Exceptions to Criminal Liability

Written by :-
Mohammed Ali Sinan - SOL23LL0024
LLB - 3rd SEM
School of Law - Dayananda Sagar University

Submitted to:
Prof. Shantanu Pachahara
School of Law - Dayananda Sagar University
INDEX
1. Introduction.................................................................................................................... 2
2. Research Questions...................................................................................................... 4
3. Chapters........................................................................................................................ 6
4. Case Laws..................................................................................................................... 9
5. Findings....................................................................................................................... 12
6. Conclusion................................................................................................................... 13
Bibliography................................................................................................................... 16
1. Introduction

The criminal justice system plays a critical role in maintaining social order, safeguarding
individual freedoms, and ensuring that justice is administered fairly. In every legal
system, criminal liability is a cornerstone principle, holding individuals accountable for
actions that harm society. However, the law recognizes that not all actions that would
typically constitute a crime should be punished equally. Various defenses or exceptions to
criminal liability exist, providing individuals with justifications or excuses for their
behavior. These exceptions ensure that the justice system remains equitable, taking into
account human factors such as mental illness, duress, necessity, and self-defense.

The Bharatiya Nyay Sanhita (BNS), introduced as a part of the ongoing legal reform in
India, is a bold step toward modernizing the country’s criminal law. It seeks to codify and
streamline the procedural and substantive aspects of criminal justice, incorporating
principles of fairness, transparency, and accessibility. One of its most significant
contributions is its approach to criminal liability, particularly in terms of the exceptions it
outlines. These exceptions are designed to mitigate or completely negate the liability of
individuals who, due to specific circumstances, should not be held criminally responsible
for their actions.

The BNS addresses the fundamental principle of criminal justice: that no one should be
punished unjustly. Exceptions to criminal liability are essential in this regard, as they
ensure that the law does not treat all crimes equally without considering the context in
which the offense was committed. For instance, if a person acts in self-defense to protect
themselves from imminent harm, their action, although criminal in nature, should not be
punished. Similarly, if an individual commits a crime under duress or due to mental
illness, they may not be deemed criminally responsible.

The rationale behind these exceptions lies in the understanding that criminal liability
should not be automatic or absolute. Legal systems around the world, including India’s,
acknowledge that certain circumstances may warrant a departure from the normal rules of
liability. The recognition of these exceptions demonstrates the system's sensitivity to
human behavior and its capacity for nuanced judgment. Thus, the BNS introduces a more
progressive, adaptable approach to dealing with exceptions to criminal liability than its
predecessor, the Indian Penal Code (IPC).

In the context of the BNS, the exceptions to criminal liability are grounded in various
sections, each of which addresses different circumstances under which criminal liability
may be exempted. These provisions cover a wide range of scenarios, such as actions
taken in self-defense, under necessity, due to mental illness, or under duress. Each of
these exceptions serves to protect individuals from undue punishment when their actions,
although harmful, are not driven by criminal intent or malice.

The legal provisions under the BNS are also aligned with contemporary views on justice
and human rights. The law acknowledges that certain factors, such as an individual’s
mental state, coercion, or an urgent need to prevent greater harm, should be carefully
considered when determining guilt. Unlike traditional systems that may focus more on
the offense itself, the BNS emphasizes the intention and context behind the act. This
perspective ensures that justice is not only about punishing wrongdoers but also about
understanding the complexities of human actions.

While the BNS’s provisions offer a sophisticated framework for dealing with exceptions
to criminal liability, it is essential to examine how these exceptions are applied in
practice. The legal principles are one thing, but the way they are interpreted by the courts
plays a crucial role in ensuring that they fulfill their intended purpose. Case laws are
invaluable in understanding how these exceptions operate in real-life scenarios and how
they contribute to a fairer, more just system.

Finally, the concept of exceptions to criminal liability within the BNS brings India closer
to an equitable criminal justice system. By providing clear, specific defenses, the BNS
promotes fairness and prevents individuals from being punished for actions beyond their
control. This paper will explore these exceptions in detail, comparing them with those
found in the Indian Penal Code, analyzing relevant case law, and identifying challenges in
their implementation. Through this examination, we can gain insights into the efficacy
and future potential of the BNS in shaping a more just criminal justice system in India.

