Section 3 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023: General Explanations

Section 3 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 provides general explanations regarding how the entire law should be interpreted. It clarifies that definitions of offenses, illustrations, and penal provisions are all subject to the exceptions listed in the chapter on "General Exceptions." The section ensures that certain terms and concepts are applied consistently throughout the law. Understanding these general explanations is essential for legal students as it forms the foundation of how offenses and exceptions are interpreted in criminal law.

Key Provisions of Section 3:

1. Subject to General Exceptions: Explanation: Every definition of an offense or penal provision in the Sanhita is to be understood with the exceptions mentioned in the "General Exceptions" chapter, even if the exceptions are not explicitly stated. Illustration: If an offense is defined, such as murder, but the accused is under 7 years old, the "General Exception" that exempts children under 7 from criminal liability will apply, even if not mentioned in the definition of murder. Supreme Court Judgment: In the case of Heeralal Mallah v. State of Madhya Pradesh (1996), the court reiterated that a child under 7 years of age cannot be held criminally responsible under the IPC (now BNS) due to the general exception regarding infancy (Section 82 IPC, similar to the general exception in BNS).
    
2. Consistency in Terms: Explanation: Every term explained in any part of the Sanhita is to be used in the same way throughout the text. This promotes consistency in the application of the law. For example, terms like "fraudulently" or "dishonestly" used in one part of the Sanhita will carry the same meaning throughout.
    
3. Possession Includes that of Spouse, Clerk, or Servant: Explanation: When property is held by a person's spouse, clerk, or servant on their behalf, it is considered to be in that person's possession. Illustration: If someone's servant is holding stolen property on their behalf, the property is considered to be in the possession of the person, not just the servant. Relevant Case: In State of Maharashtra v. Madhukar Narayan Mardikar (1991), the Supreme Court clarified that property held by a person's servant or agent is considered to be under the control of the owner, and the owner is liable for acts of possession.
    
4. Acts and Omissions: Explanation: Words referring to acts done also apply to illegal omissions unless otherwise indicated. This means that a person can be held criminally responsible not only for committing an act but also for failing to act when the law requires them to do so. Illustration: If a doctor omits to provide life-saving treatment to a patient (where there is a duty to act), that omission can result in criminal liability just like performing an unlawful act. Supreme Court Case: In S. N. Hussain v. State of Andhra Pradesh (1972), the court held that failure to act, when there is a duty to do so, could result in criminal liability. This ruling emphasized that omissions are treated as actions under specific legal duties.
    
5. Common Intention and Joint Liability: Explanation: When a criminal act is done by several people in furtherance of a common intention, each one is responsible as if they had done the act alone. This is similar to the concept of Section 34 IPC. Illustration: If two people plan to kill someone and they execute the plan, both are equally guilty of murder, regardless of who actually carried out the killing. Landmark Case: Barendra Kumar Ghosh v. King Emperor (1925) is a landmark case where the Supreme Court explained the principle of common intention. Even though Barendra Kumar did not fire the shots, he was present and shared the common intention of robbery that resulted in murder. He was held liable under the doctrine of joint liability.
    
6. Criminal Knowledge or Intention: Explanation: If an act becomes criminal due to the criminal knowledge or intention behind it, everyone involved with such knowledge or intention is liable. It doesn't matter if only one person directly caused the crime, as long as others had the same intent or knowledge. Illustration: If two individuals conspire to defraud a company and only one person signs a false document, both are equally liable if they shared the same intent. Relevant Case: Mohd. Shafi v. Mohd. Rafiq (1986)—In this case, the Supreme Court held that all individuals sharing the same criminal knowledge or intent are equally liable, even if they did not personally commit the offense.
    
7. Effect Caused by Act and Omission: Explanation: If an offense requires the causing of a certain effect, whether by act or omission, then partially causing the effect by an act and partially by an omission still constitutes the offense. For instance, if a person dies due to being beaten and simultaneously denied food, the person responsible can be charged with murder. Illustration: A person denies food to another and also physically assaults them. If the combined result leads to death, it would be considered murder. Relevant Case: Kartar Singh v. State of Punjab (1994) is a case where a person was held liable for a death caused by a combination of actions and omissions. The court ruled that causing harm through multiple ways—whether by acting or failing to act—leads to the same criminal liability.
    
8. Liability for Cooperation in Offenses: Explanation: When an offense is committed through several acts, anyone who intentionally cooperates by committing one of those acts is guilty of the full offense. Illustration: If two individuals decide to poison someone at different times, and they both administer small doses, resulting in death, both are guilty of murder, even though they administered the poison separately. Supreme Court Case: R v. Govinda (1876) emphasized that cooperating in an offense, even through separate actions, makes each individual fully liable for the result of the crime.
    
9. Multiple Offenses from One Act: Explanation: When multiple people are involved in committing a crime, they may be guilty of different offenses depending on their roles and intentions. Illustration: If A attacks someone out of provocation, and B assists in killing the victim but had no provocation, A may be guilty of culpable homicide while B may be guilty of murder. Relevant Case: In R v. Joge Kumar Singh (1912), the court distinguished between different levels of guilt when multiple people were involved in the same criminal act, based on their specific intentions and actions.

Section 3 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita provides a comprehensive framework for interpreting how the law should be applied to different offenses, particularly when multiple people are involved or when actions and omissions are combined. It also emphasizes the importance of intent, possession, and joint liability in criminal law. Understanding the principles laid out in this section, along with relevant case law, helps students grasp the nuanced application of criminal statutes.

Key Takeaways:

• Definitions of offenses are always subject to general exceptions.
• Possession can extend to property held by a spouse or servant.
• Omissions can result in criminal liability if there is a duty to act.
• Common intention leads to joint liability for all involved parties.
• Different people can be guilty of different offenses arising from a single criminal act.