The article is written by Kartik Bohra from Symbiosis Law School, Hyderabad. In this article, various provisions and applicability of Section 95 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 with the landmark judgments have been discussed.
Table of Contents
Introduction
Section 95 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (hereinafter referred to as IPC) provides for the private defence for trivial or trifle acts. It states that “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.” The provision expressly discards the conviction of the accused in matters which are trivial and petty in nature and no man of prudence and ordinary nature would seek to complain against such acts before the court of law. This section is based on the principle of “de minimis non-curat lex” which provides that the “law is not concerned with trifles.” This provision is enshrined under the code to minimise the burden on the Indian courts with trifles, insignificant offences, and marginal wrongs in the society.
Section 95 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860, will come to picture only when “the act complained amount falls within the definition of an offence and no person of ordinary sense and temper would complain of it. However, whether an act that amounts to an offence is trivial or trifle and if comes within Section 95 of the Code, would largely depend upon the facts and circumstances of the case, the relationship between the parties, nature of injury caused to the victim, and the intention to commit an offence. It cannot be measured solely on the basis of physical and other injuries caused to the victim by the act.
Burden of proof
The provisions enshrined under Section 105 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 provides that “the court shall presume the absence of such circumstances of those which bring the case of the accused within the meaning of General Exceptions of the Indian Penal Code.” This section also puts the burden on the accused person to prove the circumstantial existence of certain facts associated in the case. Therefore, if the accused is taking any general exception given under the provisions of IPC then it is the duty of the accused to prove before the court otherwise the court will presume the absence of such circumstances in the case.
In the case of Neelam Mahajan v. Commissioner of Police (1994), the Delhi High Court had observed that the burden of proof lies on the accused person if he takes any of the general exceptions mentioned under the IPC and Section 105 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 to provide for a presumption of the absence of such facts and circumstances.
Interpretation of the term ‘Harm’
Trivial acts generally mean “lack of seriousness or importance” in the ordinary sense. It propounds that the law should not consider trivial or trifle matters. The term ‘harm’ is not defined under the provisions of IPC. However, it is interpreted in various parts of IPC as hurt, loss, injury, disability etc. It can be physical harm or mental harm to an individual. The term ‘harm’ used under the provision of Section 95 of IPC has wide-ranging connotations.
Therefore, the harm caused to a person is so slight in nature that no person of ordinary prudence would complain about it before the police or the court of law. For example, no man can pass through a crowd without dashing against somebody or without treading on somebody’s toes and hence, no man of reasonable sense would complain of such small annoyance caused to him.
Social welfare enactments
There are various offences under the Penal Code where an offence seems to be trivial in nature but the law imposes a penalty on such acts. It is believed that under the concept of mens rea, there are various petty crimes which are recognized as offences under the Code to ensure public and social welfare. Therefore, it is observed that “the question arises as to whether the argument of triviality can be recognized in relation to such offences.
There may be cases where the harm or damages is so small that it cannot be acknowledged but if it has been caused by an act of negligence then parties involved in such acts are liable to pay the fine or compensation. For example, violation of various traffic rules such as parking a vehicle in a red zone area or exceeding the speed limit may not cause serious harm but considered as an offence under IPC and the party cannot take the defence of triviality under Section 96 of IPC.
In the case of Jagdish Prasad v. State of Uttar Pradesh (1966), it was argued that the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1955 posed a heavier penalty for a second offence under the Act, where the provision of the first offence is of a serious nature and the nature of the second offence is regarded as trivial or insignificant. Therefore, the law should impose a lesser penalty on the second offence. The Supreme Court discarded the claim of the petitioner and held that there was no effective basis to differentiate between minor and serious offences under the Act as it provided the same punishments for both the offences. Thus, if the punishment for the offence is the same then it would be assumed as an offence of the same magnitude.
In the case of State of Madhya Pradesh v. Mahadeo (1972), the Madhya Pradesh High Court held that Section 95 of IPC is significant in order to quash a conviction of illegal possession of irrelevant railway property, for the acquittal of persons accused of omitting acts which contravened the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988.
In State of Karnataka v. Lbo Medicals, the accused was charged under Section 3(2) (c) of the Essential Commodities Act, 1955 for selling drugs at prices in excess of the determined price. The court held that Section 95 of the IPC would not apply in the case as the act is of a serious nature and cannot be constituted as trivial under the provisions of the Code.
Offences against women’s modesty
There is a long debate on the issue of whether the offences against the modesty of women is considered as insignificant or trivial in nature and the accused is not charged under the relevant provisions of IPC. However, the issue has been resolved as it is observed that the offences against women’s modesty cannot be recognized as trivial in nature given the women’s ignominy and trauma. It is believed that Section 95 of IPC would not apply under any circumstances where an offence is committed against the modesty of a woman.
In the case of Rupan Deol Bajaj v. KPS Gill (1995), the accused was Director General of Police who patted the posterior of the victim at a dinner party. Here the victim was an IAS officer who complained of outraging modesty. The Supreme Court held that though the act looks like a minor act it has a greater impact. So the harm caused to the victim is not slight harm. Therefore the court rejected the defence of the accused under Section 95 of IPC and the accused was convicted. The court further stated that the act was done with the ulterior motive and intention which can be seen by the acts of the accused person. The conduct of the accused we can deduce the requisite culpable intention. Even if we had presumed he had no such intention he must be attributed with such knowledge, as the alleged act was committed by him in the presence of a gathering comprising the elite of the society. So the court allowed the appeal.