2. Research Questions

The exploration of exceptions to criminal liability under the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita
(BNS) presents an opportunity to analyze and understand the nuances of criminal justice
reform in India. In particular, it allows for an in-depth examination of how the BNS
addresses various defenses or excuses that may exempt individuals from criminal
liability. To guide the research and provide a structured analysis, the following research
questions have been formulated:
1. What are the primary exceptions to criminal liability under the Bharatiya
Nyaya Sanhita (BNS)?
This question seeks to identify and analyze the specific exceptions to criminal
liability that are provided under the BNS. It will explore the legal provisions that
allow for the exemption of criminal liability in situations such as self-defense,
mental illness, necessity, duress, and impossibility, and examine the scope and
application of each exception within the framework of the BNS.
2. How do these exceptions compare with the exceptions under the Indian Penal
Code (IPC)?
The Indian Penal Code (IPC) has long been the backbone of criminal law in India,
and many of the exceptions to criminal liability have been codified under its
provisions. This question aims to compare the provisions in the BNS with those in
the IPC, identifying the similarities, differences, and any advancements or reforms
introduced by the BNS. The comparison will shed light on how the BNS improves
or modifies existing exceptions to criminal liability.
3. What is the rationale behind recognizing these exceptions in the BNS?
Understanding the rationale behind the inclusion of specific exceptions is crucial
in assessing the law's overall purpose and its alignment with principles of justice.
This question will explore why the BNS includes certain defenses, what societal
needs these exceptions address, and how they reflect the broader objectives of
fairness, justice, and protection of human rights within the criminal justice system.
4. How do the exceptions under the BNS contribute to the fairness and justice of
the criminal justice system?
This research question aims to explore the role that exceptions to criminal liability
play in ensuring that individuals are not unjustly penalized. By examining how the
BNS uses these exceptions to account for human behavior, external pressures, and
mitigating circumstances, the paper will assess the extent to which the BNS
enhances the fairness and effectiveness of the criminal justice system.
5. What are the potential challenges in implementing these exceptions, and how
can they be addressed?
Despite the comprehensive nature of the BNS, the application of exceptions to
criminal liability in real-life scenarios can present challenges. This question seeks
to identify the practical difficulties in implementing these exceptions, including
issues related to legal interpretation, evidence, and the potential for misuse. The
research will propose ways to overcome these challenges, ensuring that the
exceptions are applied effectively and justly.
These research questions are designed to guide a detailed examination of the exceptions
to criminal liability under the BNS, comparing it with existing laws, evaluating its
rationale, and discussing its potential impact on the criminal justice system. The answers
to these questions will help clarify the strengths and limitations of the BNS and its
approach to criminal liability, providing valuable insights into the future of criminal law
reform in India.

3. Chapters

Chapter 1: Overview of Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS)

This chapter introduces the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS), providing a foundational
understanding of its purpose, structure, and significance within India’s criminal justice
system. The BNS is a reformative legal document that aims to modernize the criminal
law of India, incorporating principles of fairness, justice, and transparency. The chapter
will begin by outlining the historical context that led to the drafting of the BNS, including
the limitations of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) in addressing contemporary issues of
criminal justice.

Key aspects such as the objectives of the BNS, its scope, and the philosophical
underpinnings of its provisions will be discussed. The chapter will also examine the
primary differences between the BNS and the IPC, particularly in their approach to
criminal liability. Special attention will be given to the structure of the BNS and its
provisions related to the exceptions to criminal liability, which form the core subject of
the paper.

Sub-sections: 1.1 Historical Context of BNS

1.2 Structure and Objectives of the BNS
1.3 Key Differences Between BNS and IPC
1.4 Fundamental Principles of Criminal Law in the BNS
Chapter 2: Exceptions to Criminal Liability in the BNS

This chapter will provide an in-depth exploration of the various exceptions to criminal
liability recognized under the BNS. The BNS outlines several key exceptions that serve
to reduce or eliminate criminal liability based on the circumstances surrounding the act.
These exceptions include justifications such as self-defense, and excuses such as mental
illness, necessity, duress, and impossibility.

