BNS Section 14 - Act Done By A Person Bound, Or By Mistake Of Fact Believing Himself Bound, By Law

The Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS) asserts that the reform of India's substantive criminal law is required due to the archaic nature of IPC provisions that some BNS has attempted to replace: those of clear language and easy comprehension. BNS, in Section 14, deals with a very essential safeguard: it protects all persons who either commit the act under some legal obligation or in a good faith mistake of fact believe that they are bound by law.

Section 14, while based on Section 76 of the IPC of 1860, continues to hold that for criminality mens rea is essential. If a person does something that he was legally obligated to do or in the honest and good-faith belief that he was legally obligated to do it, that act shall not constitute a criminal offence.

Legal Provision

Section 14 – Act done by a person bound, or by mistake of fact believing himself bound, by law

“Nothing is an offence which is done by a person who is, or who by reason of a mistake of fact and not by reason of a mistake of law in good faith believes himself to be, bound by law to do it.”

Simplified Explanation Of BNS Section 14

The scenario enshrined in section 14 has two possible types of application:

• Under Compulsion of Law: An act cannot be made a criminal offence for the same act which a person is obliged to do by the law.
• Mistake of Fact (Good Faith): Where a person honestly (taking the fact not the law) believes that he is required to do an act by means of law, and does it in good faith, he shall be not liable to a criminal law.

Mistake of Fact vs. Mistake of Law:

• Allowed: Believing a warrant is issued against someone and arresting him - a factual mistake.
• Not Allowed: Believing that slapping someone is legal as an insult to you - misunderstanding of the law.

Key Elements Of BNS Section 14

Practical Examples Illustrating BNS Section 14

• A Police Officer Arrests the Wrong Person

A uniformed constable, while holding a valid warrant, wrongly arrests a person, A, instead of the real suspect, B, due to some confusion in the identification. The good faith and factual mistake of the officer further attracts immunity under Section 14.

• Public Servant Seizes Property

A municipal official demolishes a structure believing it to be on public land. Later developments show that the property was private. The officer was protected in good faith and made a decision based on official maps.

• A Civilian Who Enforces a "Law" of His Own Making

A man makes an assault, thinking he is "doing justice". This is a mistake of law and not of fact, so BNS Section 14 would not apply.

Improvements And Changes In IPC Section 76 To BNS Section 14

Section 14 of the BNS essentially retains the main premise enunciated by Section 76 of the IPC: that is, a person acting under legal duty or due to a mistake of fact in good faith should not incur criminal liability. However, the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita greatly improves the clarity, modernity, and accessibility of the law. The most important improvement has been in the language of this provision. Section 76 of the IPC was done in old colonial legal jargon, which the layperson found hard to read. Whereas the language of Section 14 is modern, lucid, and simplistic, thus enhancing the reach of the law to the entire populace.

Further along, Section 14 of the BNS categorically highlights good faith, which was only implicitly stated in the IPC. By stating that protection will only apply if the belief arose from a mistake of fact, as opposed to a mistake of law, this definition minimizes the potential for misinterpretation and misuse. It thereby clarifies the legislative intent, making judicial interpretation easier. The entire channelization from IPC to BNS, therefore, indicates the shift of a legal paradigm-the one which firstly protects a citizen with laid principles, secondly, is open to all and easy to read, lastly, is precise.

Conclusion

Section 14 of the BNS protects persons who act under a compulsion of law or by virtue of a matter of fact believed in good faith. It ensures that no one shall be punished in respect of any act by him done with full honesty and intention under a legal obligation or in true belief of a matter of fact. This, therefore, preserves justice by holding that intention is paramount in criminal law.

FAQs On BNS Section 14

To further enhance the understanding of BNS Section 14 in the perspectives of scope and applicability, some of the frequently asked questions regarding judicial interpretation, mistake of fact versus that of law, legal protection, and practical implications of this section have been answered in a terse manner.

Q1. Why was IPC Section 76 replaced with BNS Section 14?

To modernise criminal law while removing any ambiguity and yet preserve its safeguard as far as innocent acts done under duty or under a factual misunderstanding are concerned.

Q2. What is the main divergence between IPC 76 and BNS 14?

BNS 14 improves on the language and emphasises good faith, fully opening the provision to layman application.

Q3. Does BNS Section 14 define an offence?

No, it defines what is not an offence when done under legal obligation or mistaken belief of fact.

Q4. Is this BNS section 14 bailable or not?

Since BNS Section 14 does not constitute an offence, it cannot involve bailability. It would depend on the nature of the act performed in relation with which bail is to be attached.

Q5. What will be the punishment under BNS Section 14?

No punishment exists under this section, as it protects against criminal liability.

Q6. Is BNS Section 14 a Cognizable section?

The act, on the other hand, will determine whether cognizability exists since BNS Section 14 is not an offence.

Q7. Which provision in IPC actually coincides with BNS Section 14?

It transpires that the current counterpart of BNS Section 14 is IPC Section 76, that deals with such acts committed as a result of legal obligation or mistake of fact in good faith. Although the principle continues without a change.