© Taxmann Price : ` 525
Published by : Taxmann Publications (P.) Ltd.
Sales & Marketing : 59/32, New Rohtak Road, New Delhi-110 005 India
Phone : +91-11-45562222
Website : www.taxmann.com
E-mail : sales@taxmann.com
Regd. Office : 21/35, West Punjabi Bagh, New Delhi-110 026 India
Printed at :
Tan Prints (India) Pvt. Ltd.
44 Km. Mile Stone, National Highway, Rohtak Road Village Rohad, Distt. Jhajjar (Haryana) India
E-mail : sales@tanprints.com
Disclaimer
Every effort has been made to avoid errors or omissions in this publication. In spite of this, errors may creep in. Any mistake, error or discrepancy noted may be brought to our notice which shall be taken care of in the next edition. It is notified that neither the publisher nor the author or seller will be responsible for any damage or loss of action to any one, of any kind, in any manner, therefrom. It is suggested that to avoid any doubt the reader should cross-check all the facts, law and contents of the publication with original Government publication or notifications. No part of this book may be reproduced or copied in any form or by any means [graphic, electronic or mechanical, including photocopying, recording, taping, or information retrieval systems] or reproduced on any disc, tape, perforated media or other information storage device, etc., without the written permission of the publishers. Breach of this condition is liable for legal action.
For binding mistake, misprints or for missing pages, etc., the publisher’s liability is limited to replacement within seven days of purchase by similar edition. All expenses in this connection are to be borne by the purchaser. All disputes are subject to Delhi jurisdiction only.
CONTENTS
Table showing sections of Indian Penal Code, 1860 and corresponding sections of Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 I-7
Table showing sections of Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 and corresponding sections of Indian Penal Code, 1860 I-45
Table showing new sections of Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 I-81
Table showing sections of Indian Penal Code, 1860 repealed by Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 I-83
Section Key to Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 I-85
Alphabetical Key to Comparative Study of Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 (BNS) & Indian Penal Code, 1860 (IPC) I-107
Comparative Study of Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 (BNS) & Indian Penal Code, 1860 (IPC) I-121
Guide to Punishment for Offences under Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 I-157
S. 12
Solitary confinement.
11. Whenever any person is convicted of an offence for which under this Sanhita the Court has power to sentence him to rigorous imprisonment, the Court may, by its sentence, order that the offender shall be kept in solitary confinement for any portion or portions of the imprisonment to which he is sentenced, not exceeding three months in the whole, according to the following scale, namely:—
(
a) a time not exceeding one month if the term of imprisonment shall not exceed six months;
(
(
b) a time not exceeding two months if the term of imprisonment shall exceed six months and shall not exceed one year;
c) a time not exceeding three months if the term of imprisonment shall exceed one year.
Corresponding Provision : Section 73 of IPC, 1860
COMMENTS
SECTION NOTES
11.1 General
Section 11 applies whenever any person is convicted of an offence for which under this Sanhita the Court has power to sentence him to rigorous imprisonment.
11.2 Solitary Confinement
In such a situation, the Court may, by its sentence, order that the offender shall be kept in solitary confinement for any portion or portions of the imprisonment to which he is sentenced.
If Court orders solitary confinement of the offender, the same shall be for not exceeding three months in the whole, according to the following scale, namely: —
(a) a time not exceeding one month if the term of imprisonment shall not exceed six months;
(b) a time not exceeding two months if the term of imprisonment shall exceed six months and shall not exceed one year;
(c) a time not exceeding three months if the term of imprisonment shall exceed one year.
11.3 Court's discretion
Court has a discretion whether to order solitary confinement or not. If Court decides to order solitary confinement, then it shall be for time not exceeding 3 months as per the third bullet point above.
Limit of solitary confinement.
12. In executing a sentence of solitary confinement, such confinement shall in no case exceed fourteen days at a time, with intervals between the periods of solitary confinement of not less duration than such periods; and when the
imprisonment awarded shall exceed three months, the solitary confinement shall not exceed seven days in any one month of the whole imprisonment awarded, with intervals between the periods of solitary confinement of not less duration than such periods.
Corresponding Provision : Section 74 of IPC, 1860
COMMENTS
SECTION NOTES
12.1 Limit of solitary confinement
In executing a sentence of solitary confinement, such confinement shall in no case exceed fourteen days at a time;
The intervals between the periods of solitary confinement shall be of not less duration than such periods; and When the imprisonment awarded shall exceed three months — the solitary confinement shall not exceed seven days in any one month of the whole imprisonment awarded, with intervals between the periods of solitary confinement of not less duration than such periods.
Enhanced punishment for certain offences after previous conviction.
13. Whoever, having been convicted by a Court in India, of an offence punishable under Chapter X or Chapter XVII of this Sanhita with imprisonment of either description for a term of three years or upwards, shall be guilty of any offence punishable under either of those Chapters with like imprisonment for the like term, shall be subject for every such subsequent offence to imprisonment for life, or to imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to ten years.
