Section 95 IPC: Act Causing Slight Harm

Section 95 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 embodied the principle that the criminal law does not treat every trivial harm as an offence. It applied where the harm was so slight that no person of ordinary sense and temper would complain of it.

Pre-BNS legal position: This article explains Section 95 IPC as it stood immediately before the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 came into force on 1 July 2024. It is intended for IPC-era legal research and matters governed by the earlier law.

Text of Section 95 IPC

Section 95 - 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.

Meaning of Section 95 IPC

Section 95 created a general exception for harm of a genuinely trivial character. Its wording covered not only harm actually caused, but also harm intended to be caused or known to be likely to be caused. The controlling requirement was the degree of harm: it had to be so slight that a person of ordinary sense and temper would not complain of it.

Essential Requirements

There must be harm, intended harm or likely harm: the section expressly addressed an act that causes harm, is intended to cause harm, or is known to be likely to cause harm.
The harm must be slight: the exception depended upon the trivial nature of the harm.
The statutory standard is objective in form: the provision refers to a "person of ordinary sense and temper" rather than making the existence of the exception depend solely upon the reaction of a particular individual.
The degree of harm is central: Section 95 does not state that every minor-looking act is automatically exempt; the statutory threshold must be satisfied in the circumstances.

Person of Ordinary Sense and Temper

The statutory test asks whether the harm is so slight that no person of ordinary sense and temper would complain of it. This language provides the benchmark for deciding whether the harm falls within the general exception.

The provision therefore focuses on the character and degree of the harm judged against the standard stated in the section. A purely subjective complaint does not, by itself, reproduce the statutory test; equally, the exception cannot be assumed merely because the act appears insignificant to the person who caused it.

Actual, Intended and Likely Harm

Section 95 was drafted broadly enough to address three situations: where an act actually causes harm, where the actor intends the harm, and where the actor knows the harm is likely. In each situation, the exception depends upon the harm satisfying the statutory requirement of being so slight that an ordinarily sensible and temperate person would not complain.

Section 95 as a General Exception

Section 95 appeared in Chapter IV of the IPC, which contained the General Exceptions. It followed provisions dealing with consent, good-faith communications and compulsion by threats, and immediately preceded the provisions governing the right of private defence.

Practical Scope of the Provision

The purpose reflected in the text is to exclude genuinely negligible harm from criminal liability under the stated standard. Whether the harm is sufficiently slight is necessarily connected with the facts and circumstances in which the act occurred. The statutory language should therefore be applied to the actual nature and degree of the alleged harm rather than treated as a blanket exemption for all minor conduct.

Summary

Section 95 IPC provided that an act was not an offence merely because it caused, was intended to cause, or was known to be likely to cause harm when that harm was so slight that no person of ordinary sense and temper would complain of it. The provision thus supplied a specific IPC general exception for trivial harm meeting the statutory threshold.