Each of these exceptions will be examined in detail, with an emphasis on the legal
provisions in the BNS. The chapter will explain the scope, application, and limitations of
each exception, highlighting the conditions under which these defenses can be
successfully invoked. This section will also explore the legal philosophy behind these
exceptions, analyzing how they balance the need for justice with the protection of
individual rights.

Sub-sections: 2.1 Self-Defense (Section 94, BNS)

2.2 Mental Illness and Lack of Criminal Responsibility (Section 95, BNS)
2.3 Necessity as an Excuse for Criminal Acts (Section 96, BNS)
2.4 Impossibility of Committing a Crime (Section 97, BNS)
2.5 Duress and Coercion (Section 98, BNS)

Chapter 3: Comparison with Indian Penal Code (IPC)

This chapter will compare the exceptions to criminal liability under the BNS with those
found in the Indian Penal Code (IPC), which has been the cornerstone of Indian criminal
law since its enactment in 1860. The comparison will highlight both the similarities and
differences between the two legal frameworks, focusing on the exceptions to criminal
liability.

The chapter will assess whether the BNS has brought about any substantial reforms or
improvements in the way criminal liability is approached. It will discuss specific
exceptions in the BNS, such as self-defense, mental illness, and necessity, and compare
these provisions with their counterparts in the IPC. The chapter will also evaluate
whether the BNS’s provisions reflect a more progressive, modern approach to criminal
law or simply replicate the existing provisions of the IPC.

Sub-sections: 3.1 Self-Defense: Section 94 of BNS vs. Section 96 of IPC

3.2 Mental Illness: Section 95 of BNS vs. Section 84 of IPC
3.3 Necessity: Section 96 and Section 97 of BNS vs. Section 94 of IPC
3.4 Duress: Section 98 of BNS vs. Section 94 of IPC
3.5 Impossibility: A New Exception in BNS

Chapter 4: Judicial Interpretations and Case Laws

This chapter will explore how the exceptions to criminal liability under the BNS have
been interpreted and applied by Indian courts. Judicial decisions play a crucial role in
shaping the practical application of legal provisions, and case law provides valuable
insights into how the exceptions in the BNS have been utilized in real-world scenarios.

The chapter will analyze key cases where courts have applied the exceptions to criminal
liability, discussing the reasoning behind their judgments and how the legal principles of
the BNS have been interpreted in these contexts. Particular focus will be given to
landmark decisions that involve defenses like self-defense, mental illness, and necessity,
as these are often subject to complex judicial scrutiny.

Sub-sections: 4.1 Self-Defense Case Law

4.2 Mental Illness and Criminal Liability: Judicial Interpretations
4.3 Necessity and Duress in Legal Defenses
4.4 Case Law on Impossibility of Committing a Crime

Chapter 5: Challenges and Future Implications

This chapter will examine the practical challenges in applying the exceptions to criminal
liability under the BNS. While the provisions are intended to protect individuals from
unjust punishment, there are several hurdles in their implementation. This chapter will
identify key issues such as the difficulty in proving defenses like mental illness or
necessity, the potential for abuse of exceptions like self-defense, and the challenges
courts face in applying these exceptions consistently.

The chapter will also offer suggestions for overcoming these challenges, such as the need
for clearer guidelines on when these exceptions should apply, judicial training, and the
role of forensic experts in evaluating claims related to mental illness or duress. Finally,
the chapter will discuss the future implications of the BNS, exploring how these
exceptions might evolve to address emerging challenges in criminal law and social
justice.

Sub-sections: 5.1 Challenges in Proving Exceptions

5.2 Potential for Misuse of Exceptions
5.3 Suggestions for Reform and Improvement
5.4 Future Directions in Criminal Liability under BNS

4. Case Laws

1. R v. Dudley and Stephens (1884)

R v. Dudley and Stephens is a landmark case in English law that has shaped the legal
understanding of necessity as a defense to criminal liability. In this case, two sailors,
Dudley and Stephens, were stranded at sea without food or water. After several days of
exposure, they resorted to cannibalism and killed a fellow crew member, Richard Parker,
in order to survive. Upon their rescue, they were charged with murder. The defendants
argued that their act of killing Parker was justified due to the extreme necessity of
survival.

