Section 18 BNS — Accident in Doing a Lawful Act
Section 18 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 (BNS) provides protection where a person causes harm accidentally or by misfortune while doing a lawful act, provided that the act was done lawfully, by lawful means, and with proper care and caution.
Bare Act Line
“Nothing is an offence which is done by accident or misfortune, and without any criminal intention or knowledge in the doing of a lawful act in a lawful manner by lawful means and with proper care and caution.”
Meaning in Simple Language
The basic idea of Section 18 is that every harmful result does not automatically become a criminal offence. Sometimes a person may cause harm accidentally even though they had no intention or knowledge that such harm would occur.
If that person was doing something lawful, was doing it in a lawful manner, used lawful means, and took proper care and caution, the resulting accident will generally not make the person criminally liable under this exception.
For example, suppose A is legally cutting wood in his own area with proper care and using a lawful tool. Suddenly, because of an unexpected event, a piece of wood falls and injures B. If A had taken proper care and had no criminal intention or knowledge that his act was likely to cause such harm, the injury may be covered by Section 18.
“By Accident or Misfortune”
The words “by accident or misfortune” mean that the harmful consequence must have occurred unintentionally and unexpectedly. The person should not have deliberately caused the harm.
An accident is therefore different from an intentional act. If a person deliberately causes injury, he cannot simply claim that the result was an accident.
“Without Any Criminal Intention or Knowledge”
Section 18 specifically requires the absence of criminal intention or knowledge.
This means the person must not have intended to cause the harmful consequence, nor must the person have had the relevant knowledge that the act was likely to cause such harm.
Therefore, merely saying “I did not intend it” is not always sufficient. The circumstances must show that the person genuinely lacked the required criminal intention or knowledge.
“Doing of a Lawful Act”
The act being performed must itself be lawful.
This is an important requirement. Section 18 does not generally protect a person who is already engaged in an unlawful activity and then causes harm.
For example, if a person is committing an illegal act and accidentally injures someone during that act, he cannot ordinarily claim the protection of Section 18 merely because the injury itself was accidental.
“In a Lawful Manner by Lawful Means”
It is not enough that the main activity is lawful. The person must also perform it in a lawful manner and by lawful means.
In other words, the person must follow the legally permissible method of performing the act and must not use an unlawful method or instrument to carry it out.
Thus, Section 18 creates a combination of requirements: the act must be lawful, the manner must be lawful, and the means used must also be lawful.
“With Proper Care and Caution”
This is one of the most important conditions of Section 18.
The person must have exercised proper care and caution while performing the lawful act. The law does not protect a person who acts carelessly or negligently and then tries to describe the resulting harm as an accident.
For example, if A is driving a vehicle lawfully and carefully, and an unexpected event causes an accident despite A taking proper precautions, Section 18 may become relevant. But if A was driving recklessly or without reasonable care, the defence may not be available merely because the resulting injury was unintended.
Simple Example
Suppose A is lawfully repairing a building. He follows the required safety precautions and takes proper care while working. Suddenly, because of an unforeseen event, a small object falls from the building and injures B.
If A did not intend to injure B, had no relevant criminal knowledge, was performing a lawful act, used lawful means, acted in a lawful manner, and exercised proper care and caution, the accidental injury may fall within Section 18.
Core Principle of Section 18
Section 18 essentially follows the principle that criminal liability should not ordinarily arise from a genuine accident when a person is lawfully acting, without criminal intention or knowledge, and with proper care and caution.
Therefore, remember Section 18 through this formula:
Accident/Misfortune + No Criminal Intention or Knowledge + Lawful Act + Lawful Manner + Lawful Means + Proper Care & Caution = Protection under Section 18 BNS.
Illustration
Suppose A is chopping wood with a hatchet. While he is working, the head of the hatchet accidentally comes off and strikes and kills a person standing nearby.
If A had been using the hatchet carefully and had taken proper precautions, and the hatchet head flew off unexpectedly, then A is not criminally liable for the death.
The reason is that the death occurred accidentally, without any criminal intention or knowledge, and there was no lack of proper care and caution on A’s part.
In short: If A was working carefully and the accident was genuinely unforeseeable, his act is excusable and does not amount to an offence under Section 18 BNS.
