IPC Section 39 – “Voluntarily”

In criminal law, the intent behind an act is often as crucial as the act itself. Whether a person acted under coercion or of their own free will can determine the degree of guilt or even the applicability of certain offences. IPC Section 39 [now replaced by 2(33) BNS Section] defines the term “voluntarily", which plays a foundational role in understanding criminal responsibility in Indian law.

This blog explores:

• The legal definition and simplified meaning of IPC Section 39
• How courts interpret "voluntarily" in criminal proceedings
• Examples showing voluntary vs. involuntary acts
• Key elements required to establish voluntariness
• Case laws that define the scope of this section
• Its relevance in crimes like confession, abetment, and conspiracy

What Is IPC Section 39?

Legal Definition:

“A person is said to cause an effect ‘voluntarily’ when he causes it by means whereby he intended to cause it, or by means which, at the time of employing those means, he knew or had reason to believe to be likely to cause it.”

Simplified Explanation

In simple terms, a person acts voluntarily when:

• They intended the outcome of their act, or
• They knew or had reason to believe that their actions were likely to cause a particular result.

This section is crucial because many IPC provisions require that an act be done “voluntarily” to attract punishment. Without proving this mental element, the prosecution cannot secure a conviction in many cases.

Example: Voluntarily Causing Harm

Example 1: Direct Intention
A hits B with a stick, intending to injure him. The injury is caused voluntarily, as A clearly intended the result.

Example 2: Knowledge-Based Voluntariness
A throws a heavy object from a balcony onto a crowded street. He doesn’t want to hurt anyone, but he knows it’s likely to cause injury. If someone gets hurt, the harm is still said to be caused voluntarily under Section 39.

Key Elements Of IPC Section 39

To invoke IPC Section 39, the following must be proven:

• Presence of intention to cause the effect, or
• Knowledge that the act is likely to cause the effect
• The act must be done consciously, not accidentally or under threat
• The actor is aware of the consequences of their actions

Importance Of “Voluntarily” In Criminal Law

The term is used throughout IPC to determine liability. Examples include:

• Section 299 (Culpable Homicide) – “Whoever causes death by doing an act with the intention of causing death…”
• Section 319 (Hurt) – “Whoever causes bodily pain…”
• Section 107 (Abetment) – Involves voluntary instigation or aiding
• Section 375 (Rape) – Requires proof that the act was voluntary on part of the accused and not on the part of the victim
• Section 24 (Dishonest Intention) – Voluntariness defines mens rea

Relevance In Modern Crimes

• Digital Crimes: Posting inflammatory content online with knowledge it could incite violence qualifies as a voluntary act.
• Terror Cases: Providing logistical support, even without participating in the attack, may still be voluntary if one knows the likely consequences.
• Corporate Frauds: Signing fake documents or knowingly enabling illegal transfers shows voluntariness even without direct involvement in the fraud’s execution.

Judicial Interpretation And Case Laws

To better understand how courts interpret and apply IPC Section 39 in real-life situations, let’s look at some landmark judgments that illustrate the meaning and scope of “voluntarily” in criminal law.

1. Keshub Mahindra vs State of M.P (1996)

Facts:
This case arose from the Bhopal Gas Tragedy. The accused, Keshub Mahindra and others, were charged with causing grievous hurt and death to thousands due to the leakage of toxic gas from the Union Carbide plant. The prosecution argued that the accused had knowledge of the likelihood of such harm and, by their actions or omissions, "voluntarily" caused the effects as defined under Section 39 IPC.

held: In the case of Keshub Mahindra vs State Of M.P (1996) Supreme Court observed that the term "voluntarily" as defined in Section 39 IPC means that a person causes an effect voluntarily when they intend to cause it by their actions, or know that their actions are likely to cause such an effect. The Court held that the accused, by their acts and omissions, had voluntarily caused grievous hurt and death, as they were aware of the risks and consequences involved in the operation of the plant without adequate safety measures.

2. State vs. Sanjay (Delhi District Court, 2025)

Facts: The accused, Sanjay, was charged under Section 302 IPC (murder). The case involved the intentional infliction of injuries resulting in death. The investigation and prosecution focused on whether the accused's actions were done "voluntarily"—that is, with intention or knowledge as required by Section 39 IPC.

Held: In the case of State vs. Sanjay (Delhi District Court, 2025), the court held that the accused's act of causing fatal injuries was done "voluntarily" within the meaning of Section 39 IPC. The evidence showed that the accused had the intention and knowledge that his actions were likely to cause death, thereby fulfilling the requirement of voluntariness for criminal liability.

3. Uttam v. State of Maharashtra (2022)

Facts: The appellant challenged his conviction under IPC Section 302, arguing the dying declaration was involuntary.
Held: In the case of Uttam v. State of Maharashtra (2022), the Supreme Court reiterated that a dying declaration must be voluntary and truthful to be admissible. While not directly citing IPC Section 39, the judgment relied on the principle of "voluntariness" in assessing the credibility of evidence.

Conclusion

IPC Section 39 lays down the mental foundation of criminal conduct. It ensures that liability is assigned not only to those who intend to cause harm but also to those who knowingly or recklessly contribute to a wrongful act. This helps close gaps in criminal law, especially in cases involving indirect or group actions. Whether it's a simple assault or a complex financial scam, voluntariness is the invisible thread that ties an individual’s mind to their actions—and eventually to their legal accountability.