In the case of Deputy Inspector General v. Samuthiram (2013), the Kerala High Court held that sexual harassment like eve-teasing of women amounts to infringement of Article 14 and Article 15 of the Indian Constitution. Eve teasing today has become pernicious, horrid and a disgusting practice. Therefore, it does not amount to a trivial act and the offence is punishable under the relevant provisions of IPC.
Compounding of trivial offences
Compounding of offences generally means resolution or pardon between the parties to the proceedings. The Code of Criminal Procedure provides a list of substantive offences which can be compounded by the parties in criminal law. It is basically legal provisions enshrined under the criminal jurisprudence to establish a compromise between the parties, where the victim or the complainant agrees to settle the case and to drop charges against the accused person. However, it is not possible to compound the offences of serious and heinous nature. Therefore, it is noted that trivial offences can be compoundable without or with the permission of the court of law.
In the case Bhagyan Das v. State of Uttarakhand & Anr. (2019), the Supreme Court held that the court of law has the discretion to reject a plea of bargaining or compound of an offence in the interest of society and where an offence has a social impact, even if the offence is compoundable under the provisions of Section 320 of CrPC.
In Gian Singh v. State of Punjab (2012), the Supreme Court observed that compounding power should be vested by the court of law considering the merits of the case, nature of an offence and its impact on the society. Therefore, the court has discretion for quashing of a plea in such cases.
In Biswabahan v. Gopen Chandra (1967), the accused felled some green plants and trees illegally by accident and ulterior motive and turned those trees into firewood. He later paid Rs. 50 as compensation to the authorities and compounded the crime. The issue arose here whether such compounding of an offence is valid in the eyes of the law. It was argued on behalf of the petitioner that the offence committed was of such a trivial nature that compensation paid by the accused person is adequate enough to resolve it and put an end to the matter without any adjudication from the court of law.
The court discarded the claim of the petitioner and observed that the person accused of the crime must be punishable before the court of law and the accusation sought shall result in conviction or acquittal where there is no provision under the code to compound the offence even if the matter is trivial in nature.
Judicial pronouncements
In Veeda Menezes v. Yusuf Khan and Anr. (1966), there was a dispute between the neighbours where the first respondent threw a file of papers at the appellant’s husband which missed him but hit the appellant on the elbow, causing a scratch.Here the appellant stated there was a physical injury caused by the respondent. Here, the respondent pleaded the defence under Section 95 of IPC. Here the lower court convicted the accused under Section 323 of IPC for causing simple hurt. Subsequently, the case went on to appeal.
In the State of Maharashtra v. Taher Bhai (1978), the defendants were caught while baking hard-boiled sugar cakes, and they were charged under the offence and convicted by the judge on the ground that they were sellers of cakes bought from others. The High Court observed that Section 95 would have no application such offence as it is an offence committed under the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act. The High Court set aside the acquittal order and referred the case for trial to the magistrate.
Public Prosecutor v. Kalevala Satyanarayana (1975), the High Court held that the accused cannot claim the defence under Section 95 of IPC when an accused has been found guilty of misbranding pursuant to the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1955 because misbranding of a product is a serious offence.
In Kishori Mohan v. State of Bihar (1976), the non-gazetted employees of a Block Development Office went on strike to press their demands. However, the complainant did not join the strike with others and continued to work. This has caused infuriation among other employees. When the complainant was returning from the factory, the accused person made fun of him by garlanding him with shoes. The photograph was also taken but not published anywhere. The court held that Section 95 of IPC is not applicable as it was not a trivial act under the provisions of IPC.
In Bichitrananda Naik v. State of Orissa (1978), the authorities have conducted saponification value and the Bellier test in which the accused person’s mustard oil surpasses the allowable limit under the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1955. The High Court of Orissa held that the petitioner can claim immunity under Section 95 of IPC as the mustard oil specimen does not have the standard purities provided by the law, thus upholding the conviction of the accused.
Conclusion
Section 95 was incorporated under IPC to avoid the multiplicity of suits because of trivial matters before the court. The law is very clear and lays down that trivial acts should not be considered as an offence within the meaning of criminal law and the accused person has a right to claim defence under Section 95 for an offence which is insignificant in nature. It is based on the principle of “de minimis non-curat lex” which provides that law does not take trifle acts into consideration and the complainant is not allowed to seek relief for such acts.
However, the injury or harm caused to the complainant must not be of serious nature and no reasonable man would complain of such small annoyances before the court of law. The provision is enshrined under IPC to prevent the penalisation of negligible wrongs or offences of trivial nature or character. It is generally noted that no man can pass through a crowded street without clashing against somebody and no reasonable man would complain of such small annoyances.
References
- https://www.scconline.com/blog/post/tag/section-95-ipc/
- http://lawcommissionofindia.nic.in/reports/report237.pdf
- https://www.legalbites.in/trivial-acts/#_ftn7
- http://youngarenalitigators.blogspot.com/2016/09/trivial-acts-under-indian-penal-code.html
LawSikho has created a telegram group for exchanging legal knowledge, referrals and various opportunities. You can click on this link and join:
