Protection Against Harm To Life, Limb and Liberty

Co-author

In Indian criminal jurisprudence, offences against life, limb and liberty form the cornerstone. It embodies the State’s fundamental duty to safeguard life, bodily integrity, physical autonomy, and personal liberty. These offences spanning across spectrum of the gravest to heinous nature strike at the very heart of human dignity and social order, demanding a robust legal framework to ensure justice, deterrence, and rehabilitation.

The total FIRs (First Information Reports) registered in the year 2022 was 58,24,946 for crimes under Indian Penal Code (IPC) and Special & Local Laws (SLL); and among them 32.5% are for offences affecting the human body as per the report of National Crimes Records Bureau (NCRB). Urban areas continue to have higher crime rates when compared to rural areas.

The constitutional foundation for protection of life, limb and liberty lies in Article 21 of the Constitution of India, which guarantees the right to life and personal liberty – a right, judicially expanded to include dignity, bodily security, and freedom from physical harm. Articles 14, 15, and 20 further complement this protection by ensuring equality before law, non-discrimination, and safeguards against arbitrary punishment. Criminal law operationalises these guarantees through substantive, procedural, and evidentiary provisions that criminalise acts infringing life, limb, and liberty.

The legal response to such crimes has undergone a profound transformation from the fragmented pre-colonial justice systems to the codified Indian Penal Code (IPC), 1860, and now to the transformative Bhartiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS), 2023.

“The soul of our criminal justice system must reflect the spirit of our Republic, not the shadows of colonial governance” – Extract from the Parliamentary Debate in 2023 on amending the Indian Penal Code.

This article presents a structured commentary on the transition from the IPC to the BNS and relevant legal principles.

STATUTORY FRAMEWORK

For over 160 years, the IPC’s Chapter XVI, ‘Offences Affecting the Human Body,’ defined how the State would respond when life, limb, and liberty were violated or harmed. Since 2023, Bhartiya Nyaya Sanhita, (BNS, 2023) ushers a modernised statutory framework that preserves the substantive core of the IPC while refining its drafting, structure, and penalties based on contemporary realities. It adopts a graded punishment structure based on severity and culpability, thereby upholding public order, human dignity and evidentiary rules remain responsive to evolving forms of violence, advances in technology, and the expectations of victims.

Historical background and evolution of the IPC

Historically, India’s criminal justice system was a fragmented amalgamation of religious, customary, and colonial laws and marked by inconsistency and bias.

This includes justice delivery in terms of Manusmriti, Yajnavalkya Smriti, Arthashastra or Sharia. Among tribal communities, justice was administered through unwritten customs, community mediation, and compensation in the form of livestock, land, or goods.

The arrival of the British East India Company in the seventeenth century introduced partial codification, most notably through the Cornwallis Code of 1793 in Bengal, which sought uniformity but retained the elements of religious law for personal matters. Punishments for similar offences varied drastically between regions, undermining fairness and public trust. This patchwork system created inconsistency and administrative inefficiency.

The consolidation of British rule promoted the need for a uniform penal law to ensure consistency, fairness, and effective governance drawing from English common law, the Napoleonic Code, and utilitarian principles. In 1834, the First Law Commission under Lord Thomas Babington Macaulay drafted the IPC, which was passed on 6 October 1860 and came into force on 1 January 1862.

Comprising 511 sections in 23 chapters, IPC became the comprehensive criminal law framework for British India. Since then, IPC has undergone numerous amendments and few cardinal ones are as given hereunder;

Year & Amendment	Key Changes	Purpose / Context
1870 Amendment	Clarified provisions for abetment (Sections 107–120); clarified joint liability (Sections 34, 149)	Strengthened accountability for group crimes such as gang-related murders or assaults.
1983 & 1986 Amendments	Introduced Section 304B (dowry death)	Addressed dowry-related violence and rising incidents of bride-burning, influenced by feminist activism and public outrage.
2013 Amendment (Post-Nirbhaya)	Added Sections 326A & 326B (acid attacks); expanded definitions of sexual offences	Response to 2012 Delhi gang-rape; aimed at stronger protection for women and deterrence against sexual violence.
2018 Amendment	Strengthened laws on sexual offences against minors; alignment with POCSO Act, 2012	Tackled child abuse and exploitation; enhanced penalties and protections.

