Act not intended to cause death, done by consent in good faith for person's benefit
Section 26 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 deals with act not intended to cause death, done by consent in good faith for person's benefit. Nothing, which is not intended to cause death, is an offence by reason of any harm which it may cause, or be intended by the doer to cause, or be known by the doer to be likely to cause, to any person for whose benefit it is done in good faith, and who has given a consent, whether express or implied The Act came into force on 01 Jul 2024.
Nothing, which is not intended to cause death, is an offence by reason of any harm which it may cause, or be intended by the doer to cause, or be known by the doer to be likely to cause, to any person for whose benefit it is done in good faith, and who has given a consent, whether express or implied, to suffer that harm, or to take the risk of that harm.
Illustration.
A, a surgeon, knowing that a particular operation is likely to cause the death of Z, who suffers under the painful complaint, but not intending to cause Zs death, and intending, in good faith, Zs benefit, performs that operation on Z, with Zs consent. A has committed no offence.
Section 26, The Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 (Act 45 of 2023).
Replaces a provision of the Indian Penal Code
IPC 88 Act not intended to cause death, done by consent in good faith for person's benefit Text carried over almost unchanged 98%
Measured by comparing the text of the two provisions, not taken from an official correspondence table — there is no machine-readable one. See both texts side by side before relying on it.
Both regimes are live. The repealed enactment still governs what happened while it was in force. We never redirect one to the other.
Cross-references
Extracted from the operative text of the enactments themselves. Every destination below exists in our corpus.
Related judgements & precedents
These are some judgments that construed this section, and hold precedence value. They hold authority on how to read, interpret and use this section.
-
B. Jagdish vs State of A. P.
Decided under Indian Penal Code 88, which this section replaces. The court did not have this Act before it.
Court's Decision & Legal Precedent
At the stage of taking cognizance or quashing of charges in medical negligence cases, if the materials brought on record by the complainant, taken at face value and assumed to be wholly correct, disclose the existence of an offense or a prima facie case, the court cannot quash the proceedings merely because there are conflicting expert opinions or because the accused produces defense materials. The determination of which opinion ultimately prevails is a matter for the trial court upon consideration of all evidence. The High Court's jurisdiction under Section 482 CrPC to quash is limited and should be exercised only in rare and exceptional cases with unimpeachable evidence. A person professing to be a specialist must possess the requisite specialized expertise; lacking such expertise amounts to professional negligence. Criminal liability for medical negligence requires gross or reckless negligence, not mere error in diagnosis or judgment, distinguishing it from civil liability.
On this section: Act done by a person who by reason of mistakes of fact believes act necessary in good faith for preservation of life—discussed as potentially applicable to medical practitioners but found not applicablehere as the misdiagnosis was gross
-
Sane Concieta B. Sangma vs State of Meghalaya
Decided under Indian Penal Code 88, which this section replaces. The court did not have this Act before it.
Court's Decision & Legal Precedent
The definition of 'child in need of care and protection' under Section 2(14) of the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2015 must be given a broad and purposeful interpretation and should not be treated as exhaustive but illustrative. No category of child should be excluded from the purview of the JJ Act. While teachers have authority to impose reasonable and moderate corporal punishment for disciplinary purposes under Sections 88 and 89 IPC, when a teacher exceeds this authority and inflicts unreasonable and immoderate harm, the teacher loses protection under law. The severity and nature of punishment inflicted is the distinguishing factor between lawful discipline and unlawful cruelty, and this is a matter of evidence to be determined at trial stage, not at the cognizance stage. Therefore, jurisdictional objections based on the applicability of Sections 88 and 89 IPC cannot be entertained at the stage of framing charges.
On this section: Section 88 provides that a person in position of teacher has authority to enforce discipline with corporal punishment provided it is moderate and reasonable. Section 89 requires that act must be done in good faith for benefit of child. Section 323 prescribes punishment for voluntarily causing hurt. Court held that when teacher exceeds authority and inflicts unreasonable and immoderate harm, protection under Sections 88 and 89 is lost.
The holding above is the ratio decidendi as extracted from the judgment by eCourts India, reproduced unaltered — it is a rendering of the court's reasoning, not a substitute for its words. Read the order itself before relying on it.
Questions about Section 26
What have the courts held on Section 26 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita?
B. Jagdish vs State of A. P. (16 Dec 2008) is the leading judgment on this section among those set out below, though it was decided under IPC 88, which this section replaced -- the court never mentioned this Act: Act done by a person who by reason of mistakes of fact believes act necessary in good faith for preservation of life—discussed as potentially applicable to medical practitioners but found not applicablehere as the misdiagnosis was gross. Another 1 judgment on this section is set out below, 1 of them from the Supreme Court. They run from 2008 to 2024.
How do I find court cases under Section 26 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita?
In judgments and charge sheets this section is written several ways, and each form finds a different set of orders. These search the full text of every order eCourtsIndia holds, best matches first: BNS 26, section 26 BNS, section 26 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita. People searching for it also type bns 26a. Each opens the full list of orders on eCourtsIndia, where it can be narrowed by court, year and outcome. 2 reported judgments on this section are set out on this page, beginning with B. Jagdish vs State of A. P. (16 Dec 2008).
What should I read with Section 26 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, and has it changed?
2 other provisions in this corpus refer back to it. It carries forward IPC 88 (Act not intended to cause death, done by consent in good faith for person's benefit), so the judgments decided under that provision are the case law on this one.
When did Section 26 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita come into force?
Section 26 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, cited as BNS 26, came into force on 01 Jul 2024, having been enacted on 25 Dec 2023. It is in force as at the date shown on this page.
Other sections of this Act
- 2. Definitions2199 words
- 356. Defamation1543 words
- 335. Making a false document1318 words
- 101. Murder1177 words
- 303. Theft1104 words
- 3. General explanations858 words
Source and method. Compiled from the enactments of Parliament and of the State legislatures as published on India Code, and republished together with commentary and other original matter under section 52(1)(q)(ii) of the Copyright Act, 1957. Structured, cross-referenced and maintained by eCourtsIndia. Text as in force on 15 Oct 2026. This page is not a substitute for legal advice.