Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS)
Section 27 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023: Act done in good faith for benefit of child or person of unsound mind, by, or by consent of guardian.
Lentis Legalis | 12 March 2026
Reviewed by Adv. Chandrasen Yadav
Section – 27 : Act done in good faith for benefit of child or person of unsound mind, by, or by consent of guardian.
Nothing which is done in good faith for the benefit of a person under twelve years of age, or person of unsound mind, by, or by consent, either express or implied, of the guardian or other person having lawful charge of that person, 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 that person:
Provided that this exception shall not extend to :
(a) the intentional causing of death, or to the attempting to cause death;
(b) the doing of anything which the person doing it knows to be likely to cause death, for any purpose other than the preventing of death or grievous hurt, or the curing of any grievous disease or infirmity;
(c) the voluntary causing of grievous hurt, or to the attempting to cause grievous hurt, unless it be for the purpose of preventing death or grievous hurt, or the curing of any grievous disease or infirmity;
(d) the abetment of any offence, to the committing of which offence it would not extend.
Illustration.
A, in good faith, for his child’s benefit without his child’s consent, has his child cut for the stone by a surgeon knowing it to be likely that the operation will cause the child’s death, but not intending to cause the child’s death. A is within the exception, in as much as his object was the cure of the child.
Author
Adv. Chandrasen Yadav
B.Sc., LL.B. & LL.M.
Lentis Legalis | 31 March 2026
Reviewed by Adv. Chandrasen Yadav
Section – 126: Wrongful restraint.—
(1) Whoever voluntarily obstructs any person so as to prevent that person from proceeding in any direction in which that person has a right to proceed, is said wrongfully to restrain that person.
Exception.—The obstruction of a private way over land or water which a person in good faith believes himself to have a lawful right to obstruct, is not an offence within the meaning of this section.
Illustration
A obstructs a path along which Z has a right to pass, A not believing in good faith that he has a right to stop the path. Z is thereby prevented from passing. A wrongfully restrains Z.
(2) Whoever wrongfully restrains any person shall be punished with simple imprisonment for a term which may extend to one month, or with fine which may extend to five thousand rupees, or with both.
| Section | Offence | Punishment | Cognizable or Non- Cognizable | Bailable or non-Bailable | By which Court Triable |
| 126(2) | Wrongfully restraining any person. | Simple imprisonment for 1 month, or fine of 5,000 rupees, or both. | Cognizable | Bailable | Any Magistrate |
Author
Adv. Chandrasen Yadav
B.Sc., LL.B. & LL.M.
Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS)
Section 125 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023: Act endangering life or personal safety of others.
Lentis Legalis | 31 March 2026
Reviewed by Adv. Chandrasen Yadav
Section – 125 BNS: Act endangering life or personal safety of others.—
Whoever does any act so rashly or negligently as to endanger human life or the personal safety of others, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to three months or with fine which may extend to two thousand five hundred rupees, or with both, but—
(a) where hurt is caused, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to six months, or with fine which may extend to five thousand rupees, or with both;
(b) where grievous hurt is caused, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to three years, or with fine which may extend to ten thousand rupees, or with both.
| Section | Offence | Punishment | Cognizable or Non- Cognizable | Bailable or non-Bailable | By which Court Triable |
| 125 | Doing any act endangering human life or personal safety of others | Imprisonment for 3 months, or fine of 2,500 rupees, or both. | Cognizable | Bailable | Any Magistrate |
| 125(a) | Where hurt is caused. | Imprisonment for 6 months, or fine of 5,000 rupees, or both | Cognizable | Bailable | Any Magistrate |
| 125(b) | Where grievous hurt is caused. | Imprisonment for 3 years, or fine of 10,000 rupees, or both. | Cognizable | Bailable | Any Magistrate |
Author
Adv. Chandrasen Yadav
B.Sc., LL.B. & LL.M.
Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS)
Section 124 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023: Voluntarily causing grievous hurt by use of acid, etc.