There are several landmark decisions that also shaped up the evolution of IPC. Four such case laws are picturised below;

Transition from IPC to BNS, 2023

The Indian Penal Code (IPC), drafted under colonial era in archaic language had significant gaps in addressing modern crimes including cyber offences, victim protection etc. Its punitive focus overlooked rehabilitation, and limited victim rights clashed with contemporary justice principles. The focus was also to deliver justice rather than to penalise i.e., from ‘dand’ to ‘nyay.’ In 2023, the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS), 20231 , was enacted as part of a legal reform trio alongside the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 20232 and the Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam,20233 replacing the IPC, CrPC, and Evidence Act respectively. Effective from 1 July 2024, the BNS reduces 511 sections of the erstwhile IPC to 358, uses plain and culturally resonant language, and incorporates gender-neutral and victim-centric provisions.

It introduces community service for minor offences, clearer definitions, and new categories such as mob lynching (Section – 103(2)), organized crime (Section – 111), petty organized crime (Section – 112), and enhanced penalties for acid attacks (Section – 124). By modernising certain terminology, recognising emerging crimes, and embedding restorative justice, the BNS seeks to decolonise India’s criminal law and align it with constitutional ideals and global human rights standards.

Significant Legal Principles and Maxims

● Cognizable and non-cognizable: ‘cognizable offence’ means an offence for which, and ‘cognizable case’ means a case in which, a police officer may, in accordance with the First Schedule or under any other law for the time being in force, arrest without warrant (BNSS section 2 (1) d).
● ‘Non-cognizable offence’ means an offence for which, and ‘non-cognizable Case’ means a case in which, a police officer has no authority to arrest without Warrant (BNSS section 2 (1) m).
● Bailable and non-bailable: ‘Bailable offence’ means an offence which is shown as bailable in the First Schedule, or which is made bailable by any other law for the time being in force; and ‘non-bailable offence’ means any other offence (BNSS section 2 (1) b).
● Mens Rea: Intention or knowledge is essential.
● Actus Non Facit Reum Nisi Mens Sit Rea: An act is not criminal without a guilty mind.
● Causa Causans: The act must be the proximate cause of death.
● De minimis non curat lex: Triviality defences rarely applicable when pain is intentional.
● Negligentia Semper Habet Infinitum: Negligence requires proof of failure to exercise reasonable care.
● Res ipsa loquitur: ‘The thing speaks for itself’ as and when the very nature of an accident implies negligence and the accused failed to act as a prudent person would.

Analysis of The Offences

Part A: Homicide & Murder Provisions (100–110 BNS) Culpable Homicide (Section 100 BNS, 2023; IPC Section 299)

• i. Definition: Whoever causes death by an act with the intention of causing death, or bodily injury likely to cause death, or with knowledge that the act is likely to cause death, commits culpable homicide. (This definition mirrors Section 299 of the IPC, emphasizing the mental element (mens rea) of intention or knowledge).
• ii. Explanation: Accelerating death due to pre-existing conditions is culpable homicide. (2) Death caused by bodily injury is attributable to the offender, even if medical intervention could have prevented it.
• iii. Case Laws:
  a) Rampal Singh v State of Uttar Pradesh4 : The Supreme Court distinguished culpable homicide (genus) from murder (species), emphasizing the probability of death based on the act’s nature.
  b) Reg. v. Govinda, (1876)5 : A foundational case distinguishing culpable homicide and murder based on intention and injury’s severity.

Murder (Section 101 BNS, 2023; IPC Section 300)

a) Definition: Section 101 defines murder as culpable homicide committed with: Intention to cause death, or Intention to cause bodily injury known to be likely to cause death, or Intention to cause bodily injury sufficient in the ordinary course of nature to cause death, or Knowledge that the act is so imminently dangerous that it must, in all probability, cause death or such bodily injury as is likely to cause death.

b) Case Laws:
i. Virsa Singh v. State of Punjab6 : The Supreme Court held that for murder under clause 3, the prosecution must prove the injury was intended and sufficient to cause death in the ordinary course.
ii. Machhi Singh v. State of Punjab7 : Established the “rarest of rare” doctrine for imposing the death penalty in cases of extreme depravity.
iii. State of Uttar Pradesh v. Ashok Kumar Srivastava8 : Clarified that intent can be inferred from the weapon used and injury caused.
iv. Bachan Singh v. State of Punjab9 : Upheld the constitutionality of the death penalty but emphasized judicial discretion under the ‘rarest of rare’ framework.
v. K.M. Nanavati v. State of Maharashtra10: Held that grave and sudden provocation may reduce murder to culpable homicide if the act is committed without premeditation.

c) Exceptions: Certain exceptions include grave and sudden provocation, exceeding private defence, public servant exceeding powers in good faith, sudden fight, taking risk willingly by a person of majority age.

Culpable Homicide by Causing Death of Person Other Than Intended (Section 102 BNS, 2023; IPC Section 301)

a) Definition: Section 102 provides that if a person, intending to cause the death of one person, causes the death of another, it is treated as culpable homicide or murder, depending on the circumstances.

b) Case Laws:
i. Emperor v. Mushnoo11: The court applied transferred intent, holding the accused liable for murder when the intended victim was not killed but another person was.
ii. Inder Singh Bagga Singh v. State of Pepsu12: The appellant had given six blows with a lathi stick on the head of the deceased, one of which fractured his skull. The deceased died three weeks after the incident. The Supreme Court concluded that the appellant, although responsible for the fatal injuries, did not possess the intent to cause death, thereby reclassifying the offense under Section 304 Part I of the IPC
iii. K.M. Nanavati v. State of Maharashtra13: The accused, a naval officer, was charged with the murder of Prem Bhagwan Ahuja, a businessman of Bombay, for having illicit intimacy with his wife. On coming to know from his wife about the illicit relationship with the deceased, he went to the ship, took from the stores a semi-automatic revolver and six cartridges on a false pretext, loaded the same, went to the flat of P entered in his bedroom and shot him dead after a heated exchange of words. The facts of the case do not attract the provisions of Exception 1 to Section 300 of IPC which is that of the effect of the provocation on a reasonable man.

For over 160 years, the IPC’s Chapter XVI, ‘Offences Affecting the Human Body,’ defined how the State would respond when life, limb, and liberty were violated or harmed. Since 2023, Bhartiya Nyaya Sanhita, (BNS, 2023) ushers a modernised statutory framework that preserves the substantive core of the IPC while refining its drafting, structure, and penalties based on contemporary realities. It adopts a graded punishment structure based on severity and culpability, thereby upholding public order, human dignity and evidentiary rules remain responsive to evolving forms of violence, advances in technology, and the expectations of victims

Punishment

A. Punishment for Murder (Section 103 BNS, 2023; IPC Section 302)

a. Whoever commits murder shall be punished with death or imprisonment for life, and shall also be liable to fine.
b. When a group of five or more persons acting in concert commits murder on the ground of race, caste or community, sex, place of birth, language, personal belief or any other similar ground each member of such group shall be punished with death or with imprisonment for life, and shall also be liable to fine
c. Case Laws: In the case of Yogendra v. State of Madhya Pradesh14, the Hon’ble Supreme Court found no depravity or brutality in acts of accused warranting classification of case “rarest of the rare” where death of women is caused due to acid attack, Hence, death sentence commuted to life imprisonment. In Haresh Mohandas Rajput v. Ste of Maharashtra15, the rarest of rare case was determined as to when a convict is a menace and threat to harmonious and peaceful co-existence of the society.

B. Punishment for Murder by Life-Convict (Section 104 BNS, 2023; IPC Section 303)

Whoever, while under sentence of imprisonment for life, commits murder, shall be punished with either death penalty, or Imprisonment for life, which means imprisonment for the remainder of that person’s natural life.

C. Punishment for Culpable Homicide Not Amounting to Murder (Section 105 BNS, 2023; IPC Section 304)

a) Whoever commits culpable homicide not amounting to murder, shall be punished with imprisonment for life, or imprisonment of either description for a term which shall not be less than five years but which may extend to ten years, and shall also be liable to fine, if the act by which the death is caused is done with the intention of causing death, or of causing such bodily injury as is likely to cause death; or with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to ten years and with fine, if the act is done with the knowledge that it is likely to cause death, but without any intention to cause death, or to cause such bodily injury as is likely to cause death.