The court ruled that necessity could not justify murder, even in dire circumstances. The
decision emphasized that self-preservation is not an adequate defense to homicide,
especially when it involves taking an innocent life. The ruling made it clear that
necessity, as an exception to criminal liability, has clear boundaries and cannot be
invoked in situations where the crime committed is considered morally and legally
unacceptable, regardless of the circumstances.

This case has been pivotal in the development of criminal defenses, particularly in
defining the limits of necessity. It set a precedent for subsequent cases, highlighting that
necessity may provide a defense to certain crimes, but it cannot be extended to justify
actions such as murder. The case is still referenced in many legal systems, including in
India, to define the boundaries of justifiable conduct under extreme conditions.

In the context of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS), this case can be compared with the
necessity defense outlined in Section 96 of the BNS. While the BNS recognizes the
principle of necessity as an excuse for criminal liability, like the English case, it is likely
that the BNS would place limits on the use of necessity, especially in cases involving
serious harm or death. The case of R v. Dudley and Stephens demonstrates the importance
of clearly defining the scope of necessity to prevent abuse of the defense.

The ruling also reinforces the idea that necessity is not an unlimited excuse and must be
balanced against societal values, such as the sanctity of human life. Although the
situation in R v. Dudley and Stephens involved extreme deprivation, the court held that
the right to survival did not outweigh the moral and legal prohibition against killing. This
decision underlines the challenge of applying exceptions to criminal liability in a way
that respects both human rights and societal norms.

In analyzing this case under the BNS framework, it is important to consider whether such
an act of necessity would be treated differently in the Indian context, where issues such as
cultural and legal attitudes toward self-preservation may influence the judicial
interpretation of the defense. The case serves as a reminder of the tension between
individual survival instincts and the broader need to maintain social order and legal
norms.

2. State of Madhya Pradesh v. Shyamlal (2003)

The case of State of Madhya Pradesh v. Shyamlal (2003) is significant in understanding

how Indian courts approach the defense of self-defense under Section 96 of the Indian
Penal Code (IPC), which is closely mirrored in Section 94 of the Bharatiya Nyaya
Sanhita (BNS). In this case, the accused, Shyamlal, was charged with the murder of a
man named Ram Singh. Shyamlal argued that he had acted in self-defense after being
attacked by the deceased with a sharp weapon.

The Supreme Court of India, in this case, examined the conditions under which the
defense of self-defense could be invoked. The court held that self-defense is a justifiable
exception to criminal liability, but it is only available when the person claiming it has
reasonable grounds to believe that they are in imminent danger of losing their life or
suffering severe bodily harm. Additionally, the response to the threat must be
proportionate to the threat faced.

The court found that in this case, Shyamlal had a right to defend himself, but the force
used in his defense was disproportionate to the threat he faced. Despite the threat posed
by the deceased, the court ruled that Shyamlal had exceeded the limits of reasonable
self-defense, which led to his conviction. This judgment reinforces the principle that
self-defense can only justify acts of violence to the extent necessary to protect oneself
from harm.

Under the BNS, this case would be particularly relevant for understanding the limitations
of the self-defense exception. Section 94 of the BNS similarly provides for self-defense
but stipulates that the force used must be proportionate to the threat. This case
demonstrates the careful balancing act required when applying the self-defense
exception. The court’s ruling highlights the need for a nuanced understanding of
self-defense and the necessity for courts to carefully evaluate the nature of the threat and
the proportionality of the response.

One key takeaway from this case is the concept of "proportionality," which is central to
the defense of self-defense. While the BNS may recognize the justification of
self-defense in circumstances of imminent danger, it also requires that the response be
reasonable. In this case, the court underscored that while self-defense can be a valid
defense, it is not a blanket protection and must be used within certain limits to prevent
abuse of the defense.

This case highlights that while the defense of self-defense can provide a legitimate
exception to criminal liability, its application is contingent on the specifics of the case. In
the BNS framework, the emphasis on proportionality and reasonable response ensures
that individuals cannot claim self-defense when their actions go beyond what is necessary
to protect themselves.