Absolutely. For your BNS notes / website content, Section 19 should be explained by connecting the Bare Act wording → doctrine of necessity → maxim → ingredients → examples → limitations. Here is a more detailed, polished version.
Section 19 BNS — Act Likely to Cause Harm, but Done Without Criminal Intent to Prevent Other Harm
Bare Act Provision
“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.”
Meaning of Section 19 in Simple Language
Section 19 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 (BNS) deals with situations where a person knowingly does an act which is likely to cause some harm, but the person does not have any criminal intention to cause that harm.
The important point is that the person must have acted “in good faith for the purpose of preventing or avoiding other harm to person or property.”
In simple words, the law recognises that sometimes a person may have to take an action that can cause one harm in order to prevent or avoid another harm. If the person acts honestly, without criminal intention, and for the purpose of preventing or avoiding harm, the act may fall within the protection of Section 19.
Thus, Section 19 is based on the basic idea of necessity.
Doctrine of Necessity
Section 19 incorporates the principle of the doctrine of necessity.
The doctrine of necessity recognises that circumstances may arise where a person is compelled to take an action because not taking that action may result in another harm.
The person may know that his action is likely to cause some harm, but his purpose is not to cause that harm. His purpose is to prevent or avoid another harm to a person or property.
For example, imagine that a child is trapped inside a burning house. A person breaks open the door or window to rescue the child. The person knows that the door or window will probably be damaged. However, his purpose is not to damage the property. His purpose is to prevent or avoid harm to the child.
This is the basic principle behind the doctrine of necessity.
Maxim — Quod Necessitas Non Habet Legem
The doctrine of necessity is traditionally expressed through the Latin maxim:
“Quod necessitas non habet legem.”
Meaning of the Maxim
The maxim is commonly translated as:
“Necessity knows no law.”
The expression conveys the idea that in circumstances of genuine necessity, an act which might ordinarily attract legal liability may be excused when it is done because it is necessary to prevent or avoid harm.
However, the maxim should not be interpreted literally to mean that necessity gives a person unlimited freedom to violate the law.
Under modern criminal law, the doctrine operates subject to the conditions imposed by the relevant statutory provision.
In the case of Section 19 BNS, those conditions are clearly expressed in the Bare Act itself.
Why the Maxim Is Important in Section 19
The connection between the maxim and Section 19 can be understood from the opening words of the provision:
“Nothing is an offence merely by reason of its being done with the knowledge that it is likely to cause harm…”
This means that knowledge that harm is likely to occur does not, by itself, make the act an offence.
The law then provides the conditions under which such an act can be protected:
“…if it be done without any criminal intention to cause harm…”
and:
“…and in good faith for the purpose of preventing or avoiding other harm to person or property.”
Therefore, the maxim provides the general philosophical principle of necessity, whereas Section 19 provides the specific statutory rule and conditions.
“With the Knowledge That It Is Likely to Cause Harm”
These words are extremely important.
Section 19 does not require the person to be completely unaware that his act may cause harm.
On the contrary, the section expressly contemplates a situation where the person has:
“knowledge that it is likely to cause harm”
Therefore, a person may know that his action could cause some harm and still receive the protection of Section 19.
The crucial question is not merely:
“Did the person know that harm was likely?”
The more important questions are:
“Did he intend to cause that harm?”
and
“Was he acting in good faith to prevent or avoid other harm?”
If the statutory requirements are fulfilled, knowledge of likely harm alone will not make the act an offence.
“Without Any Criminal Intention to Cause Harm”
The next requirement is:
“without any criminal intention to cause harm”
This means that the person must not have the criminal intention to cause the harm that results from his act.
The harm may be a foreseeable or accepted consequence of what the person does, but causing that harm must not be his criminal objective.
For example, A breaks a window to rescue a person trapped inside a burning building.
A knows that the window will be damaged. However, A’s intention is not to damage the window. His purpose is to rescue the person.
Therefore, the damage to the window is merely a consequence of the act undertaken for a protective purpose.
“In Good Faith”
Section 19 further requires that the act must be done:
“in good faith”
Good faith is an important safeguard against misuse of the defence.