D. Causing Death by Negligence (Section 106 BNS, 2023; IPC Section 304A)

a) Whoever causes death of any person by doing any rash or negligent act not amounting to culpable homicide, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to five years, and shall also be liable to fine; and if such act is done by a registered medical practitioner while performing medical procedure, he shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to two years, and shall also be liable to fine. (Sub-section 1) Whoever causes death of any person by rash and negligent driving of vehicle not amounting to culpable homicide, and escapes without reporting it to a police officer or a Magistrate soon after the incident, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description of a term which may extend to ten years, and shall also be liable to fine. (Sub- section 2)

b) Case Laws:
i. Jacob Mathew v. State of Punjab16: Established that gross negligence is required for liability under Section 304A IPC in medical cases.
ii. State of Punjab v. Balwinder Singh17: Conditions to be satisfied for conviction (a) There must be death of the person in question; (b) such death; and (c) that such act of the accused was rash and negligent and that it did not amount to culpable homicide
iii. S.N. Hussain v. State of Andhra Pradesh18: If there is an accident because of the negligence of the gateman in keeping the gate open and inviting the vehicles to pass, the driver of the bus cannot be held guilty of negligence.
iv. Cherubin Gregory v. State of Bihar19: Clarified that negligence involves a breach of duty to take reasonable care.

c) Punishment: Imprisonment up to 7 years and fine. Further, For rash driving on a public way: Imprisonment up to 5 years or fine up to ₹10,000, or both (Section 106(2), BNS).

E. Abetment of suicide of child/person of unsound mind (Section 107, BNS, 2023; IPC Section 305)

a) If any person under eighteen years of age, any person with mental illness, any delirious person or any person in a state of intoxication, commits suicide, whoever abets the commission of such suicide, shall be punished with death or imprisonment for life, or imprisonment for a term not exceeding ten years, and shall also be liable to fine.
b) Case Law: In the matter of Gian Kaur v. State of Punjab20 the Hon’ble Court held that neither of the two provisions: Sections 306 and 309 I.P.C is constitutionally invalid.

F. Abetment of suicide (Section 108, BNS, 2023; IPC Section 306)

a) If any person commits suicide, whoever abets the commission of such suicide, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to ten years, and shall also be liable to fine.

b) Case Laws: In the matters of M. Arjunan v. State (Madras21)and Gurcharan Singh v. State of Punjab22 the Hon’ble Court held that to be convicted the accused must have instigated either by act of omission or commission.

G. Attempt to murder (Section 109, BNS,2023; IPC Section 307)

a) Whoever does any act with such intention or knowledge, and under such circumstances that, if he by that act caused death, he would be guilty of murder, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to ten years, and shall also be liable to fine; and if hurt is caused to any person by such act, the offender shall be liable either to imprisonment for life, or to such punishment as is hereinbefore mentioned. sub-section (1)

When any person offending under sub-section (1) is under sentence of imprisonment for life, he may, if hurt is caused, be punished with death or with imprisonment for life, which shall mean the remainder of that person’s natural life. sub-section (2)

b) Case Law: State of M.P. v. Saleem23 the Hon’ble Supreme Court held that the circumstances that the injury inflicted by the accused was simple or minor will not by itself rule out application of Section 307 IPC. The determinative question is intention or knowledge, as the case may be, and not nature of the injury.

H. Attempt to commit culpable homicide (Section 110, BNS 2023; IPC Section 308 )

a) Whoever does any act with such intention or knowledge and under such circumstances that, if he by that act caused death, he would be guilty of culpable homicide not amounting to murder, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to three years, or with fine, or with both; and, if hurt is caused to any person by such act, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to seven years, or with fine, or with both.

b) Case Law: In the matter of Sarju Prasad v. State of Bihar24 the Hon’ble Court decided that only acts with clear intent to cause death or grievous harm are to be considered as ‘attempts’.

Part B: Organised Crime & Non-Homicidal Deaths (111–113)

The sections that deal with Organised crime, Petty organised crime and the Terrorist act have been newly included under the BNS 2023. The schema of those sections includes Section 111 for organised crime, Section 112 for petty organised crime and Section 113 for terrorist act.