Lentis Legalis | 31 March 2026
Reviewed by Adv. Chandrasen Yadav
Section – 124 BNS: Voluntarily causing grievous hurt by use of acid, etc.—
(1) Whoever causes permanent or partial damage or deformity to, or burns or maims or disfigures or disables, any part or parts of the body of a person or causes grievous hurt by throwing acid on or by administering acid to that person, or by using any other means with the intention of causing or with the knowledge that he is likely to cause such injury or hurt or causes a person to be in a permanent vegetative state shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which shall not be less than ten years but which may extend to imprisonment for life, and with fine:
Provided that such fine shall be just and reasonable to meet the medical expenses of the treatment of the victim: Provided further that any fine imposed under this sub-section shall be paid to the victim.
(2) Whoever throws or attempts to throw acid on any person or attempts to administer acid to any person, or attempts to use any other means, with the intention of causing permanent or partial damage or deformity or burns or maiming or disfigurement or disability or grievous hurt to that person, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which shall not be less than five years but which may extend to seven years, and shall also be liable to fine.
Explanation 1.—For the purposes of this section, “acid” includes any substance which has acidic or corrosive character or burning nature, that is capable of causing bodily injury leading to scars or disfigurement or temporary or permanent disability.
Explanation 2.—For the purposes of this section, permanent or partial damage or deformity or permanent vegetative state shall not be required to be irreversible.
| Section | Offence | Punishment | Cognizable or Non- Cognizable | Bailable or non-Bailable | By which Court Triable |
| 124(1) | Voluntarily causing grievous hurt by use of acid, etc. | Imprisonment for not less than 10 years but which may extend to imprisonment for life and fine. | Cognizable | Non-Bailable | Court of Session. |
| 124(2) | Voluntarily throwing or attempting to throw acid. | Imprisonment for 5 years but which may extend to 7 years and fine. | Cognizable | Non-Bailable | Court of Session. |
Author
Adv. Chandrasen Yadav
B.Sc., LL.B. & LL.M.
Bonafide Need Must Be Judged on the date when the suit for eviction was filed: Supreme Court Sets Aside High Court Order in Eviction Case.
From Self-Identification to State Certification: A Step Back for Transgender Rights?
No More ‘Bona Fide Need’: Allahabad High Court Redefines Eviction Standards Under the UP Tenancy Act, 2021
Supreme Court to Hear Review Petition on 10 February 2026 Challenging Mandatory Three-Year Practice Requirement for Entry-Level Judicial Services
Major Relief for Law Students as Supreme Court Opens Review on Mandatory 3-Year Practice Rule
Supreme Court Mandates Free Sanitary Pads, Functional Toilets and Menstrual Hygiene Infrastructure in All Schools
-
Supreme Court Highlights2 months agoSupreme Court to Hear Review Petition on 10 February 2026 Challenging Mandatory Three-Year Practice Requirement for Entry-Level Judicial Services
-
Landmark judgements2 months agoMajor Relief for Law Students as Supreme Court Opens Review on Mandatory 3-Year Practice Rule
-
Landmark judgements3 months agoSupreme Court Mandates Free Sanitary Pads, Functional Toilets and Menstrual Hygiene Infrastructure in All Schools
-
High Court Updates3 months agoAccessing Wife’s Private Photos Without Consent and Humiliating Her Before Family Amounts to Mental Cruelty
-
High Court Updates3 months agoSurge in Police Encounters in UP: Allahabad High Court Seeks Compliance with PUCL Guidelines
-
Crime And Justice3 months agoPre-Trial Detention, Human Rights, and the rejection of Bail of Umar Khalid and Sharjeel Imam.
-
Supreme Court Highlights3 months agoSupreme Court Keeps UGC Equity Regulations, 2026 in Abeyance; Raises Concerns Over Ambiguity and Possible Misuse
-
Opinions & Columns9 months agoSchool Merger in Uttar Pradesh: A Stark Reflection of State Abdication of Educational Duty Undermining the Constitutional Mandate of Article 21-A and the RTE Act, 2009.