BNS Section 17 - Act Believed To Be Justified By Law

The Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS) 2023 is attempting to reform and modernise the criminal justice system in India and has brought forward Section 17, which is a protective umbrella, providing exemption for some conduct from being deemed an offense. Section 17 specifically covers situations where an act is committed by a legally permitted individual who believed they were legally permitted to act in that way, based on a true misunderstanding regarding a fact or facts (but not the law).

In this article on Section 17 of the BNS, you will get to know about:

• The Legal Provision Itself.
• Key Elements of the Section.
• Practical Examples.
• FAQs for Clarity.

Legal Provision

Section 17 of the BNS, ‘Act done by a person justified, or by mistake of fact believing himself, justified, by law’ states:

Nothing is an offence which is done by any person who is justified by law, 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 justified by law, in doing it.

Illustration: A sees Z commit what appears to A to be a murder. A, in the exercise, to the best of his judgment exerted in good faith, of the power which the law gives to all persons of apprehending murderers in the fact, seizes Z, in order to bring Z before the proper authorities. A has committed no offence, though it may turn out that Z was acting in self-defence.

Simplified Explanation Of BNS Section 17

Consider a situation in which you observe someone being assaulted. As a good citizen, you may try to stop the assault. If the assailant turns on you and you injure the assailant in self-defense, will you be liable? This is when BNS Section 17 applies. As noted above, the section states that if you acted either with legal authority (as you are entitled to use reasonable force in self-defense, which the law allows), or you honestly believed (based on a misunderstanding of facts, but not the law) that you were acting with legal authority, your actions will not constitute a crime.

BNS Section 17: Key Elements

The key elements of Section 17 of the BNS are:

Act Done by a Person Justified by Law

This part speaks for itself. If a law explicitly permits or prohibits an act, then that act cannot be a crime. For example, arresting a person for whom the officer has a valid warrant is an act sanctioned by law.

Mistake Of Fact Believing Himself Justified By Law

This is the more subtle aspect. It provides protection to those who act under an erroneous perception of the facts of the situation, being therefore a good-faith belief that their act was lawful. The essence here is that of "mistake of fact" and "good faith."

• Mistake of Fact: This indicates that the individual was incorrect in their understanding of the event that occurred. In the example given, A had an incorrect belief that Z was murdering. In that case, A made an error in their understanding of the actual state of affairs.
• Good Faith: It follows that someone has acted honestly and with due care and attention, sincerely believing that the action taken at the time was the right thing to do under the circumstances that they perceived.

Not By Reason Of A Mistake of Law

A misconception of law itself won't give protection under section 17 of BNS. "I didn't know it was illegal" cannot be the answer while upholding the statement. The mistake must be of the factual situation only and must lead to a wrong belief as to the legal justification thereof.

Key Details Of BNS Section 17

Practical Examples Illustrating BNS Section 17

The practical examples are as follows:

Police Officer with a Warrant

A police officer arrests a suspect called X based on an arrest warrant that is nevertheless legally valid and issued by the court. It could be the case, however, that the court goes on to err later on in that the warrant should have been for Y, but nonetheless, the action of the police officer in arresting X would be justified by law (the warrant) and therefore not an offence under BNS Section 17.

Citizen Apprehending A Perceived Thief

Consider a scenario whereby A witnesses B fleeing from a house with broken windows, carrying a bag that seems to contain valuable things. Under the mistaken belief that B is an actual thief (for perhaps B is the homeowner fleeing from a fire), A, in good faith and believing that he has a citizen's right to detain a thief, restrains B until the police arrive. Had there been no theft in progress, A would most likely be protected under the BNS Section 17 for having restrained B with the genuine mistake of fact and a good faith belief as to his legal authority in the apprehension of a criminal.

Key Improvements And Changes: IPC Section 79 To BNS Section 17

It is clear that BNS Section 17 mirrors IPC Section 79. The language and the principle of law remain unaltered. The BNS still provides the same protection for an act done pursuant to legal authority or a good faith mistake of fact that can be recognized as legal authority, explicitly excluding a mistake of law.

Although there are no changes to the principle or wording, the value lies in the reaffirmation of the principle within the new legal framework of the BNS, which preserves a crucial protection in criminal law. BNS Section 17 continues the protection originally provided under IPC Section 79 and the retention of Section 79 as BNS Section 17 within the context of a broader amendment to the IPC suggests that the legislature has continuing faith that will protect individuals who take action when they are genuinely motivated, but incorrect, in fact, that they have the legal authority to act.

Conclusion

Under the BNS, Section 17 holds a vital position in balancing accountability for one's actions against an honourable intent, either due to legally justified actions or due to genuinely but mistakenly believing that their actions are somehow legally justified based on their perception of the facts surrounding them. A vital distinction that remains at the heart of operating this section is between the mistake of fact and the mistake of law. While the BNS comes into force, it would be pertinent to understand the scope and limitations of Section 17 in contemplating the legal defences to be raised and the reasonable application of law in situations where acts were done under a perceived legal umbrella.

FAQs

A few FAQs based on Section 17 of BNS are:

Q1. Why was IPC Section 79 revised and replaced with BNS Section 17?

IPC Section 79 was not substantially amended. IPC Section 79 was simply re-enacted and renumbered (as Section 17) in the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS) as one aspect of the exercise of replacing the existing penal code with a new consolidated modern framework. The renumbering is an integral part of the systemic reform, rather than an indication of anything material to the legal principle itself.

Q2. What are the main differences between IPC Section 79 and BNS Section 17?

The only distinctions are those relating to the nomenclature and the place within the specific codes. The legal principle, the language used, and the purpose of application concerning IPC Section 79 and BNS Section 17 are almost the same.

Q3. Is BNS Section 17 a bailable or non-bailable offense?

Section 17 of the BNS does not define an offense, rather it establishes specific situations in which an act would not amount to an offense. Hence, the issue of bailability or non-bailability is not applicable to this section. The bailability of the purported underlying offense (the act the person asserts to support the justification) would depend on the circumstances of that offense as defined in other sections of the BNS.

Q4. What is the punishment for offense under BNS Section 17?

There is no punishment prescribed by this section since Section 17 of BNS clarifies when an act ceases to be an offense. If the defense under Section 17 fails, the individual would be punished as provided for the actual offense they committed in other sections of the BNS.

Q5. What is the fine imposed under BNS Section 17?

Section 17 of the BNS does not issue fines since no offenses have been prescribed. In any case, any fine would pertain specifically to the offense that has been committed in an instance where Section 17 protection does not apply.

Q6. Is the offense under BNS Section 17 cognizable or non-cognizable?

Section 17 of the BNS does not specify any offense. Therefore, cognizability would depend on the nature of the alleged offense. Ordinarily, if the act would amount to a cognizable offense but for the justification under Section 17, the investigation can proceed as such. However, the applicability of Section 17 would be set as a defense in the trial.

Q7. What is the BNS Section 17 equivalent of IPC Section 79?

Section 17 of the BNS is a direct equivalent of the IPC Section 79. They share an identical legal provision concerning acts done by a person as a result of legal justification or under a bona fide belief that the act was justified in law.