BNS Section 30 - Act Done In Good Faith For Benefit Of A Person Without Consent

India’s new criminal code, the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS), has introduced Section 30, popularly referred to as the ‘Good Samaritan’ clause in a generic sense. Section 30 creates an important exception to criminal liability for causing harm by an act intended to benefit a person done in good faith, even without consent. This protection applies specifically when the inability to acquire consent has arisen from the circumstances or incapacity of the person, and there is no guardian or legally entitled caregiver available in time to provide consent necessary for a timely action in emergency circumstances. The rationale for this is to promote timely and necessary interventions in emergency periods where not taking timely action to acquire consent may cause even greater harm and/or even loss of the life of the patient. Importantly, BNS Section 30 is the immediate successor and equivalent of Section 92 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC), preserving this protection within India's criminal jurisprudence under a new legislative framework.

In this blog, you will get to know about:

• Simplified Explanation of BNS Section 30.
• Key Details.
• Practical Examples Illustrating BNS Section 30.

Legal Provision

Section 30 of the BNS “Act Done In Good Faith For Benefit Of A Person Without Consent” states:

Nothing is an offence by reason of any harm which it may cause to a person for whose benefit it is done in good faith, even without that person’s consent, if the circumstances are such that it is impossible for that person to signify consent, or if that person is incapable of giving consent, and has no guardian or other person in lawful charge of him from whom it is possible to obtain consent in time for the thing to be done with benefit;

Provided that exception shall not extend to,

1. the intentional causing of death, or the attempting to cause death;
2. the doing of anything which the person doing it knows to be likely to cause death, for any purpose other than the preventing of death or grievous hurt, or the curing of any grievous disease or infirmity;
3. the voluntary causing of hurt, or to the attempting to cause hurt, for any purpose other than the preventing of death or hurt;
4. the abetment of any offence, to the committing of which offence it would not extend.

Illustrations:

1. Z is thrown from his horse, and is insensible. A, a surgeon, finds that Z requires to be trepanned. A, not intending Z’s death, but in good faith, for Z’s benefit, performs the trepan before Z recovers his power of judging for himself. A has committed no offence.
2. Z is carried off by a tiger. A fires at the tiger knowing it to be likely that the shot may kill Z, but not intending to kill Z, and in good faith intending Z’s benefit. A’s bullet gives Z a mortal wound. A has committed no offence.
3. A, a surgeon, sees a child suffer an accident which is likely to prove fatal unless an operation be immediately performed. There is no time to apply to the child’s guardian. A performs the operation in spite of the entreaties of the child, intending, in good faith, the child’s benefit. A has committed no offence.
4. A is in a house which is on fire, with Z, a child. People below hold out a blanket. A drops the child from the house top, knowing it to be likely that the fall may kill the child, but not intending to kill the child, and intending, in good faith, the child’s benefit. Here, even if the child is killed by the fall, A has committed no offence.

Explanation: Mere pecuniary benefit is not benefit within the meaning of sections 21, 22 and 23.

Simplified Explanation

According to Section 30 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS), an act does not constitute an offence if it takes place good faith for the benefit of another person, even in the absence of that other person's consent, either because that person's consent cannot be obtained, or because they were incapable of consenting and there was no guardian available promptly. The controlling element is intention for the act to be for the benefit of the other person, not due to negligence or harm.

However, that protection under the law has limitations. It cannot provide protection for intentionally causing death, attempting to cause death, or for doing an act that is likely to cause death unless it is done to prevent death or great bodily harm. Further, it cannot extend to injuries or hurts caused voluntarily for any purposes other than those of preventing harm. Also, this section does not include encouraging or assisting another person to commit a crime.

Key Details

Practical Examples Illustrating BNS Section 30

A few examples are:

Unconscious Accident Victim

“Z” has been thrown from a horse and is unconscious. Surgeon “A” determines that 'Z' requires immediate brain surgery (trepanation) to save 'Z's life. 'Z' is not in a position to consent. 'A, in good faith for the benefit of 'Z' and without the intent to cause death, performs the surgery before 'Z' regains consciousness. 'A' has committed no offence in the operation of BNS Section 30.

