BNS Section 19 - Act Likely To Cause Harm, But Done Without Criminal Intent, And To Prevent Other Harm

Section 19 of the BNS is an important provision in the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 (BNS), which deals with cases in which acts reasonably considered likely to cause harm are committed without a criminal mind and in good faith with the intention to avert a greater harm to a person or property. This section is about the necessity as a legal principle whereby, in extreme situations, the choice made in favor of a lesser evil might justifiably be accepted. This section thus serves as an important safeguard against criminal liability for persons who, in situations of necessity, are forced to do something that may otherwise be considered an offense.

While reading this blog, you will get to know about

• Simplified Explanation of Section 19 of the BNS.
• Key Elements and Key Details of BNS Section 19.
• Relevant FAQs.

Legal Provision

Section 19 of the BNS Act likely to cause harm, but done without criminal intent, and to prevent other harm’ states:

Nothing is an offence 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.

Explanation: 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.

Illustrations:

1. A, the captain of a vessel, suddenly, and without any fault or negligence on his part, finds himself in such a position that, before he can stop his vessel, he must inevitably run down a boat B, with twenty or thirty passengers on board, unless he changes the course of his vessel, and that, by changing his course, he must incur 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 the boat B, he is not guilty of an offence, though he may run down the boat C by doing an act which he knew was likely to cause that effect, if it be found as a matter of fact that the danger which he intended to avoid was such as to excuse him in incurring the risk of running down the boat C.
2. A, in a great fire, pulls down houses in order to prevent the conflagration from spreading. He does this with the intention in good faith of saving human life or property. Here, if it be found that the harm to be prevented was of such a nature and so imminent as to excuse A’s act, A is not guilty of the offence.

Simplified Explanation Of BNS Section 19

BNS section 19 stipulates that if you engage in conduct you know might harm someone, you engage in that conduct without intent to harm, and you acted for a good faith belief you were preventing greater harm to a person or property, that conduct would not be criminal. For example, to save someone from a fire, you might break a window to get into a burning building to save that person. The law recognizes that your intent was not to cause damage, but to save someone's life.

Key Elements Of BNS Section 19

The key elements of Section 19 of the BNS are:

• Knowledge of Likely Harm: The person performing the act must be aware that their act likely involves some risk of causing harm. This isn't accidental harm - rather, it relates to the intentional choice and risks they might foreseeably cause harm.
• Absence of Criminal Intention: It is critical to note that the act must be without any criminal intention to inflict the actual harm. Rather, the real motivation must be to prevent another, greater harm.
• Good Faith: The act is considered to be in good faith if it is performed with honesty and with a sincere belief in the necessity to avert greater harm. Furthermore, there must not be any ulterior or selfish motive behind any such act.
• Purpose of Preventing Other Harm: The only motive for that act is to avert or prevent some other harm to a person or property. This shows the element of necessity; the act is taken against and responds to an immediate danger.
• Justification of Risk: In deciding whether the threatened harm was of such significance and immediacy to justify taking the risks causing the actual harm, it falls within the realm of the court's peculiar knowledge. There must be a delicate balancing of possible harms in this regard.

BNS Section 19-Key Details

Practical Examples Illustrating BNS Section 19

The examples of BNS Section 19 are:

The Ship Captain's Dilemma

Captain A, having no chance to avoid a collision with Boat B, due to unforeseen circumstances, changed course, thereby putting himself in danger of collision with Boat C, a smaller vessel with only two passengers. If Captain A's main consideration was saving the larger number of lives aboard Boat B, acting in good faith and with no intent to cause injury to the passengers in Boat C, he could be exonerated under BNS Section 19. The court now must determine if the peril posed to Boat B was such that the clashing risk to Boat C becomes excusable.

The Firefighter's Demolition

When there is a large fire possibly threatening the surrounding areas and more property and lives, A, in good faith and attempting to stop the fire from moving further, destroys certain buildings. If the fire poses a serious imminent, and ongoing threat to person and property, A might not even be considered to have committed an offence regarding mischief under BNS Section 19. The court would consider the size and immediacy of the threat posed by the fire.

Key Improvements And Changes: IPC Section 81 To BNS Section 19

Although BNS Section 19 is equivalent to Section 81 of the IPC, the transition to a new code provides an opportunity to determine if there were any nuances of legal significance that had changed in the greater legal landscape that may affect its application and understanding. However, a direct textual comparison will show that the drafting in BNS section 19 is the same as that in IPC section 81.

Thus, in terms of the principle of law and the expression of that principle of law, there are no textual improvements or changes between section 81 of the IPC and section 19 of the BNS. The law of necessity, as expressed in this provision, has not changed.

The importance of this restatement is that we still have continuity with a well-settled principle of law in the new code. To the extent that legal interpretations and constructions exist with respect to section 81 of the IPC, they will also continue to be adhered to in respect of section 19 of the BNS. The greater changes in the BNS, the renumbering and perhaps rearranging of offences, may alter the way this principled law is applied, along with other provisions, but the law itself has not changed.

Conclusion

BNS Section 19, modeled on IPC Section 81, codifies this vital principle of necessity. It acknowledges the complex realities where preventing a greater harm might require inflicting a lesser harm. The section thus emphasizes the absence of criminal intent, good faith, and proportionality to the threatened danger, which demonstrates the fine balance that the law seeks to achieve between preventing harm and holding individuals responsible. It is important for legal practitioners, law enforcement, and citizens to understand that this section sets the limits of what constitutes justified action in the face of imminent peril. Thus, the survival of this principle in the BNS guarantees that this tenet of criminal jurisprudence will remain a pillar of the Indian legal system.

FAQs

A few FAQs on Section 19 of the BNS are:

Q1. Why was IPC Section 19 revised and replaced with BNS Section 19?

IPC Section 81 was not specifically revised; the entire Indian Penal Code was replaced by the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023, as part of a comprehensive overhaul of India's criminal laws. BNS Section 19 is the corresponding provision that re-enacts the principle enshrined in the former IPC Section 81.

Q2. What are the main differences between IPC Section 81 and BNS Section 19?

Textually, there are no differences between IPC Section 81 and BNS Section 19. The wording and the legal principle they embody are identical. The difference lies in their placement within the new legal framework of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita.

Q3. Is BNS Section 19 a bailable or non-bailable offense?

BNS Section 19 itself does not define an offense; it provides a defense against an act that might otherwise be an offense. The bailability of the underlying act that caused harm will determine whether the situation falls under a bailable or non-bailable category.

Q4. What is the punishment for offense under BNS Section 19?

BNS Section 19 does not prescribe a punishment. If the defense of necessity under this section is successful, the accused is acquitted. If the defense fails, the punishment will be as stipulated for the specific offense that was committed.

Q5. What is the fine imposed under BNS Section 19?

Similar to punishment, BNS Section 19 does not impose a specific fine. If the defense of necessity is accepted, no fine is levied under this section. If the defense is rejected, any fine will be as per the provisions related to the original offense committed.

Q6. Is the offense under BNS Section 19 cognizable or non-cognizable?

Again, BNS Section 19 provides a defense, not an offense itself. The cognizable or non-cognizable nature of the underlying act that caused harm will determine how law enforcement can proceed in such a situation.

Q7. What is the BNS Section 19 equivalent of IPC Section 81?

The BNS Section 19 equivalent of IPC Section 81 is BNS Section 19 itself. It directly replaces and re-enacts the same legal principle within the new Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita.

Disclaimer: The information provided here is for general informational purposes only and should not be construed as legal advice. For personalized legal guidance, please consult with a qualified family lawyer.