The person must genuinely and honestly believe that his action is necessary for preventing or avoiding harm.
A person cannot deliberately cause harm for his own unlawful purpose and later claim that his conduct was based on necessity.
Therefore, the circumstances must demonstrate that the person’s conduct was genuinely directed towards preventing or avoiding harm.
“For the Purpose of Preventing or Avoiding Other Harm”
This is the heart of Section 19.
The Bare Act requires the act to be done:
“for the purpose of preventing or avoiding other harm to person or property.”
The phrase “other harm” is significant.
It indicates that the person may cause or risk one harm while attempting to prevent or avoid another harm.
For example, breaking a door may cause property damage, but it may be necessary to prevent injury or death to a person trapped inside.
The act is therefore not undertaken for the purpose of causing damage. The damage occurs as part of an action intended to prevent or avoid another harm.
Harm to Person or Property
Section 19 expressly refers to:
“person or property”
Therefore, the harm sought to be prevented or avoided may concern either a person or property.
Harm to Person
This may involve circumstances where action is taken to prevent or avoid injury, death or other harm to a person.
For example, breaking a door to rescue someone trapped inside a burning building.
Harm to Property
The provision also covers situations where action is taken to prevent or avoid harm to property.
For example, a person may take emergency action that causes limited damage to one part of property in order to prevent a much more serious loss to the property.
The essential requirement remains that the person acts in good faith and for the purpose specified in Section 19.
Section 19 Is Based on Balancing of Harms
The doctrine of necessity essentially involves a situation where the person must deal with competing harms.
One possible course of action may result in Harm A, while failure to act may result in Harm B.
The person chooses the course of action intended to prevent or avoid the relevant harm.
Therefore, the underlying reasoning is:
Some harm may be excused when it is caused as a consequence of an act undertaken in good faith to prevent or avoid another harm.
This is why the doctrine is commonly associated with the maxim:
“Necessity knows no law.”
Simple Illustration
Suppose a building suddenly catches fire. A person sees a child trapped inside.
A knows that he cannot rescue the child without breaking a window. He therefore breaks the window and enters the building to rescue the child.
A knows that his action is likely to cause damage to the window.
However, A:
- does not have a criminal intention to damage the property;
- acts in good faith;
- acts for the purpose of preventing or avoiding harm to the child.
Therefore, the mere fact that A knew his act was likely to cause damage does not automatically make his conduct an offence under Section 19.
Another Easy Example
Suppose a dangerous object is about to fall onto a crowded area. A person pushes a vehicle out of the way to prevent people from being injured, knowing that the vehicle may be damaged in the process.
The person does not intend to damage the vehicle. His purpose is to prevent harm to people.
If the statutory conditions are satisfied, the act may fall within the principle recognised by Section 19.
What Section 19 Does Not Mean
Section 19 does not mean:
“If I claim that something was necessary, I cannot be punished.”
That would be an incorrect understanding.
The person must satisfy the requirements expressly mentioned in the Bare Act.
The act must be:
Without criminal intention to cause harm + done in good faith + for the purpose of preventing or avoiding other harm to a person or property.
Therefore, necessity is not an unlimited licence to commit offences.
Difference Between Intention and Consequence
One of the easiest ways to understand Section 19 is to distinguish between intention and consequence.
Suppose A breaks a window to rescue a person from a burning building.
The intended purpose is:
Rescue the person.
The likely consequence is:
Damage to the window.
Section 19 is concerned with this distinction.
The person may know that the consequence is likely, but if he does not have the criminal intention to cause that harm and acts in good faith to prevent or avoid other harm, the law may excuse the act.
Important Limitation of the Maxim
The phrase “Necessity knows no law” must be used carefully in an examination or legal article.
It does not mean that necessity completely overrides every legal rule.
A better legal understanding is:
The doctrine of necessity may excuse an otherwise harmful act where the act is performed under circumstances of genuine necessity and satisfies the conditions recognised by law.
In the context of Section 19 BNS, the statutory conditions include:
“without any criminal intention to cause harm”
and:
“in good faith”
and:
“for the purpose of preventing or avoiding other harm to person or property.”
Therefore, the Bare Act conditions are more important than the maxim itself.
