Two adults agree to a friendly boxing match. One sustains minor
injuries during the bout. Since there was consent, no intent to
cause grievous hurt, and no knowledge that such hurt was likely,
the act falls under Section 26 and no offence is committed.

Section 26 – Act Not Intended to Cause Death, Done by Consent in

Good Faith for Person’s Benefit

🔹 Introduction:
This provision recognizes situations where a person performs an
act for the benefit of another, with that person’s consent, in good
faith, without intending to cause death. It balances individual
autonomy and protection from harm, allowing beneficial acts even
if they involve some risk, provided the risk does not amount to
intentional killing.

🔹 Statement of Section 26 (BNS):

"Nothing which is not intended to cause death, is an offence by
reason of any harm which it may cause, or be intended to cause, to
any person above eighteen years of age, who has given consent,
whether express or implied, to suffer that harm, or to take the risk of
that harm, if the act is done in good faith for that person’s benefit."
🔹 Explanation:

 The essence is good faith + consent + benefit.

 The act must be for the welfare of the person harmed.
 Even if some harm results, there is no offence if:
o There was no intention to cause death.

o The act was carried out honestly and reasonably

believing it to be beneficial.
o The person giving consent is above 18 years.

 Commonly applies to medical treatment, rescue operations,

and emergency acts.

🔹 Essential Ingredients:

1. No intention to cause death.

2. Consent of the person harmed (above 18 years of age).
3. Good faith in performing the act.
4. The act must be for the person’s benefit.
5. Harm caused is incidental, not the primary objective.

🔹 Example:
A surgeon operates on a patient above 18 years old, with the
patient’s consent, to remove a tumour. The operation is risky and
causes harm, but is done in good faith for the patient’s benefit and
without intention to cause death.

Section 27 – Act Done in Good Faith for Benefit of Child or Person

with Mental Illness, by or with Consent of Guardian
🔹 Introduction:
This provision allows certain acts to be done for the benefit of a
minor or a person with mental illness, provided the act is done in
good faith and with the consent of their legal guardian. It
recognises that such persons may not be capable of giving valid
consent themselves, and thus shifts the consent-giving power to
the guardian.

🔹 Statement of Section 27 (BNS):

"Nothing which is done in good faith for the benefit of a person
under twelve years of age, or of unsound mind, by or by consent,
either express or implied, of the guardian or other person having
lawful charge of that person, is an offence by reason of any harm
which it may cause, or be intended to cause, to that person."

🔹 Explanation:

 Applies only to children under 12 years and persons with

mental illness/unsound mind.
 Consent must come from:
1. The guardian, or
2. Any person with lawful charge of the minor/mentally ill
person.
 The act must be done honestly and with due care (good
faith).
 No criminal liability arises for harm caused, if the act was
genuinely for the person’s benefit.
  Does not cover acts intended to cause death or grievous
harm beyond what is necessary for the benefit.

🔹 Essential Ingredients:

1. Person harmed is under 12 years of age or of unsound mind.

2. Guardian’s consent (express or implied).
3. Act is done in good faith.
4. Act is for the benefit of the person harmed.
5. Harm caused is incidental, not intentional.

🔹 Example:
A doctor performs surgery on a 10-year-old child with the consent
of the child’s parents. The surgery involves some harm (incision,
pain, recovery time), but it is done in good faith for the child’s
benefit.

Section 28 – Consent Known to be Given Under Fear or

Misconception

🔹 Introduction:
This section deals with situations where the accused knows that the
consent given by a person is not free, but is obtained under fear of
injury or due to a misconception of fact. In such cases, the consent
is considered invalid and cannot be used as a defence.

🔹 Statement of Section 28 (BNS):

"A consent is not such a consent as is intended by any section of this
Sanhita, if the consent is given by a person under fear of injury, or
under a misconception of fact, and if the person doing the act
knows, or has reason to believe, that the consent was given in
consequence of such fear or misconception."

🔹 Explanation:

 Key focus: The mental state of the accused – whether they

knew or had reason to believe that consent was not truly free.
 If the consent is obtained by creating fear (threats,
intimidation) or by misleading the person (false facts,
concealment), it is invalid.
 This aligns with free consent principles in contract law (Sec 14,
Indian Contract Act).
 Such consent cannot protect the accused from criminal
liability.

🔹 Essential Ingredients:

1. Consent given by the person harmed.

2. Consent obtained under fear of injury OR misconception of
fact.
3. Accused knows or has reason to believe that consent was so
obtained.
4. Act done on the basis of such invalid consent.

🔹 Example:
  Fear: X threatens Y with harm if Y does not allow X to use Y’s
property. Y agrees out of fear. This consent is invalid.
 Misconception: A doctor convinces a patient to undergo
surgery by falsely telling them they have a fatal disease.
Consent obtained is under misconception and invalid.