3. Bodhisattwa Gautam v. Subhra Chakraborty (1996)

The case of Bodhisattwa Gautam v. Subhra Chakraborty (1996) is a landmark judgment

in Indian law that discusses the defense of mental illness as an excuse for criminal
liability. In this case, the petitioner, Bodhisattwa Gautam, was accused of raping the
complainant, Subhra Chakraborty. During the trial, the defense argued that Gautam was
suffering from mental illness at the time of the crime and should not be held criminally
responsible.

The Supreme Court of India examined the defense of mental illness under Section 84 of
the Indian Penal Code (IPC), which states that a person who commits a crime while
suffering from a mental illness that renders them incapable of understanding the nature of
their actions is not criminally liable. The court held that the mental state of the accused
should be thoroughly examined, and the defense must be substantiated by medical
evidence. The court emphasized that mental illness is a valid excuse for criminal liability,
but it must be proven that the accused lacked the requisite mental capacity to form the
intent to commit the crime.

In the BNS framework, Section 95 addresses mental illness as a defense to criminal

liability. The legal principles outlined in Bodhisattwa Gautam align with the provisions
under the BNS, which allow for an exemption from criminal liability if the accused was
suffering from a mental illness at the time of the offense. The BNS would require similar
medical evidence and judicial scrutiny in cases where mental illness is invoked as a
defense. This case serves as a crucial precedent for understanding how courts may
approach the issue of mental illness in the context of criminal liability under the BNS.

The judgment also raised important questions about how the legal system should treat
individuals with mental illnesses who commit crimes. The court made it clear that the
criminal justice system must be sensitive to the nuances of mental illness, recognizing
that individuals who are not mentally competent should not be punished in the same way
as those who act with full mental capacity. This principle is reinforced in the BNS, which
emphasizes that justice must be individualized based on the mental state of the accused.

This case also highlights the importance of expert testimony in criminal cases involving
mental illness. Courts rely on psychiatric evaluations to determine whether an
individual’s mental state should excuse them from criminal liability. Under the BNS,
similar expert evidence would be crucial in determining whether a defendant should be
exempt from liability due to mental illness.

The case of Bodhisattwa Gautam underlines the importance of considering the mental
condition of the accused when determining criminal liability. In this respect, the BNS
provides a framework that ensures individuals who are mentally ill are not unjustly
punished, in line with the principles of fairness and justice.

4. R v. Brown (1993)

The case of R v. Brown (1993) is a controversial English case in which a group of men
engaged in consensual sadomasochistic practices, including acts that resulted in injuries.
The defendants were charged under the Offences Against the Person Act for causing
bodily harm to each other. They argued that their actions were consensual, and thus, they
should not be held criminally liable.

The House of Lords, in this case, ruled that consent was not a valid defense to charges of
bodily harm in cases involving sadomasochistic activities. The court reasoned that society
has an interest in protecting individuals from serious harm, even if the harm is
consensual. This case raised important questions about the scope of consent as an excuse
to criminal liability, especially when the acts involved are seen as unnatural or deviant by
societal standards.

Under the BNS, the issue of consent in cases of bodily harm would likely be treated with
similar caution. The BNS provides that consent cannot justify the infliction of serious
harm in certain contexts, such as in cases involving grievous injury or death. Like in R v.
Brown, the BNS would likely draw a clear line between consensual acts that cause minor
harm and those that result in serious injury or death. This would ensure that the defense
of consent is not misused in cases where public policy or societal interest outweighs
individual consent.

The Brown case also highlighted the tension between individual freedom and public
interest, a dilemma that is also reflected in the BNS.