Section 19 and the Principle of Necessity
Section 19 essentially recognises that criminal law should not mechanically punish every act merely because the person knew that some harm was likely to result.
Where a person acts in a situation requiring protective action, and his purpose is genuinely to prevent or avoid other harm, the law may treat the circumstances as a general exception.
The provision therefore attempts to distinguish between:
Harm intentionally caused as a criminal objective
and
Harm that is likely to occur as a consequence of an act done in good faith to prevent or avoid other harm.
Explanation to Section 19 BNS — Whether the Harm Was Serious and Imminent
Bare Act Language
“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.”
Meaning in Simple Language
This Explanation means that there is no automatic rule that every act done to prevent harm will be protected under Section 19.
The court has to examine the actual facts and circumstances of each case and decide whether the harm that the person was trying to prevent or avoid was serious enough and imminent enough to justify taking the risk of doing an act that the person knew was likely to cause harm.
In simple words, the court asks:
“Was the danger so serious and so immediate that the accused was justified in taking the risk, even though he knew that his act was likely to cause some harm?”
“It Is a Question of Fact”
The words “a question of fact” are very important.
It means that the answer will depend upon the specific facts and circumstances of the particular case. There is no fixed formula that can be applied to every situation.
The court may consider what actually happened, what danger existed, how immediate the danger was, what the person knew at that time, what alternatives were available, and why the person took the particular action.
Therefore, whether Section 19 applies is ultimately determined by examining the facts of the case.
“The Harm to Be Prevented or Avoided”
The court first considers the harm which the person was trying to prevent or avoid.
For example, if a person breaks a door to rescue someone trapped inside a burning building, the harm sought to be prevented is serious injury or death to the trapped person.
The court would therefore examine the nature of that danger and determine whether the circumstances genuinely required such action.
“Of Such a Nature”
The expression “of such a nature” means that the nature and seriousness of the threatened harm are relevant.
The harm being prevented must be of a kind that can reasonably justify taking the risk of causing another harm.
For example, risking minor property damage to prevent a person from suffering serious injury may be understandable. But claiming necessity to cause substantial harm merely to prevent a trivial inconvenience would be much more difficult to justify.
“So Imminent”
The word “imminent” means that the danger is very near, immediate or about to happen.
Section 19 therefore looks not only at how serious the threatened harm was, but also at how immediate the danger was.
For example, if a person is trapped inside a burning building and immediate rescue is necessary, the danger is clearly imminent.
On the other hand, if there is only a remote possibility that some harm might occur sometime in the future, the justification of taking immediate harmful action becomes much weaker.
“To Justify or Excuse the Risk”
The person may know that his act is likely to cause harm. The question is whether the circumstances were serious and immediate enough to justify or excuse the risk that he took.
This connects directly with the main provision of Section 19:
“…with the knowledge that it is likely to cause harm…”
The law therefore recognises that a person may consciously take a risk when dealing with an urgent danger. But the court must determine whether that risk was reasonable in the circumstances.
Simple Example
Suppose a child is trapped inside a burning house. A knows that breaking the window will probably damage the property. However, the child is in immediate danger of serious injury or death.
A breaks the window and rescues the child.
Here, the court may consider that the danger to the child was serious and imminent, and therefore the risk of damaging the window was justified or excused under Section 19, provided the other requirements of the section are satisfied.
Example Where Section 19 May Not Apply
Suppose there is no immediate danger, but A simply believes that B’s property might possibly cause some problem in the future. A deliberately damages B’s property to prevent that remote possibility.
Here, the court would have to consider whether the threatened harm was sufficiently serious and imminent to justify A’s action.
If the danger was merely speculative or remote, the protection of Section 19 may not be available.
Connection with the Doctrine of Necessity
This Explanation gives an important limitation to the doctrine of necessity expressed through the maxim:
Quod necessitas non habet legem
“Necessity knows no law.”
The maxim does not mean that a person can cause harm whenever he personally believes that it is necessary.
The Explanation makes it clear that the court must objectively examine the circumstances and determine whether the harm to be prevented was of such a nature and so imminent that the person’s risky act could be justified or excused.
