Section 19 Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS)

Quick Legal Answer

Section 19 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS), 2023 provides legal protection for acts that may cause harm but are done without criminal intention and in good faith to prevent greater harm to a person or property. It is part of the chapter dealing with General Exceptions under criminal law.

In simple terms, a person may not be held criminally liable if they knowingly cause a smaller harm in order to avoid a much bigger danger, provided the act was done honestly and without malicious intent. This principle is commonly known as the doctrine of necessity.

Section 19 BNS is largely similar to the old Section 81 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC).

The section generally applies when:

• The act was done in good faith
• There was no criminal intention to cause harm
• The action was necessary to prevent greater danger
• The harm avoided was more serious than the harm caused
• The situation required urgent or reasonable action

Examples may include:

• Breaking a door to rescue someone trapped in a fire
• Damaging property to stop a larger disaster
• Taking emergency action to save human life or prevent serious injury

Jurisdiction & Applicability

This guide applies to:

• Criminal law matters under Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023
• Cases involving emergency or necessity-based actions
• Situations where minor harm was caused to prevent greater harm
• Good faith actions without criminal intent
• Protection against criminal liability under General Exceptions
• Courts evaluating intention, urgency, and proportionality of actions

When This Guide Applies

Use this guide if you are dealing with:

• Emergency actions taken to save life or property
• Cases involving damage caused to prevent larger danger
• Criminal allegations despite good faith conduct
• Defence based on necessity or prevention of greater harm
• Situations involving unavoidable risk during emergencies
• Legal interpretation of good faith actions under BNS

When This Guide Does NOT Apply

This guide does not apply to:

• Intentional criminal acts done with malice or personal gain
• Planned offences disguised as emergency actions
• Fraud, revenge, or unlawful property destruction
• Negligence without genuine necessity
• Self-defence cases specifically covered under separate provisions
• Acts where the harm caused was disproportionate to the danger avoided

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.

People Also Read: What are the Different Key Pointers of BNS Section 10

Section 19 

Section 19 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS) states that an act done with good intention and without ill-will towards others in the case of a greater evil, shall not be an offence. The magnitude and nature of the harm which a person seeks to avoid may warrant such action.

The BNS is the latest criminal law in India which replaced the Indian penal code (IPC). While the IPC contained 511 sections, the new code has 358 sections only. In addition to these, hate crimes and lynching have also been included in the BNS.

Explanation – 

This poses a factual dilemma in deciding whether the threat that was sought to be avoided was significant enough and occurred soon enough so as to take the risk of performing the act even if it was likely to cause damage.

Illustrations – 

(a) A, the master of a ship, finds himself in a dilemma due to no fault of his own, where he must run down a passenger boat B, carrying around twenty or thirty persons, before he can bring his vessel to a stand still or perhaps risk hitting another boat C carrying just two people that he may be able to avoid should he change the direction of his ship. In this case, if A changes the direction of the ship deliberately without the intention of running into the boat C and with the sole intention of preventing the boat B from being hit, he does not commit any offence, although he may cause the boat C to be hit by an action that he recognised could cause such an effect if it is established as a fact that the danger which he sought to avoid was one which justified him taking the risk of hitting the boat C.

(b) In a situation where A is faced with a great unforeseen conflagration, he destroys buildings to contain the fire. This he does for the purpose of protecting either persons or property and not for malice towards any one. In this case, where it is determined that the evil to be nipped in the bud was of such degree and so close in time, A is not liable for the infringement.

Example- 

Vijay busted the door down to help a dog trapped in his neighbour’s burning house. In this case, Vijay will not be charged with criminal trespass or breaking the door.

Key Points on Section 19 BNS

Section 19 A justification for actions that are aimed at curtailing more significant harm but which may yet result in harm. In this kind of incident, the stress is on the goodness of the intentions and lack of malice.

1. Knowledge of Likely Harm

• In this part, it is made clear that the person does not intend to harm anyone. The most important thing is whether the injury was inflicted spitefully or intentionally. This provision negates any wrongdoing if there was no base evil intent.

2. Absence of Criminal Intention

• This portion highlights that the individual does not have the culpable state of mind to inflict any harm. The most important issue is the distinction between whether an act was done on purpose or simply out of ill will. Where there was no intention to commit a crime, the act is permitted by the definition in this section.

3. Good Faith

• The action should be in good faith, which means the doer honestly and sincerely believed that the action was necessary in order to avert a greater evil. This is the reason why good faith is the basis for such an act. 

4. Purpose of Preventing Greater Harm

• An action must cause injury in order to avoid or lessen injury to a person or thing. For example, it is acceptable to break down a door in order to rescue an individual from a burning building but not when doing so will cause injury to the people on the other side of the door. 

5. No Offense

• Another provision also states that in case a particular type of action was taken honestly and for the right cause, even if the action has some negative effects, such action is not an offense. This section also protects persons who are placed in such positions for the sake of saving lives or for prevention of greater harm.

6. Illustration

• As when damages to a car are justified as the intent was to remove a person suffering from injury, damage is justifiable when preventative action needs to be taken. One may also say that property damage has occurred in this situation, but it is not an offense because the property was damaged for the purpose of limiting more serious injury and was executed in good faith.

7. Objective

• Section -19 BNS ascertains that a person causing, inflicting or allowing injury to another is not punished if he did so in good faith, for the purpose of averting a greater evil and not out of ill will.

Relation Between Section 19 and Section 81 IPC

Section 19 Bhartiya Nyaya Sanhita	Section 81 Indian Penal Code (corresponding section)
Section 19	Section 81 IPC
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.	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.
In that context, it is an objective query concerning the extent to which the foreseen danger was imperative and occurred in an appropriate time frame, such that it justified the risk of committing the act with knowledge that it was likely to be harmful.	In that context, it is an objective query concerning the extent to which the foreseen danger was imperative and occurred in an appropriate time frame, such that it justified the risk of committing the act with knowledge that it was likely to be harmful.

Conclusion

As Per Section 19 of the BNS, good faith actions that are likely to result in an injury are not viewed as offenses when such actions are intended to avert a greater evil. There are a few factors that determine the excuse of the act, two of which are the lack of a criminal purpose and the purpose to avoid a greater criminality.

Similar to Section 81 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC), this provision implies the ethical dilemma that has to be addressed when there is a threat of danger. Section 19 encourages those who are compelled to act to avert a worse danger by focusing on aim and good, which speaks to the importance of good faith in decision-making.

Frequently Asked Questions On section 19 Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS)

Q1. What is Section 19 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS)?

Ans1. Section 19 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS) states that an act likely to cause harm is not an offence if done in good faith, without criminal intent and to prevent greater harm.

Q2. How does Section 19 BNS differ from Section 81 of the IPC?

Ans2. Section 19 BNS closely mirrors Section 81 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC), both stating that acts done in good faith to prevent greater harm are not offences, even if harm is caused.

Q3. Is causing harm under Section 19 of BNS justified?

Ans3. Yes, under Section 19 of BNS, causing harm is justified if it is done in good faith without criminal intent and with the purpose of preventing more significant harm.

Q4. What is the role of good faith in Section 19 BNS?

Ans4. Good faith is crucial in Section 19 BNS, as it justifies actions taken to prevent greater harm. The individual must believe that the action was necessary and carried out without malicious intent.

Q5. Can someone be held liable under Section 19 BNS if harm is caused unintentionally?

Ans5. No, if harm is caused unintentionally and the person acted in good faith to prevent a greater evil, they are not liable under Section 19 BNS.

Q6. What are some examples of Section 19 BNS in action?

Ans6. Examples include breaking down a door to save someone trapped in a burning building or redirecting a ship to avoid a collision, even if it causes some damage.

Q7. How does Section 19 BNS protect individuals from legal consequences?

Ans7. Section 19 BNS protects individuals from legal consequences by acknowledging that their actions were done to prevent a greater harm and without any criminal intention.

Q8. What is the objective of Section 19 in Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita?

Ans8. The objective of Section 19 BNS is to ensure that individuals are not punished for causing harm when their actions were done in good faith to avert more significant dangers.

Q9. Can Section 19 BNS be applied to property damage cases?

Ans9. Yes, Section 19 BNS can be applied to cases where property damage occurs, as long as the damage was necessary to prevent a more severe threat to life or property.

Q10. Why is the absence of criminal intent significant in Section 19 BNS?

Ans10. The absence of criminal intent is significant because it distinguishes between deliberate harm and actions taken to prevent greater harm, thus justifying the act under Section 19 BNS.

Q11.What was the old IPC code for Section 19 of BNS 2023?

Ans11. In the Indian Penal Code, Act likely to cause harm, but done without criminal intent and to prevent other harm was covered in Section 81 IPC.

Citations

1. COMPARISON SUMMARY BNS to IPC
2. MINISTRY OF LAW AND JUSTICE

Disclaimer: The information provided in this article is for general informational purposes only and does not constitute legal advice. Laws, procedures, fees, and timelines may vary depending on the state and individual circumstances. For advice specific to your situation, please consult a qualified legal professional.