Part C: Hurt and Grievous Hurt (Sections 114–125) The Section – 114 (IPC – 319) deals with -Hurt provides that

“Whoever causes bodily pain, disease or infirmity to any person is said to cause hurt.” The Section – 115 deals with Voluntary Causing hurt (IPC – 321) and prescribes that the punishment amounts to imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to one year, or with fine which may extend to ten thousand rupees, or with both. The Section- 116 defines ‘Grievous hurt’ (IPC – 320) as emasculation; permanent loss of sight/hearing; privation/destruction of member/ joint; permanent impairment of powers; disfiguration of head/face; fracture/dislocation of bone/tooth; any hurt endangering life or which causes severe bodily pain for 20 days or renders unable to follow ordinary pursuits for 20 days. Accordingly, it was held in the Case of Jashubha Bharatsinh Gohil v. State of Gujarat25 that fracture amounts to = grievous hurt.

The punishment prescribed under the Section 117 for voluntarily causing grievous hurt (IPC – 322 & 325) is up to 7 years imprisonment and fine. If result is permanent disability or vegetative state, then punishment is for minimum period of 10 years or maximum to life imprisonment. The Section – 118 (IPC – 324 & 326) prescribes punishment for voluntarily causing hurt by dangerous weapons/means. Voluntarily causing hurt or grievous hurt to extort property, or to constrain to an illegal act attracts the punishment as prescribed under the Section 119 (IPC – 327 & 329). Whoever voluntarily causes hurt or grievous hurt with the purpose of extort property or to constraint to an illegal act can face up to 10 years imprisonment and fine or even life imprisonment, Section 120 (IPC – 330 & 331) specific punishment for a person(s) voluntarily causing hurt or grievous hurt to extort confession, or to compel restoration of property.

The Section 121 that deals with voluntarily causing hurt or grievous hurt to deter public servant from his duty (IPC – 332- 333) prescribes up to 5 years imprisonment or fine or both for hurt and up to 10 years imprisonment and fine for grievous hurt respectively. The punishment for voluntarily causing hurt or grievous hurt on provocation is dealt under the Section 122 (IPC – 334 & 335) that includes either imprisonment or fine as prescribed therein.

Causing hurt by means of poison, etc., with intent to commit an offence (IPC- 328) finds the prescribed punishment under the Section 123 that may extend up to 10 years imprisonment and fine. The Section 124 (IPC – 326A & 326B) provides for minimum 10 years to life imprisonment and fine payable to victim for Voluntarily causing grievous hurt by use of acid, etc. The case of Laxmi v. Union of India26 established a strong legal precedent for acid attack victims, placing responsibility on the government and vendors to prevent misuse of acid, enhanced protection and rehabilitation framework for survivors and raised public awareness and initiated regulatory practices controlling the sale of acid to prevent future attacks.

Act(s) endangering life or personal safety of others are dealt under the Section 125 (IPC – 336, 337, 338). Punishment applicable are: Up to 3 months imprisonment or ₹2,500 fine (no hurt); up to 6 months or ₹5,000 fine (hurt); up to 3 years or ₹10,000 fine (grievous hurt). In the case of Dr. P.B. Desai v. State of Maharashtra27, it was held that a clear distinction between negligence and recklessness has to be made and to criminal punishment has to be reserved for the later.

Part D: Wrongful Restraint & Confinement, Assault & Kidnapping (126–146)

Section 126(IPC 339, 341) on wrongful restraint (preventing any person from proceeding in any direction in which that person has a right to proceed) prescribes punishment of imprisonment up to 1 month, or fine up to ₹5,000, or both. Certain Case Laws that laid fundamental jurisprudence in this domain are given below:

a. Madala Perayya vs. Varugunti Chendrayya28 – The accused and the complainant jointly owned a well but the accused stopped the complainant from using the water and also stopped the bullocks of the complainant from moving. The Court held that the accused had committed the offence of wrongful restraint.
b. Shoba Rani vs. The King29 – The landlord committed wrongful restraint by preventing his tenant from using the bathroom.
c. Souri Prasad Patniak vs. State of Orissa30 – In this case, the accused stood in front of the jeep of his superior Officer and raised protest for non-payment of his salary. However, after his protest, he had given the way to jeep. The Orissa High Court held that the accused was not guilty of the offence of wrongful restraint.

