BNS Section 30: Act done in good faith for benefit of a person without consent (formerly IPC 92)

Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 · in force from 1 July 2024

BNS 30: Act done in good faith for benefit of a person without consent

From 1 July 2024

Nothing is an offence by reason of any harm which it may cause to a person for whose benefit it is done in good faith, even without that person’s consent, if the circumstances are such that it is impossible for that person to signify consent, or if that person is incapable of giving consent, and has no guardian or other person in lawful charge of him from whom it is possible to obtain consent in time for the thing to be done with benefit:

Provided that this exception shall not extend to––

(a) the intentional causing of death, or the attempting to cause death;

(b) the doing of anything which the person doing it knows to be likely to cause death, for any purpose other than the preventing of death or grievous hurt, or the curing of any grievous disease or infirmity;

(c) the voluntary causing of hurt, or to the attempting to cause hurt, for any purpose other than the preventing of death or hurt;

(d) the abetment of any offence, to the committing of which offence it would not extend.

Illustrations.

(1) Z is thrown from his horse, and is insensible. A, a surgeon, finds that Z requires to be trepanned. A, not intending Z’s death, but in good faith, for Z’s benefit, performs the trepan before Z recovers his power of judging for himself. A has committed no offence.

(2) Z is carried off by a tiger. A fires at the tiger knowing it to be likely that the shot may kill Z, but not intending to kill Z, and in good faith intending Z’s benefit. A’s bullet gives Z a mortal wound. A has committed no offence.

(3) A, a surgeon, sees a child suffer an accident which is likely to prove fatal unless an operation be immediately performed. There is no time to apply to the child’s guardian. A performs the operation in spite of the entreaties of the child, intending, in good faith, the child’s benefit. A has committed no offence.

(4) A is in a house which is on fire, with Z, a child. People below hold out a blanket. A drops the child from the house top, knowing it to be likely that the fall may kill the child, but not intending to kill the child, and intending, in good faith, the child’s benefit. Here, even if the child is killed by the fall, A has committed no offence.

Explanation.—Mere pecuniary benefit is not benefit within the meaning of sections 26, 27 and this section.

What it replaced in the IPC

BNS 30 ← IPC 92 · Act done in good faith for benefit of a person without consentNo change

BPR&D's comparison records no change in the text, only a new number.

Printed in both official correspondence tables (BPR&D and NCRB).

Nothing is an offence by reason of any harm which it may cause to a person for whose benefit it is done in good faith, even without that person's consent, if the circumstances are such that it is impossible for that person to signify consent, or if that person is incapable of giving consent, and has no guardian or other person in lawful charge of him from whom it is possible to obtain consent in time for the thing to be done with benefit: Provided—

Provisos. First.—That this exception shall not extend to the intentional causing of death, or the attempting to cause death;

Secondly.—That this exception shall not extend to the doing of anything which the person doing it knows to be likely to cause death, for any purpose other than the preventing of death or grievous hurt, or the curing of any grievous disease or infirmity;

Thirdly.—That this exception shall not extend to the voluntary causing of hurt, or to the attempting to cause hurt, for any purpose other than the preventing of death or hurt;

Fourthly.—That this exception shall not extend to the abetment of any offence, to the committing of which offence it would not extend.

Illustrations

(a) Z is thrown from his horse, and is insensible. A, a surgeon, finds that Z requires to be trepanned. A, not intending Z's death, but in good faith, for Z's benefit, performs the trepan before Z recovers his power of judging for himself. A has committed no offence.

(b) Z is carried off by a tiger. A fires at the tiger knowing it to be likely that the shot may kill Z, but not intending to kill Z, and in good faith intending Z's benefit. A's ball gives Z a mortal wound. A has committed no offence.

(c) A, a surgeon, sees a child suffer an accident which is likely to prove fatal unless an operation be immediately performed.

There is not time to apply to the child's guardian. A performs the operation in spite of the entreaties of the child, intending, in good faith, the child's benefit. A has committed no offence.

(d) A is in a house which is on fire, with Z, a child. People below hold out a blanket. A drops the child from the housestop, knowing it to be likely that the fall may kill the child, but not intending to kill the child, and intending, in good faith, the child's benefit. Here, even if the child is killed by the fall, A has committed no offence.

Explanation.—Mere pecuniary benefit is not benefit within the meaning of sections 88, 89 and 92.

IPC 92 on its own page →

Which one applies

An offence is governed by the law in force when it was committed. An offence committed before 1 July 2024 is charged and punished under the IPC; one committed on or after that date, under the BNS. Section 358 of the BNS, which repeals the IPC, preserves every liability and proceeding already incurred under it.

Read BNS section 358 →

Judgments decided under IPC 92

They remain the law on IPC 92. Where the provision changed in the move, read what changed before relying on one for an offence after 1 July 2024.

Sources

BPR&D is the Bureau of Police Research & Development (Ministry of Home Affairs); NCRB the National Crime Records Bureau. Their correspondence tables are training aids, not law. This page is general information, not legal advice on any case; the bare Acts as published by the Government of India are the authority.