Corresponding Provision : Section 75 of IPC, 1860
COMMENTS
SECTION NOTES
13.1 When enhanced punishment under section 13 is applicable for repeat offences
Section 13 provides as under:
13.1-1 Conditions to be satisfied to attract enhanced punishment
A person has been previously convicted by a Court in India; Such conviction is with regard to an offence falling under Chapter X (Offences relating to currency notes, Bank notes, and government stamps) or Chapter XVII (Offences against property);
S.
14 BHARATIYA NYAYA SANHITA, 2023 66
Such offence is punishable with imprisonment of either description for a term of three years or upwards; and Such person commits a subsequent offence under either of those two Chapters with like imprisonment for like term.
13.1-2 Enhanced Punishment attracted under section 13
If all the above conditions are satisfied, such person shall be subject for every such subsequent offence to enhanced punishment by the way of imprisonment for life, or to imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to ten years. It is not clear whether subsequent offence carrying like imprisonment for like term should be under the same Chapter as previous offence committed or the previous and subsequent offences carrying like imprisonment for like term can fall under different chapters (i.e., one offence under Chapter X and other under Chapter XVII)
It appears that, to attract enhanced punishment under section 13 for subsequent offence, one offence can fall under Chapter X and other under Chapter XVII. Only thing is that both offences should carry like imprisonment for like term.
CHAPTER III
GENERAL EXCEPTIONS
Act done by a person bound, or by mistake of fact believing himself bound, by law.
14. Nothing is an offence which is done by a person who is, or who by reason of a mistake of fact and not by reason of a mistake of law in good faith believes himself to be, bound by law to do it.
Illustrations
(a) A, a soldier, fires on a mob by the order of his superior officer, in conformity with the commands of the law. A has committed no offence.
(b) A, an officer of a Court, being ordered by that Court to arrest Y, and, after due enquiry, believing Z to be Y, arrests Z. A has committed no offence.
Corresponding Provision : Section 76 of IPC, 1860
COMMENTS
SECTION NOTES
14.1 Act done by person bound by law
Nothing is an offence which is done by a person — who is bound by law to do it, or who by reason of a mistake of fact and not by reason of a mistake of law in good faith believes himself to be bound by law to do it. The following points are noteworthy: Mistake of fact is excusable, but mistake of law is not. Mistake is to be bona fide.
Illustrations.
(
(
a) A, a soldier, fires on a mob by the order of his superior officer, in conformity with the commands of the law. A has committed no offence.
b) A, an officer of a Court, being ordered by that Court to arrest Y, and after due enquiry, believing Z to be Y, arrests Z. A has committed no offence.
Act of Judge when acting judicially.
15. Nothing is an offence which is done by a Judge when acting judicially in the exercise of any power which is, or which in good faith he believes to be, given to him by law.
Corresponding Provision : Section 77 of IPC, 1860
COMMENTS
SECTION NOTES
15.1 Act of Judge
Section 15 provides nothing is an offence which is done — by a Judge when acting judicially in the exercise of any power which is, or which in good faith he believes to be, given to him by law.
Act done pursuant to judgment or order of Court.
16. Nothing which is done in pursuance of, or which is warranted by the judgment or order of, a Court; if done whilst such judgment or order remains in force, is an offence, notwithstanding the Court may have had no jurisdiction to pass such judgment or order, provided the person doing the act in good faith believes that the Court had such jurisdiction.
Corresponding Provision : Section 78 of IPC, 1860
COMMENTS
SECTION NOTES
16.1 Act done pursuant to judgment or order of Court
Nothing is an offence which is done in pursuance of, or which is warranted by the judgment or order of, a Court.
S. 18 BHARATIYA NYAYA SANHITA, 2023
It is irrespective of fact that the Court may have had no jurisdiction to pass such judgment or order but the person doing the act in good faith believes that the Court had such jurisdiction.
Act done by a person justified, or by mistake of fact believing himself justified, by law.
17. Nothing is an offence which is done by any person who is justified by law, or who by reason of a mistake of fact and not by reason of a mistake of law in good faith, believes himself to be justified by law, in doing it.
Illustration
A sees Z commit what appears to A to be a murder. A, in the exercise, to the best of his judgment exerted in good faith, of the power which the law gives to all persons of apprehending murderers in the fact, seizes Z, in order to bring Z before the proper authorities. A has committed no offence, though it may turn out that Z was acting in self-defence.
Corresponding Provision : Section 79 of IPC, 1860
COMMENTS
SECTION NOTES
17.1 Act Justified by law
Section 17 provides that nothing is an offence which is done by any person who is justified by law in doing it, or who by reason of a mistake of fact and not by reason of a mistake of law in good faith, believes himself to be justified by law, in doing it
The following points are noteworthy:
Mistake of fact is excusable, but mistake of law is not. Mistake is to be bona fide.