Section 127(IPC – 340, 342-348) on wrongful confinement (restraint preventing one from proceeding beyond certain circumscribed limits) prescribed gradational punishments depending upon the length of such confinement. The underlying jurisprudence became clearer by means of various decisions including the Case Laws stated hereunder;

a. State of Gujarat vs. Keshav Lai Maganbhai Gujoyan31 – The court held that, “For a charge of wrongful confinement, proof of actual physical restriction is not essential” and that it is sufficient if the impression creates that the complainant would be forthwith seized or restrained if he attempts to escape.
b. State vs. Balakrishnan32 – The Court emphasized that police authority cannot be exercised arbitrarily and that complainant’s reasonable apprehension of force or restraint was sufficient to establish wrongful confinement.

Section 128 (IPC 349) deals with the aspect of ‘Force’ while Section 129 (IPC 350) deals with the aspect of ‘Criminal force’ with the intention or knowledge that such use of force is likely to affect a person. The Section 130 (IPC – 351) prescribes that gesture/preparation intending/ knowing it likely to cause a person present to apprehend imminent criminal force constitutes ‘Assault’ and lays out the punishment for the same.

Section 131 (IPC 352) governs the Punishment (for assault/criminal force) otherwise than on grave provocation that could be imprisonment up to 3 months, fine up to ₹1,000, or both. Section 132 (IPC 353), Section 133 (IPC 355), Section 134 (IPC 356), Section 135 (IPC 357) and Section 136 (IPC 358) also deal with certain other aspects of Assault/criminal force with pertinent punishments.

Abduction involves force, compulsion or any deceitful means, to induce any person to leave any place and is dealt under the Section 138 (IPC 362). To induce, there must be an active suggestion on the part of the abductor making the victim agree to move to a place where he would not go but for this suggestion as held in the case of Jagat Bahadur Singh Vs. State of Madhya Pradesh (1965) INSC 270.

Kidnapping is another heinous crime that harms life, limb and liberty and is dealt with by the Section 137 (IPC 359-361, 363) with punishment amounting to imprisonment up to 7 years and fine. There are two kinds of Kidnapping:

a. Kidnapping from India: Whoever conveys any person beyond the limits of India without the consent of that person or of someone legally authorized to consent on their behalf.
b. Kidnapping from Lawful Guardianship: Whoever takes or entices any child below the age of eighteen years or any person with mental illness out of the keeping of their lawful guardian without the guardian’s consent.

Among many Case Laws, the case of S. Varadrajan v. State of Madras33 provided for interpretation of the offense when a girl left her father’s protection, knowing and having capacity to know the full import of what she was doing and voluntarily joined the accused. The offence of kidnapping cannot be said to have been made out.

Kidnapping or maiming a child for purposes of begging is covered under the Section 139 (IPC 363A) has punishment proportionate to and by combining the elements of kidnapping and maiming both. Kidnapping or abducting in order to murder or for ransom, etc. dealt under the Section 140 (IPC 364, 364A, 365, 367) has made the related offence punitive enough to deter any offender and to address the growing menace of such crimes.

Section 141(IPC 366B) provides that importation of girl under the age of 21 years or boy under the age of 18 years from foreign country with the intent that the girl or boy may be, or knowing it to be likely that the girl or boy will be, forced or seduced to illicit intercourse with another person, commits an offence that attracts imprisonment up to 10 years with fine. While Section 142 (IPC 368) prescribes that wrongfully concealing or keeping in confinement, any person who has been kidnapped or abducted will be met with the same punishment as applicable for the original offence of kidnapping or abduction.

Trafficking of person for the purpose of exploitation using threats, using force, by practicing fraud or deception etc. is dealt under the Section 143 (IPC 370). Exploitation Includes physical exploitation, sexual exploitation, slavery or practices similar to slavery, servitude, beggary and removal of organs. Punishment from Rigorous imprisonment to Life imprisonment have been prescribed under the said provision. The offense related to exploitation of a trafficked person, habitual dealing in slaves and compelling any person to undertake labour are encompassed for the respective offence description and punishment under the Sections 144 (IPC 370A), 145 (IPC 371) and 146 (IPC 374) respectively.

