Act not intended to cause death, done by consent in good faith for person's benefit
Section 88 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 deals with act not intended to cause death, done by consent in good faith for person's benefit. Nothing, which is not intented 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 Jan 1862. Repealed by section 358 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 (45 of 2023) with effect from 1 July 2024, but conduct before that date is still charged, tried and appealed under it.
Nothing, which is not intented 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 Z's death, and intending, in good faith, Z's benefit, performs that operation on Z, with Z's consent. A has committed no offence.
Section 88, The Indian Penal Code, 1860 (Act 45 of 1860).
Now in the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita
BNS 26 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 The repealed enactment still governs what happened while it was in force.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.
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
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.
Judgments citing this section
These may be obiter dicta or a precedent, for you to study. These are the judgments where this section is quoted.
-
… ." Thus, it is crystal clear that a teacher or a parent or even a guardian or any other person in " loco parentis " has no absolute protection from criminal action by application of common law principle of " loco parentis ". Though the Indian Penal Code (IPC) has recognized some exceptions in the form of Section 88 and 89 of the Code, the same would not apply in case where the injury inflicted causes harm to the pupil as may be considered to be unreasonable and immoderate. Since in the present case the petitioner has not based her case on any factual assertion or dispute, the severity of the allegations made against her can …
Questions about Section 88
What have the courts held on Section 88 of the Indian Penal Code?
B. Jagdish vs State of A. P. (16 Dec 2008) is the leading judgment on this section among those set out below: 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 88 of the Indian Penal Code?
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: IPC 88, section 88 IPC, section 88 of the Indian Penal Code. 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 88 of the Indian Penal Code, and has it changed?
2 other provisions in this corpus refer back to it. For anything done on or after 1 July 2024 the provision to read is BNS 26 (Act not intended to cause death, done by consent in good faith for person's benefit), which replaced it; conduct before that date is still charged, tried and appealed under this section.
When did Section 88 of the Indian Penal Code come into force?
Section 88 of the Indian Penal Code, cited as IPC 88, came into force on 01 Jan 1862, having been enacted on 06 Oct 1860. It is no longer in force.
Other sections of this Act
- 499. Defamation1512 words
- 464. Making a false document1223 words
- 300. Murder1172 words
- 378. Theft980 words
- 108. Abettor745 words
- 403. Dishonest misappropriation of property727 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. Recovered from the consolidated text published by India Code (item 7b7d4fe6-206b-4e33-81f1-b98b018acaf6). This page is not a substitute for legal advice.