F] ACT CAUSING SLIGHT HARM I.E. TRIFLING ACTS

Section 33 – Act Causing Slight Harm (Trifling Acts)

🔹 Introduction:
This provision is based on the legal maxim “De minimis non curat
lex” — the law does not take notice of trifles.
It recognizes that criminal law should not punish insignificant acts
that cause negligible harm, as prosecuting such matters would
waste judicial time and cause unnecessary hardship.

🔹 Statement of Section 33 (BNS):

"Nothing is an offence by reason that it causes, or that it is intended
to cause, or that it is known to be likely to cause, any harm, if that
harm is so slight that no person of ordinary sense and temper would
complain of such harm."

🔹 Explanation:

 The harm caused must be extremely slight.

 The test is objective — would a reasonable person of ordinary
sense and temper complain?
  Applies only if no malicious intent and no significant injury is
involved.
 It filters out petty grievances from criminal law.

🔹 Essential Ingredients:

1. Harm caused is very minor.

2. Harm is such that ordinary reasonable people would not
complain.
3. No malice or ill-intention behind the act.
4. Harm is negligible to person or property.

🔹 Examples:

 Brushing against someone in a crowded train.

 Accidentally splashing a drop of water while drinking.
 Light push to make space in a crowd without causing injury.

G] Right of Private Defence of Body – Introduction

The Right of Private Defence is a legal right recognized under the

Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 (Sections 34 to 37) that allows a
person to protect their own body or the body of another against
offences affecting the human body.
It is based on the principle that law does not require a person to
run away from danger and permits reasonable force to repel
unlawful aggression.

Provisions as to right to pvt defence:

Section 34 – Things Done in Private Defence

Statement of Law

Nothing is an offence which is done in the exercise of the right of

private defence of the body or of property, provided it is done in
good faith and within the limits prescribed by law.

Explanation

 This section recognises private defence as a complete

defence against criminal liability.
 The act must be necessary to protect oneself or another’s
body/property against an offence.
 The right is preventive, not punitive — it ends when the threat
ends.
 The force used must be proportionate to the nature of the
attack.

Essential Ingredients

1. Existence of Threat – There must be a reasonable

apprehension of death, injury, or damage.
2. Immediate Necessity – No time to seek public authorities.
3. Good Faith – Action must be with honest intention to defend,
not to harm.
4. Proportional Force – Harm caused should not exceed what is
necessary for defence.
5. No Pre-meditation – Action must arise spontaneously due to
the threat.
Example

A is attacked by B with a knife. A, in order to save himself, strikes B

with a stick and injures him. A has committed no offence as his act
was in private defence.

Section 35 – Right of Private Defence of Body and of Property

Statement of Law

Every person has a right to defend —

1. His own body and the body of any other person against any
offence affecting the human body.
2. His own property and the property of any other person,
whether movable or immovable, against any act which is an
offence falling under theft, robbery, mischief, or criminal
trespass, or which is an attempt to commit such offences.

Explanation

 This section confers a combined right to protect both body

and property.
 The right applies to oneself and to others (both human body
and property).
 It extends to prevention of certain specified property offences.
 It is preventive in nature, not retaliatory — force must be used
only to avert an offence, not to punish the offender.

Essential Ingredients
 1. Right holder – Any person (not just the victim) can exercise
the right.
2. Objects of defence –
o Human body (self or others).

o Property (self or others).

3. Nature of threat – Must involve offences against the body or

against property as listed.
4. Timing – Threat must be imminent and real.
5. Limits – Action must be in good faith and proportionate.

Example

A sees a thief breaking into his neighbour’s house at night. A

catches hold of the thief and uses reasonable force to restrain him
until the police arrive. This is a valid exercise of right of private
defence of property.

Section 36 – Right of Private Defence Against Acts of a Person of

Unsound Mind,etc.

REFER PATHAAN GPT DOESN’T KNOW

Section 37 – Acts Against Which There is No Right of Private

Defence

Statement of Law

No right of private defence exists:

1. Against an act done or attempted by a public servant acting

in good faith under colour of his office, even if the act is not
strictly justifiable by law,
provided:
 oHe is acting in good faith.
o He is not exceeding his powers in a gross manner.

o The act does not cause a reasonable apprehension of

death or grievous hurt.

2. Against an act done or attempted by the direction of a public
servant acting in good faith under colour of his office,
provided:
o The direction is given in good faith.

o The person obeying the direction believes it to be lawful.

o The act does not cause a reasonable apprehension of

death or grievous hurt.

Explanation

 The right of private defence is not meant to obstruct lawful or

good faith acts of public authorities.
 However, if such an act by a public servant or under his
direction causes a reasonable apprehension of death or
grievous hurt, the right of private defence revives.
 The focus is on good faith and reasonable belief of lawfulness.