Tiger Attack

“Z” is being carried away by a tiger. 'A' shoots at the tiger, knowing full well that it is possible that the bullet will accidentally kill 'Z' 'A' aims to save 'Z's life. The bullet wounds 'Z' fatally. According to BNS Section 30, A has committed no offence because his action was a good-faith effort for 'Z's benefit, and the intent was to prevent death. Even though the result was tragic.

Key Improvements And Changes: IPC Section 92 To BNS Section 30

The critical change is the lowering of the threshold from "grievous hurt" to "hurt" in the BNS provision relating to the exception. Under IPC, one could defend oneself against voluntarily causing simple hurt without consent in an emergency if it benefits the person, but under the BNS, it appears the exception applies only if one voluntarily causes hurt (including simple hurt) or death with no consent in order to prevent any hurt (including simple hurt) or death. This means the BNS may provide less protection for actions causing even minor forms of hurt without consent than IPC Section 92, only if it is directed at preventing any form of injury or death. The explanation regarding pecuniary benefit continues to be the same in both sections (perhaps with a reference to the change of section numbers to match the BNS). So the improvement and change between IPC Section 92 and BNS Section 30 is in the third provision, which now places limits on the voluntary causing of simple "hurt" without consent, unless it was to prevent any "hurt" or death.

Conclusion

Despite being quite similar to IPC Section 92, BNS Section 30 is an essential legal provision that allows good-hearted people to act in the best interests of others in dire circumstances where consent cannot be secured. The goal of helping the person in need and acting in good faith is still prioritized. The examples make it abundantly evident what kinds of situations fall under this exemption, especially those involving life-threatening conditions and medical emergencies. The BNS's third proviso has undergone a minor modification that may limit protection for inflicting harm without agreement. This adjustment should be carefully considered when applying the law. In the end, Section 30 strikes a compromise between upholding personal freedom and permitting essential interventions in dire situations where failure to intervene could have more dire repercussions.

FAQs

A few FAQs are:

Q1. Why was IPC Section 92 revised and replaced with BNS Section 30?

IPC Section 92 was primarily renumbered and carried over into the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS) as Section 30 as part of the comprehensive overhaul of India's criminal laws. The core principle of protecting acts done in good faith for a person's benefit without consent in emergency situations remains. The only notable change is in the third proviso, which now refers to preventing "hurt" instead of "grievous hurt."

Q2. What are the main differences between IPC Section 92 and BNS Section 30?

The main difference lies in the third proviso. IPC Section 92's exception did not extend to voluntarily causing grievous hurt except to prevent death or grievous hurt. BNS Section 30's exception does not extend to voluntarily causing hurt (including simple hurt) except to prevent death or hurt. This suggests a potentially narrower protection under BNS Section 30 for actions causing even minor harm without consent.

Q3. Is BNS Section 30 a bailable or non-bailable offense?

BNS Section 30 does not define an offense itself. It provides an exception to liability for acts that might otherwise be offenses. Therefore, the question of bailability is not directly applicable to this section. The bailability of the underlying act that caused harm would depend on the nature and severity of that act as defined in other sections of the BNS and the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS).

Q4. What is the punishment for an offense under BNS Section 30?

BNS Section 30 does not prescribe a punishment. It provides a defense against liability. If the conditions of Section 30 are met, no offense is deemed to have been committed under this specific provision. The punishment would be relevant only if the act falls outside the scope of this exception and constitutes an offense under other sections of the BNS.

Q5. What is the fine imposed under BNS Section 30?

Similar to punishment, BNS Section 30 does not impose a fine. It provides a defense against criminal liability. Any fine would be associated with the specific offense committed under other sections of the BNS if the protection of Section 30 does not apply.

Q6. Is the offense under BNS Section 30 cognizable or non-cognizable?

Again, BNS Section 30 does not define an offense. It provides an exception to liability. The cognizability (whether the police can arrest without a warrant) of the underlying act that caused harm would depend on the nature of that act as defined in other sections of the BNS and the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS). The principles of Section 30 would be considered when determining if that act constitutes an offense in the first place.

Q7. What is the BNS Section 30 equivalent of IPC Section 92?

BNS Section 30 is the direct equivalent of IPC Section 92. While the core principle remains the same, there is a notable change in the third proviso, where BNS Section 30 restricts the voluntary causing of "hurt" (instead of "grievous hurt," as in IPC Section 92) unless it's to prevent death or "hurt." The explanation regarding pecuniary benefit also remains consistent (with updated section references).