Article 31 to 37 | The Bharatiya Nyaya Sahinta 2023 | CHAPTER III GENERAL EXCEPTIONS

 The Bharatiya Nyaya Sahinta 2023 

CHAPTER III GENERAL EXCEPTIONS 

The Bharatiya Nyaya Sahinta 2023

Article 31
Communication made in good faith

No communication made in good faith is an offence by reason of any harm to the person to whom it is made, if it is made for the benefit of that person. Illustration. A, a surgeon, in good faith, communicates to a patient his opinion that he cannot live. The patient dies in consequence of the shock. A has committed no offence, though he knew it to be likely that the communication might cause the patient’s death. 

Article 32 
Act to which a person compelled by threats.

Except murder, and offences against the State punishable with death, nothing is an offence which is done by a person who is compelled to do it by threats, which, at the time of doing it, reasonably cause the apprehension that instant death to that person will otherwise be the consequence: Provided the person doing the act did not of his own accord, or from a reasonable apprehension of harm to himself short of instant death, place himself in the situation by which he became subject to such constraint. 

Explanation 1.—A person who, of his own accord, or by reason of a threat of being beaten, joins a gang of dacoits, knowing their character, is not entitled to the benefit of this exception, on the ground of his having been compelled by his associates to do anything that is an offence by law. 

Explanation 2.—A person seized by a gang of dacoits, and forced, by threat of instant death, to do a thing which is an offence by law; for example, a smith compelled to take his tools and to force the door of a house for the dacoits to enter and plunder it, is entitled to the benefit of this exception. 

Article 33
Act causing slight harm.

Nothing is an offence by reason that it causes, or that it is intended to cause, or that it is known to be likely to cause, any harm, if that harm is so slight that no person of ordinary sense and temper would complain of such harm. Of the right of private defence 

Article 34

Things done in private defence.

Nothing is an offence which is done in the exercise of the right of private defence. 

Article 35

Right of private defence of body and of property.

Every person has a right, subject to the restrictions contained in section 37, to defend— 

(a) his own body, and the body of any other person, against any offence affecting the human body; 

(b) the property, whether movable or immovable, of himself or of any other person, against any act which is an offence falling under the definition of theft, robbery, mischief or criminal trespass, or which is an attempt to commit theft, robbery, mischief or criminal trespass. 

Article 36
Right of private defence against act of a person with mental illness, etc.

When an act, which would otherwise be a certain offence, is not that offence, by reason of the youth, the want of maturity of understanding, the mental illness or the intoxication of the person doing that act, or by reason of any misconception on the part of that person, every person has the same right of private defence against that act which he would have if the act were that offence. 

Illustrations. 

(a) Z, under the influence of mental illness, attempts to kill A; Z is guilty of no offence. But A has the same right of private defence which he would have if Z were sane. 

(b) A enters by night a house which he is legally entitled to enter. Z, in good faith, taking A for a house-breaker, attacks A. Here Z, by attacking A under this misconception, commits no offence. But A has the same right of private defence against Z, which he would have if Z were not acting under that misconception. 

Article 37 
Acts against which there is no right of private defence.

(1) There is no right of private defence,–– 

(a) against an act which does not reasonably cause the apprehension of death or of grievous hurt, if done, or attempted to be done, by a public servant acting in good faith under colour of his office, though that act, may not be strictly justifiable by law; 

(b) against an act which does not reasonably cause the apprehension of death or of grievous hurt, if done, or attempted to be done, by the direction of a public servant acting in good faith under colour of his office, though that direction may not be strictly justifiable by law; 

(c) in cases in which there is time to have recourse to the protection of the public authorities. 

(2) The right of private defence in no case extends to the inflicting of more harm than it is necessary to inflict for the purpose of defence. 

Explanation 1.—A person is not deprived of the right of private defence against an act done, or attempted to be done, by a public servant, as such, unless he knows or has reason to believe, that the person doing the act is such public servant. 

Explanation 2.—A person is not deprived of the right of private defence against an act done, or attempted to be done, by the direction of a public servant, unless he knows, or has reason to believe, that the person doing the act is acting by such direction, or unless such person states the authority under which he acts, or if he has authority in writing, unless he produces such authority, if demanded.