Essential Ingredients

1. Act done by a public servant or under his direction.

2. Act done in good faith under colour of office.
3. No reasonable apprehension of death or grievous hurt.
4. Act may not be strictly justifiable by law, but is believed to be
lawful.
Example

 A police officer, in good faith, arrests X believing X to be a

proclaimed offender, but actually it’s a mistaken identity. X
cannot assault the officer claiming private defence unless the
officer’s act creates a reasonable apprehension of causing him
death or grievous hurt.

Section 38 – When Right to Private Defence of Body Extends to

Causing Death

Statement of Law

The right of private defence of the body extends to causing death

of the assailant if the offence which occasions the exercise of that
right is of any of the following descriptions:

1. Assault with reasonable apprehension of death.

2. Assault with reasonable apprehension of grievous hurt.
3. Assault with intention of committing rape.
4. Assault with intention of gratifying unnatural lust.
5. Assault with intention of kidnapping or abducting.
6. Assault with intention of wrongfully confining a person, under
circumstances giving reasonable apprehension that the
confinement may cause death or grievous hurt.
7. Act of throwing or administering acid (or attempt to do so)
causing reasonable apprehension of grievous hurt.

Essentials

 There must be reasonable apprehension — not just fear or

suspicion.
  The act must be immediate and leave no time for recourse to
public authorities.
 The force used (even causing death) must be proportionate
to the danger perceived.

Example

 If A attempts to stab B with a knife and B reasonably believes

it could kill him, B may, in private defence, cause A’s death.

Section 39 – When Right of Private Defence of the Body Extends to

Causing Any Harm Other than Death

Statement of Law

When the offence which occasions the exercise of the right of

private defence does not fall under any of the 7 categories in
Section 38, the defender’s right extends only to causing harm other
than death to the assailant.

Essentials

 Offence must be against the body but not of a nature

described in Sec 38.
 Harm caused must be proportionate to the injury
apprehended.
 No excessive force — cannot cause death.

Example
  A slaps B in anger. B can push A away or restrain him, but
cannot kill him, as the slap doesn’t cause reasonable
apprehension of death or grievous hurt.

Section 40 – Commencement and Continuance of the Right of

Private Defence of the Body

Statement of Law

The right of private defence of the body commences as soon as a

reasonable apprehension of danger to the body arises from an
attempt or threat to commit the offence — even if the offence is
not yet committed — and continues as long as such apprehension
of danger continues.

Essentials

 Commencement:
o Starts the moment there is a reasonable threat of harm

— not just after the first blow is struck.

 Continuance:
o Lasts till the threat or danger is completely over.

 Right ends once the attacker is disarmed or the danger is

removed.

Example
  If C rushes towards D with a raised stick intending to hit him,
D’s right of private defence begins before the stick actually
lands.
 Once C drops the stick and surrenders, the right ends.

Section 41 – When Right of Private Defence of Property Extends to

Causing Death

Statement of Law

Right of private defence of property extends to causing death of

the offender if the offence is:

1. Robbery
2. House-breaking by night
3. Mischief by fire on building, tent, or vessel used for human
dwelling or custody of property
4. Theft, mischief, or house-trespass under circumstances
causing reasonable apprehension of death or grievous hurt.

Essentials

 Offence must be one of the above four categories.

 Act done in good faith to protect property.
 Death caused must be proportionate to the danger.

Example:
If a gang of armed robbers break into X’s house at night, X can
cause their death in defence of his property and life.
Section 42 – When Right of Private Defence of Property Extends to
Causing Any Harm Other than Death

Statement of Law

If the offence against property does not fall under Section 41

categories, right of private defence extends only to causing harm
other than death.

Example:
If Y sees Z picking mangoes from his tree, Y can stop him or cause
minor harm, but not death.

Section 43 – Commencement and Continuance of Right of Private

Defence of Property

Statement of Law

 Commencement:
o Against theft → from the moment theft is attempted.

o Against robbery → from the moment robbery is

attempted.
o Against criminal trespass or mischief → from the

moment it is attempted.
o Against house-breaking by night → from the moment it

is attempted.
 Continuance:
o Against theft → until property is recovered and thief

escapes with it.

o Against robbery → as long as offender causes or

attempts to cause death, hurt, or wrongful restraint.

 o Against criminal trespass or mischief → as long as the
offence continues.
o Against house-breaking by night → as long as the
offence continues.

Section 44 – Right of Private Defence Against Deadly Assault When

There is Risk of Harm to Innocent Person

Statement of Law

If a person is in deadly assault and cannot effectively defend

himself without risking harm to an innocent person, he still has the
right to defend himself, even if in doing so he risks harming the
innocent person.

Example:
If A is attacked by armed B, and the only way to shoot B is by
risking injury to a bystander C, A’s right of private defence still
applies.