Section 19 BNS — Intention vs Knowledge
| Basis | Knowledge | Criminal Intention |
|---|---|---|
| Meaning | Knowledge means the person knows that his act is likely to cause harm. | Criminal intention means the person intends to cause the harm through his act. |
| Section 19 language | The Bare Act expressly recognises: “with the knowledge that it is likely to cause harm”. | Section 19 requires the act to be done “without any criminal intention to cause harm.” |
| What does the person think? | “I know that my act may cause harm.” | “I want to cause harm through my act.” |
| Purpose of the act | The person’s purpose is to prevent or avoid other harm. | The purpose itself is to cause harm, which is inconsistent with Section 19. |
| Example | A breaks a window knowing it will be damaged, but does so to rescue a person trapped inside a burning building. | A breaks B’s window deliberately because he wants to damage B’s property. |
| Nature of harm | The harm is a known or likely consequence of the act, not the criminal objective. | The harm is the intended objective of the act. |
| Good faith | The person must act “in good faith” for preventing or avoiding other harm. | If the person acts with a criminal intention to cause harm, the requirement of Section 19 is not satisfied. |
| Effect under Section 19 | Knowledge alone does not make the act an offence, if all other requirements of Section 19 are satisfied. | A criminal intention to cause harm prevents the person from relying on Section 19 for that act. |
Illustration (a) — Section 19 BNS
Simple Explanation
Suppose A is the captain of a ship. Suddenly, through no fault or negligence on A’s part, he discovers that his ship is moving towards Boat B, which has 20–30 passengers on board.
A cannot stop his ship in time. If he continues on the same course, he will inevitably collide with Boat B and put all those passengers in danger.
A has only one practical option: change the direction of his ship. However, after changing course, there is a possibility that his ship may collide with Boat C, which has only two passengers. A believes that he may possibly avoid Boat C.
A therefore changes the course of his ship, not because he wants to hit Boat C, but because he is trying in good faith to save the 20–30 people in Boat B.
If, despite his efforts, A’s ship hits Boat C and causes harm, A will not automatically be guilty of an offence merely because he knew that changing course could result in harm to Boat C.
Why Section 19 Applies
The situation satisfies the basic idea of necessity. A was faced with an immediate danger in which continuing on the existing course would inevitably endanger a much larger number of people. He therefore took a different course to prevent or avoid that danger.
A had no intention to run down Boat C. His purpose was to save the passengers of Boat B.
The Bare Act principle is:
“with the knowledge that it is likely to cause harm”
A knew that changing course could possibly result in Boat C being hit.
But Section 19 also requires:
“without any criminal intention to cause harm”
A did not intend to hit Boat C.
He acted:
“in good faith for the purpose of preventing or avoiding other harm to person or property.”
His purpose was to prevent the much more immediate danger to the passengers of Boat B.
Importance of “Question of Fact”
The Explanation to Section 19 becomes particularly important here. The court must determine as a matter of fact whether the danger to Boat B was sufficiently serious and imminent to justify A’s decision to take the risk concerning Boat C.
Therefore, A is not automatically protected simply because Boat B had more passengers than Boat C. The actual circumstances of the situation must justify the decision.
Illustration (b) — Section 19 BNS: Preventing the Spread of Fire
Simple Explanation
Suppose a large and dangerous fire breaks out in an area and is rapidly spreading from one house to another. A realises that if nothing is done, the fire may spread further and cause serious danger to human life and property.
To stop the fire from spreading, A deliberately pulls down or demolishes some houses that are in the path of the fire. A knows that by doing this, he will cause damage to those houses.
However, A does not demolish the houses with any criminal intention. He acts in good faith with the purpose of saving human lives or preventing greater damage to property.
Why Section 19 May Apply
A’s act is likely to cause harm because demolishing the houses causes property damage. But A’s purpose is not to destroy the houses for an unlawful reason. His purpose is to prevent the much greater harm that may result if the fire continues to spread.
This fits the language of Section 19:
“without any criminal intention to cause harm”
and:
“in good faith for the purpose of preventing or avoiding other harm to person or property.”
Importance of “Serious and Imminent” Danger
A will not automatically be protected merely because he claims that he was trying to stop a fire.
