Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS)
Section 19 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023: Act likely to cause harm, but done without criminal intent, and to prevent other harm.
Lentis Legalis | 9 March 2026
Reviewed by Adv. Chandrasen Yadav
Section – 19 : Act likely to cause harm, but done without criminal intent, and to prevent other harm.—
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.
Author
Adv. Chandrasen Yadav
B.Sc., LL.B. & LL.M.
Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS)
Section 26 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023: Act not intended to cause death, done by consent in good faith for person’s benefit.
Lentis Legalis | 9 March 2026
Reviewed by Adv. Chandrasen Yadav
Section 26 – Act not intended to cause death, done by consent in good faith for person’s benefit.—
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.
Author
Adv. Chandrasen Yadav
B.Sc., LL.B. & LL.M.
Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS)
Section 25 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023: Act not intended and not known to be likely to cause death or grievous hurt, done by consent.
Lentis Legalis | 9 March 2026
Reviewed by Adv. Chandrasen Yadav
Section – 26 : Act not intended and not known to be likely to cause death or grievous hurt, done by consent.—
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, 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.
Author
Adv. Chandrasen Yadav
B.Sc., LL.B. & LL.M.
Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS)
Section 24 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023: Offence requiring a particular intent or knowledge committed by one who is intoxicated.
Lentis Legalis | 9 March 2026
Reviewed by Adv. Chandrasen Yadav
Section – 24 : Offence requiring a particular intent or knowledge committed by one who is intoxicated.—
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.
Author
Adv. Chandrasen Yadav
B.Sc., LL.B. & LL.M.
Section 26 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023: Act not intended to cause death, done by consent in good faith for person’s benefit.
Section 25 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023: Act not intended and not known to be likely to cause death or grievous hurt, done by consent.
Section 24 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023: Offence requiring a particular intent or knowledge committed by one who is intoxicated.
Supreme Court to Hear Review Petition on 10 February 2026 Challenging Mandatory Three-Year Practice Requirement for Entry-Level Judicial Services
Supreme Court Mandates Free Sanitary Pads, Functional Toilets and Menstrual Hygiene Infrastructure in All Schools
Major Relief for Law Students as Supreme Court Opens Review on Mandatory 3-Year Practice Rule
-
Supreme Court Highlights1 month agoSupreme Court to Hear Review Petition on 10 February 2026 Challenging Mandatory Three-Year Practice Requirement for Entry-Level Judicial Services
-
Landmark judgements1 month agoSupreme Court Mandates Free Sanitary Pads, Functional Toilets and Menstrual Hygiene Infrastructure in All Schools
-
Landmark judgements3 weeks agoMajor Relief for Law Students as Supreme Court Opens Review on Mandatory 3-Year Practice Rule
-
High Court Updates1 month agoAccessing Wife’s Private Photos Without Consent and Humiliating Her Before Family Amounts to Mental Cruelty
-
High Court Updates1 month agoSurge in Police Encounters in UP: Allahabad High Court Seeks Compliance with PUCL Guidelines
-
Crime And Justice1 month agoPre-Trial Detention, Human Rights, and the rejection of Bail of Umar Khalid and Sharjeel Imam.
-
Supreme Court Highlights1 month agoSupreme Court Keeps UGC Equity Regulations, 2026 in Abeyance; Raises Concerns Over Ambiguity and Possible Misuse
-
High Court Updates2 months agoHusband Cannot Deny Maintenance Solely on Wife’s Educational Qualifications