BNS Section 3 – General Explanations & Legal Expressions Defined

(1) The exceptions listed in the Chapter titled “General Exceptions” will apply to all definitions of offenses, penal provisions, and illustrations of such definitions and provisions throughout this Sanhita; however, these exceptions are not reiterated in any of these definitions, provisions, or illustrations.

Illustrations

(a) A child under the age of seven is not prohibited from committing any of the offenses defined in this Sanhita; rather, the definitions are to be interpreted in light of the general exception that states that nothing committed by a child under the age of seven constitutes an offense.

(b) Z, the murderer, is captured by A, a police officer, without a warrant. This case falls under the general exception that states that “nothing is an offence which is done by a person who is bound by law to do it.” As a result, A is not guilty of the crime of wrongful confinement because he was required by law to apprehend Z.

(2) In accordance with the explanation, every expression that is explained in one section of this Sanhita is used in every other section.

(3) Property is considered to be in the possession of the person in question under this Sanhita if it is in the custody of the person’s spouse, clerk, or servant. Explanation: Under this subsection, a person who is temporarily or specifically hired in the role of a clerk or servant is considered a clerk or servant.

(4) In every section of this Sanhita, words that refer to actions taken also refer to unlawful omissions, unless the context makes clear that the intention is different.

(5) Each individual is held accountable for a criminal act in the same way as if he had committed it alone when multiple people carry out the same action to further their shared goal.

(6) When multiple people collectively commit an act that is illegal solely because it was carried out with criminal knowledge or intent, each of them is held accountable for the act in the same way as if he had committed it alone.

(7) In cases where trying to cause an effect through an act or omission, or causing an effect through an act, is illegal, it is understood that causing an effect partially through an act and partially through an omission is also illegal.
Illustrations

A purposefully kills Z, in part by beating Z and in part by forcibly failing to provide food. A is guilty of murder.

(8) If a crime is committed using multiple acts, then anyone who knowingly assists in committing the crime by performing any one of those acts—either alone or in concert with another person—commits the crime. Examples. (a) A and B decide that Z will be killed by multiple, time-varying small doses of poison. In accordance with the agreement, A and B give Z the poison with the goal of killing him. The effects of the multiple poison doses that were given to Z cause his death. Although their actions are distinct, A and B are both guilty of the crime in this case because they knowingly assist in the commission of murder and each of them commits an act that results in death.

(b) Because they are co-detainers, A and B alternately hold Z, a prisoner, for six hours at a time. With the intent to kill Z, A and B willfully assist in doing so by failing to provide Z with the food that was provided to them for that purpose while he was present. Hunger kills Z. A and B are both responsible for Z’s murder.

(c) Z, a prisoner, is owned by A, a jailor. With the intention of killing Z, A unlawfully fails to provide him with food; as a result, Z’s strength is significantly diminished, but not to the point where starvation would kill him. After A is fired from his position, B takes over. Knowing that he will probably kill Z as a result, B unlawfully fails to provide Z with food without consulting or working with A. Hunger kills Z. Although B is guilty of murder, A did not cooperate with B. A’s only crime is attempting to commit murder.

(9) When multiple individuals are involved in a criminal act, they may be guilty of various offenses through the act.
Illustrations

Z is attacked by A in such a way that it is extremely provocative that killing Z would only be considered culpable homicide and not murder. Because B hates Z and wants to kill him, and because he wasn’t provoked, he helps A kill Z. In this case, A is guilty of culpable homicide and B is guilty of murder, even though both of them were involved in Z’s death.