Illustration:
A sees Z commit what appears to A to be a murder. A, in the exercise, to the best of his judgment exerted in good faith, of the power which the law gives to all persons of apprehending murderers in the fact, seizes Z, in order to bring Z before the proper authorities. A has committed no offence, though it may turn out that Z was acting in self-defence.
Accident in doing a lawful act.
18. Nothing is an offence which is done by accident or misfortune, and without any criminal intention or knowledge in the doing of a lawful act in a lawful manner by lawful means and with proper care and caution.
Illustration
A is at work with a hatchet; the head flies off and kills a man who is standing by. Here, if there was no want of proper caution on the part of A, his act is excusable and not an offence.
Corresponding Provision : Section 80 of IPC, 1860
COMMENTS
SECTION NOTES
18.1 Accident in doing lawful Act
Section 18 provides that nothing is an offence which is done — by accident or misfortune, and without any criminal intention or knowledge in the doing of a lawful act in a lawful manner by lawful means and with proper care and caution.
Illustration
A is at work with a hatchet; the head flies off and kills a man who is standing by. Here, if there was no want of proper caution on the part of A, his act is excusable and not an offence.
Act likely to cause harm, but done without criminal intent, and to prevent other harm.
19. 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
(a) 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.
(b) 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.
Corresponding Provision : Section 81 of IPC, 1860
S. 20 BHARATIYA NYAYA SANHITA, 2023 70
COMMENTS
SECTION NOTES
19.1 Act done to prevent harm
Section 19 provides that 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.
19.1-1 Question of fact
It is a question of fact 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.
19.1-2 Illustrations
(a) 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 rundown 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.
(b) 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.
Act of a child under seven years of age.
20. Nothing is an offence which is done by a child under seven years of age.
Corresponding Provision : Section 82 of IPC, 1860
COMMENTS
SECTION NOTES
20.1 Act of child below 7 years
Section 20 provides that nothing is an offence which is done by a child under seven years of age
Children below seven years of age have absolute exemption from criminal liability.
Act of a child above seven and under twelve years of age of immature understanding.
21. Nothing is an offence which is done by a child above seven years of age and under twelve years of age, who has not attained sufficient maturity of understanding to judge of the nature and consequences of his conduct on that occasion.
Corresponding Provision : Section 83 of IPC, 1860
COMMENTS
SECTION NOTES
21.1 Act of child below 12 and above 7 years
Section 20 provides nothing is an offence which is done by a child — above seven years of age and under twelve, who has not attained sufficient maturity of understanding to judge the nature and consequences of his conduct on that occasion
Act of a person of unsound mind.
22. Nothing is an offence which is done by a person who, at the time of doing it, by reason of unsoundness of mind, is incapable of knowing the nature of the act, or that he is doing what is either wrong or contrary to law.
Corresponding Provision : Section 84 of IPC, 1860
COMMENTS
SECTION NOTES
22.1 Act of a person of unsound mind
Section 22 provides that nothing is an offence which is done by a person who, at the time of doing it, by reason of unsoundness of mind, is incapable of knowing the nature of the act, or that he is doing what is either wrong or contrary to law.
The basis points are noteworthy : Unsoundness of mind should be such that it renders a person incapable of knowing the nature of the act or incapable of understanding that what he is doing is either wrong or contrary to law.
Unsoundness of mind of the above description should prevail at the time of commission of such offence
S. 23 BHARATIYA NYAYA SANHITA, 2023
RELEVANT CASE LAWS
Reasonable doubt to be standard of proof of lunacy - It is settled that the standard of proof to prove the lunacy or insanity is only 'reasonable doubt'. [Para 20] - Rupesh Manger (Thapa) v. State of Sikkim AIR 2023 Supreme Court 4431.
Burden to prove unsoundness of mind is on accused - It remains trite that the burden of proving the existence of circumstances so as to bring the case within the purview of Section 84 IPC lies on the accused in terms of Section 105 of the Evidence Act; and where the accused is charged of murder, the burden to prove that as a result of unsoundness of mind, the accused was incapable of knowing the consequences of his acts is on the defence, as duly exemplified by illustration (a) to the said Section 105 of the Evidence Act. As noticed, the mandate of law is that the Court shall presume absence of the circumstances so as to take the case within any of the General Exceptions in the Indian Penal Code, 1860. [Para 21] - Prem Singh v. State of NCT of Delhi AIR 2023 Supreme Court 193.
Act of a person incapable of judgment by reason of intoxication caused against his will.
23. Nothing is an offence which is done by a person who, at the time of doing it, is, by reason of intoxication, incapable of knowing the nature of the act, or that he is doing what is either wrong, or contrary to law; provided that the thing which intoxicated him was administered to him without his knowledge or against his will.