General Exceptions and Defences

1. Mistake of Fact (Section 6(c), BNS; IPC Section 79): Acts done under a reasonable mistake of fact, believing them to be lawful.
2. Accident (Section 6(a), BNS; IPC Section 80): Acts done by accident in a lawful manner without criminal intent.
3. Act of a Child (Sections 8–9, BNS; IPC Sections 82–83): No liability for children below 7 years or below 12 years if lacking sufficient maturity.
4. Act of a Person of Unsound Mind (Section 10, BNS; IPC Section 84): Acts done by a person incapable of understanding the nature or illegality of the act due to unsoundness of mind.
5. Consent (Section 107, BNS; IPC Sections 87–90): Acts done with the consent of a person above 18, not intended to cause death or grievous hurt.
6. Trivial Acts (Section 6(e), BNS; IPC Section 95): Acts causing slight harm are not punishable.
7. Private Defence (Sections 39–46, BNS; IPC Sections 96–106): Acts done in defence of person or property, within reasonable limits.
8. Act of Public Servant (Section 6(b), BNS; IPC Section 76): Acts done in good faith under lawful authority, even if exceeding powers.
9. Necessity (Section 6(d), BNS; IPC Section 81): Acts done to prevent greater harm, without criminal intent.

CONCLUSION AND CLOSING REFLECTIONS

The transition from the IPC to the BNS, 2023, represents a decisive and transformative moment in India’s criminal justice landscape marking the shift from a colonial-era code to a decolonized, modern, and victim-centric legal framework. By introducing minimum sentencing terms and clarified punishment ranges, the BNS seeks to reduce sentencing disparities though this also raises questions about judicial discretion and proportionality, which appellate courts will inevitably navigate.

Importantly, the success of these reforms depends on effective police training, clear prosecutorial guidelines, better surveillance infrastructure and continuous judicial education. The purpose of statutory innovation can only be achieved when law-enforcement agencies and practitioners can consistently apply the new text at each and every stage of criminal justice dispensation.

While the BNS offers a forward-looking vision of justice anchored in constitutional morality, reflects India’s socio-cultural ethos and is responsive to contemporary realities on one hand, challenges such as judicial capacity-building, infrastructural gaps, and public awareness should be addressed effectively on the other hand in order to attain the dream of protecting the life, limb and liberty. The fast-evolving society with its inseparable technological advancements has now converted the collective responsibility of the society to self-motivation of every individual in acquiring better understanding of laws and ensuring due compliance.

---

S. No.	Reference / Case Citation	Link (if available)
1	https://www.mha.gov.in/sites/default/files/250883_english_01042024.pdf	Open Link
2	https://www.mha.gov.in/sites/default/files/250884_2_english_01042024.pdf	Open Link
3	https://www.mha.gov.in/sites/default/files/250882_english_01042024_0.pdf	Open Link
4	(2012) 8 SCC 289	–
5	AIR 1 Bom 342	–
6	AIR 1958 SC 465	–
7	AIR 1983 SC 957	–
8	AIR 1992 SC 840	–
9	AIR 1980 SC 898	–
10	AIR 1962 SC 605	–
11	AIR 1941 All 441	–
12	AIR 1955 SC 439	–
13	AIR 1962 SC 665	–
14	(2019) 9 SCC 243 : 2019 (1) SCALE 495 : 2019 (197) AIC 215 : JT 2019 (1) SC 373	–
15	(2011) 12 SCC 56 : AIR 2011 SC 3681 : 2011 (14) SCR 921 : 2011 (10) SCALE 629	–
16	(2005) 6 SCC 1	–
17	AIR 2012 SC 861 (2012) 2 SCC 182 : 2012 (1) JT 43 : 2012 (1) SCALE 62 : 2012 Cr LJ 1066	–
18	AIR 1972 SC 685	–
19	AIR 1964 SC 205	–
20	(1996) 2 SCC 648	–
21	(2019) 3 SCC 315	–
22	(2000) 10 SCC 200	–
23	(2005) 5 SCC 554	–
24	AIR 1965 SC 843	–
25	(1994) 4 SCC 353	–
26	2001 4 SCC 2 477	–
27	AIR 2014 SC 795	–
28	(1954) CrLJ 283 Mad	–
29	(1950-51) CrLJ 668 Cal	–
30	(1989) CrLJ 169 Ori	–
31	(1980) CrLJ 248 Guj	–
32	(1992) CrLJ 1872 Mad	–
33	AIR 1965 SC 942	–

---

Read More