The Explanation to Section 19 requires the court to determine whether the harm being prevented was:
“of such a nature and so imminent”
that it was sufficient to justify or excuse the risk involved in demolishing the houses.
Therefore, the fire must present a sufficiently serious and immediate danger to human life or property.
Simple Example
Imagine a fire is spreading rapidly through a row of houses. If one particular house is immediately demolished, the fire may be stopped from reaching dozens of other houses and putting many people at risk.
If A demolishes that house in good faith to prevent the fire from spreading, and the circumstances show that the danger was serious and imminent, his act may be protected by Section 19 BNS.
Core Principle
This illustration demonstrates the doctrine of necessity:
A may cause some harm to prevent or avoid a more serious and imminent harm.
Here, damage to the houses is the harm caused, while saving human life or preventing the fire from causing greater destruction is the harm sought to be prevented.
Thus, if the statutory requirements are satisfied, A is not guilty merely because he intentionally caused damage to the houses in order to prevent the greater danger.
R vs. Dudley and Stephens (1884)
Case Facts
In R vs. Dudley and Stephens (1884), a ship was wrecked at sea, leaving Dudley, Stephens, Brooks and a young cabin boy, Richard Parker, stranded in a lifeboat. They had very little food and water and were left without proper means of survival for several days.
After prolonged starvation and extreme weakness, Dudley and Stephens decided that one person should be sacrificed so that the others could survive. They ultimately killed the young boy, Richard Parker, who was already extremely weak, and the survivors consumed his body to stay alive.
After some days, they were rescued and were subsequently prosecuted for murder. They argued that they had acted out of necessity and self-preservation.
Judgment
The court rejected the defence of necessity and held Dudley and Stephens guilty of murder.
The court held that self-preservation cannot justify the intentional killing of an innocent person. The fact that the accused were facing starvation and believed that killing the boy was necessary for their own survival did not provide a lawful defence to murder.
Lord Coleridge stated the principle:
“To preserve one’s life is generally speaking a duty, but it may be the highest duty to sacrifice it.”
The case therefore established that necessity is not an unlimited defence to criminal liability, particularly where an innocent person is intentionally killed merely for the purpose of saving oneself.
R vs. Martin (1989
Case Facts
Martin was legally barred from driving, but he drove a vehicle because of an urgent situation involving his family. He believed that his wife was experiencing a serious personal crisis and that immediate intervention was required. Even though Martin was aware that he was not legally permitted to drive, he chose to drive because he believed that the circumstances required him to do so.
During the trial, the judge took the view that necessity could not be pleaded as a defence to an absolute offence. As a result, Martin entered a guilty plea and was convicted. He subsequently appealed against the decision before the Court of Appeal.
Judgment
The Court of Appeal allowed Martin’s appeal and quashed his conviction. The Court held that the fact that an offence is classified as an absolute offence does not, by itself, prevent a person from relying upon the defence of necessity.
The Court recognised that necessity may arise when a person is confronted with a serious and immediate danger, whether the danger results from a threat made by another person or from the surrounding circumstances.
However, the defence is subject to limitations. The accused must have acted reasonably and proportionately in response to a genuine threat of death or serious physical injury.
Principle: The defence of necessity may be available even for an absolute offence where the circumstances genuinely require the accused to act reasonably and proportionately to avoid a serious and immediate danger.