Corresponding Provision : Section 85 of IPC, 1860
COMMENTS
SECTION NOTES
23.1 Act of a drunken person
Section 23 provides that nothing is an offence which is done by a person who, — at the time of doing it, by reason of intoxication, incapable of knowing the nature of the act, or that he is doing what is either wrong, or contrary to law; and he was intoxicated without his knowledge or against his will (as the thing that intoxicated him was administered without his knowledge or against his will),
The following points are noteworthy:
This section should be read with section 24 of BNS
It is no defence for an accused that he was in intoxicated state at the time of committing the alleged act, unless he proves that the intoxication was without his knowledge or against his will.
Accused who pleads that he was intoxicated at the time he committed the alleged offence will have to prove that he did not voluntarily get intoxicated and that he was intoxicated against his will or without his knowledge.
This defence of “intoxicated without knowledge or against will at the time of committing alleged act” is available only where act done is an offence only if done with particular intent or knowledge. Where act complained of is an offence
regardless of intent or knowledge and involves strict liability, this defence cannot be put forth.
Offence requiring a particular intent or knowledge committed by one who is intoxicated.
24. In cases where an act done is not an offence unless done with a particular knowledge or intent, a person who does the act in a state of intoxication shall be liable to be dealt with as if he had the same knowledge as he would have had if he had not been intoxicated, unless the thing which intoxicated him was administered to him without his knowledge or against his will.
Corresponding Provision : Section 86 of IPC, 1860
COMMENTS
SECTION NOTES
24.1 Act of drunken person
In cases where an act done is not an offence unless done with a particular knowledge or intent, a person who does the act in a state of intoxication shall be liable to be dealt with as if he had the same knowledge as he would have had if he had not been intoxicated.
Unless the thing which intoxicated him was administrated to him without or against his will
The following points emerge from section 24 :
The defence of “intoxicated without knowledge or against will at the time of committing alleged act” is not available where the act complained of is an offence on strict liability basis regardless of intent or knowledge
This defence is available to the accused only where the act done is an offence only if done with particular intent or knowledge.
To avail this defence, it is not sufficient for accused to only prove that he was intoxicated at the time of committing the offence. He will also have to prove that the intoxication was without his knowledge or against his will.
Accused who pleads that he was intoxicated at the time he committed the alleged offence will have to prove that he did not voluntarily get intoxicated and that he was intoxicated against his will or without his knowledge.
Act not intended and not known to be likely to cause death or grievous hurt, done by consent.
25. Nothing which is not intended to cause death, or grievous hurt, and which is not known by the doer to be likely to cause death or grievous hurt, is an offence by reason of any harm which it may cause, or be intended by the doer to cause, to any person, above eighteen years of age, who has given consent,
S. 26
BHARATIYA
NYAYA SANHITA, 2023
whether express or implied, to suffer that harm; or by reason of any harm which it may be known by the doer to be likely to cause to any such person who has consented to take the risk of that harm.
Illustration
A and Z agree to fence with each other for amusement. This agreement implies the consent of each to suffer any harm which, in the course of such fencing, may be caused without foul play; and if A, while playing fairly, hurts Z, A commits no offence.
Corresponding Provision : Section 87 of IPC, 1860
COMMENTS
SECTION NOTES
25.1 Act not intended to cause death/hurt
Section 25 provides that nothing which is done is an offence if following conditions are satisfied:—
The act is not intended to cause death, or grievous hurt, and is not known by the doer to be likely to cause death or grievous hurt, The other person to whom harm is caused is above eighteen years of age, The other person who suffers harm has given consent, whether express or implied, to suffer that harm.
If above conditions are satisfied, act done will not be offence — by reason of any harm which it may cause, or be intended by the doer to cause, to any person, or by reason of any harm which it may be known by the doer to be likely to cause to any such person who has consented to take the risk of that harm,
Illustration
A and Z agree to fence with each other for amusement. This agreement implies the consent of each to suffer any harm which, in the course of such fencing, may be caused without foul play; and if A, while playing fairly, hurts Z, A commits no offence.
Act not intended to cause death, done by consent in good faith for person’s benefit.
26. Nothing, which is not intended to cause death, is an offence by reason of any harm which it may cause, or be intended by the doer to cause, or be known by the doer to be likely to cause, to any person for whose benefit it is done in good faith, and who has given a consent, whether express or implied, to suffer that harm, or to take the risk of that harm.
Illustration
A, a surgeon, knowing that a particular operation is likely to cause the death of Z, who suffers under the painful complaint, but not intending to cause Z’s death, and intending, in good faith, Z’s benefit, performs that operation on Z, with Z’s consent. A has committed no offence.
Corresponding Provision : Section 88 of IPC, 1860
