The exceptions in sections 25, 26 and 27 do not extend to acts which are offences independently of any harm which they may cause, or be intended to cause, or be known to be likely to cause, to the person giving the consent, or on whose behalf the consent is given.
Illustration.
Causing miscarriage (unless caused in good faith for the purpose of saving the life of the woman) is an offence independently of any harm which it may cause or be intended to cause to the woman. Therefore, it is not an offence “by reason of such harm”; and the consent of the woman or of her guardian to the causing of such miscarriage does not justify the act.
Simplified Explanation
Section 29 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS), titled “Exclusion of Acts Which Are Offences Independently of Harm Caused,” clarifies that certain acts remain criminal offenses regardless of whether they result in actual harm. This section asserts that some actions are inherently punishable by law due to their nature, intent, or potential risk to society, even if they do not directly cause harm in a particular instance.
Key Points of Section 29
- Inherent Criminality of Certain Acts:
- This section highlights that certain acts are considered criminal offenses by their very nature, meaning they are punishable under the law regardless of whether they cause direct harm. For example, acts like theft, bribery, or illegal possession of firearms are considered offenses due to their intrinsic illegality and threat to societal order.
- Irrelevance of Harm Caused in Specific Cases:
- Section 29 asserts that for these inherently criminal acts, the actual outcome (harm or no harm) does not determine their punishability. Even if an act doesn’t result in immediate harm, it is still treated as an offense because it violates established legal or moral standards.
- Purpose of Deterrence and Social Order:
- This section reinforces the law’s role in deterring behaviors that threaten public safety or morality. Acts that are considered criminal under Section 29 often carry the potential to cause harm, disrupt order, or undermine public trust, even if specific instances do not lead to harm.
- Examples of Inherently Criminal Acts:
- Certain actions, such as fraud, forgery, bribery, and drug trafficking, are criminal regardless of direct harm. For instance, the act of forgery is punishable even if the forged document is never used to deceive anyone, as the act itself poses a risk to trust in documents and records.
- Legal Principle of “Mala Prohibita”:
- Section 29 aligns with the principle of “mala prohibita,” which refers to actions that are prohibited by law due to their nature, not necessarily because they are harmful. Such acts are deemed illegal to uphold social norms, ethical standards, or safety, rather than based solely on the outcome.
- Judicial Emphasis on Intent and Compliance:
- In cases where acts are inherently criminal, courts focus on whether the person knowingly and willingly committed the act. The lack of actual harm does not excuse the individual if they intentionally engaged in a prohibited action, as the offense lies in the act itself.
- Application in Regulatory and Safety Laws:
- Section 29 is often relevant in regulatory and safety contexts, where compliance is crucial to prevent potential hazards. For instance, violating health and safety regulations or carrying unlicensed weapons remains punishable, as these actions endanger public welfare.
Purpose of Section 29
The purpose of Section 29 is to maintain societal order and security by emphasizing that some actions are inherently criminal, regardless of immediate consequences. By recognizing the inherent illegality of certain behaviors, this section supports the law’s preventive and deterrent functions, discouraging conduct that poses a latent risk to society. Section 29 thus upholds the integrity of legal standards, ensuring that certain actions remain punishable to promote public safety, ethics, and respect for the law.
