BNS Section 33 – Act Causing Slight Harm

BNS Section 33 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 (BNS), India's recently enacted criminal code, provides for a very basic principle of law: that the law will not concern itself with trifles. Titled "Act causing slight harm," this section presents an important exclusion from criminal liability, specifically that not every small inconvenience or negligible harm should be the subject of the legal process. By its very nature, it contemplates the real world, in which two people might cause unintentional or minor pain to one another, and it tries to prevent the criminal law from adversely impacting people's lives for trivial reasons. BNS Section 33 is the direct equivalent and a direct re-statement of the previous Section 95 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC). Understanding this to avoid needless hair-splitting over the boundaries of criminal offenses and to create a criminal law that is reflective of real life regarding when the law is necessary is essential.

In this article, you will get to read about:

• Simplified Explanation of BNS Section 33.
• Key Details.
• Practical Examples Illustrating BNS Section 33.

Legal Provision

Section 33 of the BNS ‘Act Causing Slight Harm’ states:

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.

Simplified Explanation

Some acts cause some damage, but none meet the definition of an offence. Section 33 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS) sets an upper limit on the amount of damage we consider an offence under the law. If the damage caused by any act is too trivial or insignificant, we do not treat it as an offence. So basically, the law is not concerned with trivialities that would not bother an ordinary and reasonable person living a peaceful life.

Section 33 takes this approach even further. It states a person shall not be punished for committing an act that is intended or is known to be likely to cause harm if that harm is too small for the person to complain about. The idea here is to relieve everyone of the burden of criminal law when the matter is too trivial to be an issue. This makes space for the regulation of serious offences, and limits the limits we impose on each other when we are incompetent or ineffective to keep ourselves in check.

Key Details

Practical Examples Illustrating BNS Section 33

A few examples are:

Accidental Brush in a Crowd

In a crowded marketplace, you accidentally brush against someone, causing them slight discomfort or a minor nudge. A person of ordinary sense would likely not consider this a matter for a formal complaint or legal action. BNS Section 33 would apply here.

Trivial Damage to Property

While walking past a parked bicycle, your bag lightly grazes it, causing a barely noticeable scratch on the paint. A reasonable owner would likely overlook such insignificant damage. This would fall under the purview of BNS Section 33.

Slight Delay Caused by a Minor Obstruction

Someone briefly blocks your path in a hallway, causing a delay of a few seconds. While potentially mildly irritating, a person of ordinary temper would not consider this a legally actionable offense. BNS Section 33 would likely apply.

Key Improvements And Changes: IPC Section 95 To BNS Section 33

BNS Section 33 is the same as IPC Section 95. There are no substantive changes or betterment in the text or the underlying principle of law—the BNS merely renumbered the section.

The significance of this is that the Indian criminal justice system is still committed to the long-standing legal concept of the "doctrine of slight harm." The legislature has enacted the BNS, retaining the meaning of the section without any change, suggesting it remains relevant in preventing the criminalization of trivialities and providing for the efficient administration of justice.

Consequently, the important "change" is simply the section number from 95 in the IPC to 33 in the BNS. The legal concept/principle and its interpretations remain consistent.

Conclusion

BNS Section 33, akin to its predecessor IPC Section 95, serves an important purpose in preventing the over-criminalization of petty or inconsequential harm. It uses an objective standard, grounded in the reaction of a reasonable person, to ensure that the legal system focuses on real harm and more serious wrongful acts. This concept of petty harm acknowledges the behavior of everyday people and helps to promote a sense of proportionality in the application of criminal law. The retention of this provision without change underscores its fundamental significance in supporting the proper functioning of a criminal justice system that delivers justice through order and is concerned about substantive wrongs, not trivial inconveniences.

FAQs

A few FAQs are:

Q1 - Why was IPC Section 95 revised and replaced with BNS Section 33?

IPC Section 95 was not specifically revised. The entire Indian Penal Code was replaced by the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023, as part of a comprehensive reform of India's criminal laws. BNS Section 33 is the corresponding provision that re-enacts the principle of the "act causing slight harm." The wording remains identical to IPC Section 95; the only change is the section number.

Q2 - What are the main differences between IPC Section 95 and BNS Section 33?

There are no substantive differences between IPC Section 95 and BNS Section 33. The text and the legal principle conveyed are exactly the same. The sole difference is the change in the section number within the new Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita.

Q3 - Is BNS Section 33 a bailable or non-bailable offense?

BNS Section 33 does not define an offense itself. Instead, it provides an exception to criminal liability for acts that cause slight harm. Therefore, the concept of bailable or non-bailable is not applicable to BNS Section 33. If an act causing harm is significant enough to be considered an offense under other sections of the BNS, the bailability of that underlying offense would be determined by the relevant section.

Q4 - What is the punishment for an offence under BNS Section 33?

BNS Section 33 does not prescribe a punishment because it clarifies situations where an act causing slight harm is not an offense. If the harm caused is significant and the act constitutes an offense under other sections of the BNS, the punishment would be as prescribed in those relevant sections.

Q5 - What is the fine imposed under BNS Section 33?

Similar to the punishment, BNS Section 33 itself does not impose a fine. Any fine would be associated with the specific offense committed by the act if the harm is not considered slight and the act falls under other punishable sections of the BNS.

Q6 - Is the offense under BNS Section 33 cognizable or non-cognizable?

Again, BNS Section 33 does not define an offense. The cognizable or non-cognizable nature of an act causing harm would depend on whether that act, when the harm is not considered slight, constitutes a cognizable or non-cognizable offense under other sections of the BNS.

Q7 - What is the BNS Section 33 equivalent of IPC Section 95?

The BNS Section 33 equivalent of IPC Section 95 is BNS Section 33 itself. It directly replaces and re-enacts the same legal principle concerning the "act causing slight harm," with no changes to the text.