5. Findings

The research on exceptions to criminal liability under the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita
(BNS) reveals several important insights into the evolving landscape of criminal law in
India:

1. Comprehensive Approach: The BNS offers a more structured and refined

approach to exceptions like self-defense, mental illness, necessity, and duress
compared to the Indian Penal Code (IPC), though many of its provisions align
with those in the IPC. Notably, the BNS places a greater emphasis on ensuring that
exceptions are not misused and are applied with clear guidelines.
2. Refinement of Self-Defense: Similar to the IPC, the BNS upholds self-defense as
a valid exception to criminal liability but incorporates stricter guidelines on
proportionality, ensuring that the defense is not abused. The courts will need to
carefully evaluate whether the force used in self-defense is reasonable given the
threat faced.
3. Mental Illness Defense: Both the BNS and the IPC acknowledge mental illness as
an excuse for criminal liability. However, the BNS appears to have clearer
 provisions on when and how such defenses should be applied, especially with the
inclusion of more detailed provisions for medical and psychiatric evaluations.
4. Necessity and Duress: The BNS aligns with the principle of necessity as an
exception to criminal liability, but its application remains subject to the limits
defined by societal norms, as seen in the case law on necessity. The BNS aims to
offer a more balanced approach, ensuring that necessity is not invoked for actions
that cause severe harm, such as in cases of murder.
5. Judicial Challenges: The application of exceptions like self-defense and mental
illness poses challenges, particularly regarding the need for expert testimony and
the assessment of proportionality in self-defense cases. The research highlights the
importance of clear judicial guidelines and legal safeguards to ensure fair
implementation of these defenses.
6. Potential for Reform: While the BNS introduces useful reforms, the
implementation of these exceptions still faces practical challenges, such as the
potential for misuse and the difficulty of determining mental illness. Further
reforms, including clearer guidelines for courts and better judicial training, are
recommended to ensure these exceptions serve their intended purpose without
compromising justice.

6. Conclusion

The Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS) represents a significant shift in India's approach to
criminal law, aiming to modernize and refine the existing legal framework in ways that
align with contemporary societal needs and evolving principles of justice. One of the
most crucial aspects of this reform is its handling of exceptions to criminal liability.
These exceptions—such as self-defense, mental illness, necessity, duress, and
impossibility—serve as safeguards that prevent individuals from being unjustly punished
under extraordinary circumstances. Through a careful examination of these exceptions, it
becomes evident that the BNS offers a more nuanced and thoughtful approach compared
to the Indian Penal Code (IPC).

The inclusion of clear exceptions to criminal liability under the BNS is particularly
important because it demonstrates a recognition of the complexity of human behavior. In
a society as diverse as India’s, individuals often find themselves in situations where
criminal liability would be unjust due to their mental state, external pressures, or the
nature of their actions. The BNS addresses this by providing legal avenues to avoid
liability when it is unreasonable or unfair to hold someone accountable. In doing so, it
reflects the evolving understanding of justice and human rights in the 21st century.

The defense of self-defense, as outlined in Section 94 of the BNS, plays a central role in
ensuring that individuals can protect themselves from imminent harm without fear of
prosecution. This exception is not without limitations, however. The BNS requires that
the force used in self-defense be proportionate to the threat faced. This provision ensures
that self-defense cannot be used as an excuse for excessive retaliation, reinforcing the
principle that justice must be tempered by reason and fairness. The case of State of
Madhya Pradesh v. Shyamlal serves as a powerful reminder of the need for
proportionality in self-defense claims, an approach that is mirrored in the BNS.

Mental illness as a defense, addressed under Section 95 of the BNS, also highlights a
significant advancement in recognizing the mental state of the accused. By aligning with
the principles established in cases such as Bodhisattwa Gautam v. Subhra Chakraborty,
the BNS ensures that individuals suffering from mental illness are not unjustly punished
for crimes they may not fully understand or intend. This exception upholds the
fundamental human rights of those with mental health issues and affirms the importance
of psychological assessments in criminal cases. The BNS, therefore, aligns with modern
criminal law trends that prioritize rehabilitation over punitive measures for mentally ill
offenders.

The necessity defense, as laid out in the BNS, is another critical exception. Drawing from
both historical and contemporary legal principles, the BNS acknowledges that in extreme
situations, individuals may be compelled to commit otherwise criminal acts to prevent
greater harm. However, as demonstrated by the R v. Dudley and Stephens case, necessity
cannot justify acts of murder or serious harm. The BNS, similarly, emphasizes that
necessity must be evaluated in the context of the threat faced and the proportionality of
the response, ensuring that this exception is not misused. The importance of carefully
evaluating necessity claims underscores the BNS’s commitment to maintaining a balance
between individual actions and societal protections.

