Section 29 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS), 2023
Text and Basic Meaning
Section 29 BNS is titled: “Exclusion of acts which are offences independently of harm caused.”
The section provides that certain acts are criminal by their very nature, regardless of whether they cause harm or whether the victim consents.
This means that the general exceptions provided in Sections 25, 26, and 27 of BNS (which deal with consent, good faith, or accident) do not apply to these inherently criminal acts.
For example, causing a miscarriage without medical justification is punishable even if the woman consents, because the act itself is considered a crime under law.
In essence: Some offences are criminal independently of the result or consent. Consent cannot be used as a defense in such cases.
Purpose and Rationale
Section 29 ensures that public policy, morality, and social interest are preserved.
It prevents misuse of consent as a defense in acts that are inherently wrongful or dangerous.
The section distinguishes between:
Offences dependent on harm (e.g., minor hurt, trespass causing damage)
Offences independent of harm (e.g., forgery, illegal abortion, bribery, attempted murder)
By doing so, it maintains legal clarity that not all consent-based defenses are valid.
Scope of Section 29
Applies When:
The act is criminal in itself, irrespective of any harm caused.
The act is committed even with the victim’s consent.
The offence is recognized as “per se criminal” under BNS.
Does Not Apply When:
The act is lawful, or its legality depends on consent or absence of harm.
The offence only occurs because harm actually happened (i.e., the act is not criminal per se).
Illustrative Examples
| Scenario | Legal Position under Section 29 BNS |
|---|---|
| A person causes miscarriage without medical necessity. | Offence remains punishable, even with consent. |
| Forgery of a document, even if no financial harm occurs. | Offence exists independently of harm; consent or harmless outcome is irrelevant. |
| Attempted theft where no property is taken. | Punishable as the attempt itself is criminal. |
| Offering a bribe which is refused. | Offence exists because offering a bribe is inherently criminal. |
| Firing at someone intending to kill, but missing. | Attempt to murder is punishable regardless of actual harm. |
These examples show that liability arises from the nature of the act itself, not the outcome.
Relationship with Previous Law
Section 29 BNS is the successor to Section 91 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC).
The principle remains unchanged: consent or absence of harm does not excuse inherently criminal acts.
Jurisprudence under IPC Section 91 is still relevant in interpreting Section 29 BNS.
Case-Law Observations
Section 29 is rarely litigated in isolation because it does not create a new offence; it acts as a guiding principle when consent-based defences are raised.
Courts apply Section 29 implicitly when deciding cases involving inherently criminal acts such as:
Illegal abortion (without medical justification)
Attempted murder
Forgery or counterfeiting
Bribery and corruption
In practice, courts focus on the substantive offence, applying Section 29 to deny defenses like consent or harmless intent.
Key Judicial Principle: An act that is criminal in itself cannot be justified by consent, accident, or absence of harm.
Significance
Protects public interest and morality.
Ensures consent cannot legalize inherently criminal acts.
Clarifies the scope of general exceptions under BNS.
Preserves legal certainty and continuity with prior law (IPC Section 91).
Summary in Simple Terms
Some acts are illegal by nature.
Consent, accident, or absence of harm does not make them legal.
Section 29 ensures that the law protects public policy, morality, and social interest.
It is a doctrinal continuation of IPC Section 91 in the new BNS framework.
RELATED Blog
comments