Comparison Table: Section 18 vs Section 19 BNS
| Basis | Section 18 BNS | Section 19 BNS |
|---|---|---|
| Subject | Accident in doing a lawful act | Act likely to cause harm, but done to prevent or avoid other harm |
| Basic idea | Protects a person from criminal liability when harm occurs accidentally or by misfortune while performing a lawful act carefully. | Protects a person who knowingly takes a risk of causing harm in order to prevent or avoid another harm. |
| Knowledge of likely harm | The person must act without criminal intention or knowledge regarding the harmful result. | The person may have knowledge that the act is likely to cause harm. |
| Intention | There must be no criminal intention in doing the act. | There must be no criminal intention to cause the harm. |
| Nature of harm | Harm occurs accidentally or by misfortune. | Harm is a known or likely consequence of the act undertaken to prevent other harm. |
| Nature of the act | The person must be doing a lawful act. | The act is undertaken to prevent or avoid other harm to a person or property. |
| Manner and means | The act must be done “in a lawful manner by lawful means.” | Section 19 does not use the same requirement of “lawful manner” and “lawful means”; instead, it requires the act to be done “in good faith.” |
| Care and caution | The person must act with “proper care and caution.” | The focus is on good faith and whether the danger was sufficiently serious and imminent to justify the risk. |
| Purpose | The person is simply performing a lawful act, and the harmful result occurs accidentally. | The specific purpose is “preventing or avoiding other harm to person or property.” |
| Doctrine involved | Based mainly on the principle of accident without criminal fault. | Incorporates the doctrine of necessity. |
| Maxim | No specific maxim is central to the provision. | Associated with the maxim Quod necessitas non habet legem — “Necessity knows no law.” |
| Example | A is using a hatchet carefully; the head unexpectedly flies off and kills someone. If A exercised proper caution, the act is excusable. | A pulls down houses during a dangerous fire to prevent the fire from spreading and to save life or property. |
| Key requirement | Lawful act + lawful manner + lawful means + proper care and caution + accident/misfortune. | Knowledge of likely harm + no criminal intention + good faith + prevention/avoidance of other harm. |
| Explanation | No special explanation concerning imminence of danger. | The court decides as a question of fact whether the harm to be prevented was sufficiently serious and imminent to justify or excuse the risk. |
| Main principle | Accidental harm during careful performance of a lawful act is not necessarily criminal. | Knowingly taking a risk of harm may be excused when done in good faith to prevent or avoid another serious and imminent harm. |
FAQs
1. What is the main principle of Section 18 BNS?
Section 18 provides an exception for an act that causes harm by accident or misfortune, provided the person was doing a lawful act, in a lawful manner, by lawful means, and with proper care and caution, without criminal intention or knowledge.
2. What is the main principle of Section 19 BNS?
Section 19 deals with an act that a person knows is likely to cause harm, but the act is done without criminal intention and in good faith to prevent or avoid other harm to a person or property.
3. What is the difference between Section 18 and Section 19 BNS?
Section 18 deals with accidental harm during a lawful and careful act. Section 19 deals with a situation where a person knowingly takes a risk of causing harm to prevent or avoid another harm.
4. Does Section 19 require the person to be unaware of the possible harm?
No. Section 19 expressly covers an act done with “the knowledge that it is likely to cause harm.” However, the person must not have a criminal intention to cause that harm and must act in good faith to prevent or avoid other harm.
5. What is the doctrine of necessity under Section 19 BNS?
The doctrine of necessity means that in a situation involving serious danger, a person may take an action that causes or risks some harm when the purpose of doing so is to prevent or avoid another harm. The defence operates only when the statutory requirements of Section 19 are satisfied.
6. What is the maxim Quod necessitas non habet legem?
The Latin maxim Quod necessitas non habet legem is commonly translated as “Necessity knows no law.” It expresses the principle that necessity may, in appropriate circumstances, excuse an act that would otherwise attract criminal liability.
7. Does “Necessity knows no law” mean that a person can do anything in an emergency?
No. The maxim does not provide an unlimited defence. Under Section 19, the act must be done without criminal intention to cause harm, in good faith, and for the purpose of preventing or avoiding other harm to a person or property. The circumstances must also justify or excuse the risk taken.
8. What does “good faith” mean under Section 19?
It means that the person must act honestly and genuinely for the purpose of preventing or avoiding harm. A person cannot deliberately cause harm for an unlawful purpose and later use necessity as an excuse.
9. What does the Explanation to Section 19 mean by “question of fact”?
It means that the court must examine the particular circumstances of each case and determine whether the harm sought to be prevented was of such a nature and so imminent that it justified or excused the risk taken by the accused.
10. What are the important cases relating to the doctrine of necessity?
R v. Dudley and Stephens (1884) demonstrates that mere self-preservation is not sufficient to justify the intentional killing of an innocent person. R v. Martin (1989) recognised that necessity may operate in appropriate circumstances even in relation to an absolute offence, particularly where a person acts reasonably and proportionately to avoid a serious and immediate danger.