Duress as a defense under the BNS acknowledges that individuals who are coerced into
committing a crime due to external pressures should not be held fully accountable. The
legal recognition of duress helps mitigate the impact of criminal liability on individuals
who may have acted out of fear or compulsion. This exception reflects the broader
societal understanding that free will is often compromised under extreme duress, and
criminal liability should be tempered in such cases. However, like other exceptions, the
BNS emphasizes that duress must be proven with clear evidence, ensuring that it cannot
be claimed frivolously.

The concept of impossibility as a defense under the BNS is particularly significant in the
modern legal landscape. Impossibility allows for an individual to be excused from
liability when they could not have completed the alleged criminal act due to
circumstances beyond their control. This defense is vital in ensuring fairness in the legal
system, as it prevents individuals from being penalized for crimes they could not have
committed. The BNS, by including this exception, demonstrates an awareness of the
complexities that arise in the real world where certain actions may not be feasible due to
external factors.

Despite these significant advancements, the BNS also faces challenges in its application.
The potential for misuse of exceptions, such as self-defense or necessity, remains a
concern. In cases where the defense is not properly applied, there is a risk that individuals
could escape liability for acts that should be criminally prosecuted. Judicial consistency
and clarity in the application of these exceptions are essential to ensure that the law
serves its intended purpose without allowing individuals to evade responsibility unjustly.

Another challenge lies in the implementation of mental illness defenses. While the BNS
clearly acknowledges the role of mental health in criminal liability, the application of this
defense requires thorough medical evaluations and expert testimony, which can be
difficult to obtain in some cases. The effectiveness of this exception will depend heavily
on the availability of qualified psychiatric professionals and the ability of courts to
interpret medical evidence accurately. This presents a challenge for the Indian judicial
system, which will need to continue developing expertise in these areas to ensure that
mental illness defenses are fairly and justly applied.

In addition to these challenges, there is also the question of judicial training and
interpretation. The BNS introduces complex exceptions to criminal liability that require
careful judicial interpretation. Judges must be equipped with the knowledge and
understanding necessary to apply these exceptions effectively. This includes
understanding the nuances of self-defense, mental illness, and necessity, and ensuring that
these defenses are not misused. Continuous legal education and training for judges,
prosecutors, and defense lawyers will be essential in making sure that the BNS functions
as intended and that justice is served in a fair and equitable manner.

In conclusion, the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita represents a bold step toward reforming
India’s criminal law system. Its approach to exceptions to criminal liability demonstrates
a progressive understanding of human behavior, mental health, and the complexities of
criminal justice. By providing clear guidelines on self-defense, mental illness, necessity,
duress, and impossibility, the BNS offers a framework that strives to ensure fairness and
justice. However, the effective implementation of these provisions will require careful
judicial oversight, proper training, and a commitment to upholding the principles of
equity and human dignity. With these challenges in mind, the BNS has the potential to
significantly enhance the criminal justice system in India, ensuring that it better serves
both individuals and society.

Bibliography

Ganguly, S. P. Criminal Law: Principles and Practice in India. 2nd ed., LexisNexis,
2020.
Kapur, A. Indian Penal Code and Criminal Law. 4th ed., Eastern Book Company, 2019.
Saraswati, P. Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita: A Comprehensive Analysis. 1st ed., Universal
Law Publishing, 2024.
Singh, R. N. Law of Criminal Procedure. 10th ed., Eastern Book Company, 2021.
Tiwari, R. K. Indian Penal Code and Its Application in Contemporary Criminal Law. 7th
ed., Central Law Publications, 2022.

R v. Dudley and Stephens (1884) 14 QBD 273.

State of Madhya Pradesh v. Shyamlal, (2003) 2 SCC 240.
Bodhisattwa Gautam v. Subhra Chakraborty, (1996) 1 SCC 490.
R v. Brown (1993) 2 All ER 75.
R v. Howe (1987) 1 All ER 771.