Intent to cause harm

Trending Today Addressing Judicial Issues in Revenge Porn Cases Triviality section 95 INDIAN YOUNG LAWYERS ASSOCIATION v. STATE OF KERALA & Ors Legal Framework governing reproductive rights and abortion law The Role of International Law in Shaping Domestic Constitutions Indigenous Peoples’ Rights and Cultural Heritage Preservation SPORTA TECHNOILOGIES V. HONG Y1 F35 Triviality section 95 28 jan 2025 Abstract: Actions that are insignificant and cause as little harm as possible and does not require the intervention of judicial proceedings, are called trivial actions. Section 95 of the Indian Penal Code describes recklessness as acts causing slight or no appreciable harm which no person of common sense and character would complain of as appreciable harm. Section 95 of the IPC can be divided into two important parts which apply to an act to determine whether an act is a “significant act” or not. Such action should be done without a reason or intention to cause serious damage to the person; the intention to cause such damage is such that it would not compel an ordinary person to complain about a trivial act. These small actions are done with a small motive or purpose; it could be as simple as stepping on someone’s toe or grabbing a paper from someone’s desk. The purpose of the introduction of this section is to avoid the severe punishment of trivial or trivial actions; otherwise, the courts would be flooded with such complaints that the court, burdened with  these  and other minor matters, could not concentrate on solving the problems of people who have really significant problems that can damage or break their lives. Behind this concept of thought is the maxim “de minimis non curat lex”, which means that when a person is faced with such stupid and trivial actions, he must deal with it himself and the court does not interfere in the matter where the subject of the dispute is. Trivial in nature, but the parties concerned must ensure that none of the parties agrees to such actions that may incriminate them in the eyes of the law. The word harm or intent to harm in trivial actions means “lack of importance” in a man’s actions. Magnitude of the term “injury” The term injury or damage is used in many different parts of the IPC in different senses. The meaning of damages is not defined exclusively  in any of these sections and may be interpreted according to the wording of those respective sections. As, for example, when the term damage in section 415 refers to damage caused to a person’s body, mind, property and reputation. On the other hand, section 95 of the same law uses the term in its broadest sense and includes everything from physical injury caused to a person to emotional stress experienced by him, from financial loss to damage to a person’s reputation and humanity dignity etc. If the harm caused to a person is trivial, for example, someone scratched due to carelessness or even stepping on someone’s toes in a crowded market cannot be considered as a serious matter that requires the intervention of the court. The parties can deal with and resolve the matter themselves without having to go to court and judicial authorities. However, the fact that the damage caused to a person is trivial or minor does not mean that the negligence of the criminal who caused the damage has no consequences. According to the concept of mens rea, the conscious and guilty mind of a person is equally capable of making a person responsible for his actions, even if the damage caused to another person is insignificant. For this, the court ensures that the criminal pays a fine or some kind of compensation that enlightens the person and prevents him from repeating the act in the future. For example, if a person parks a vehicle in a no-parking zone or intentionally or negligently exceeds the speed while driving, he is liable for his negligence even if he did not cause serious damage or injury to anyone. To hold people accountable for such mistakes, the government collects fines and fees to prevent people from making such mistakes. And a person cannot avoid such fines and compensation by taking the defense of negligence mentioned in section 96 of the Civil Code. Is insulting women trivial? Harming women mentally or physically has always been a concern throughout history. Women have always been seen in our society as a weaker and exploitable species that can be abused by men in a patriarchal society, over the decades the perspective of society slowly changed as women gained rights and freedom and rose to a clearer position in society when compared to men. Minor damage or injury to the dignity and respect of women is to be treated as a crime and cannot be considered a trivial act under Section 95 of the Criminal Code. There are several provisions in the IPC which prevent unfairness. Section 354 of the Penal Code deals with crimes that scandalize the modesty of a woman, stating that anyone who attacks or insults a woman with the intention of defaming her modesty and knowing that such an act of the offender can degrade said women in society. Under the section, the offender has been made liable under the IPC for his indecency towards women and  also faces simple or rigorous imprisonment for a term of one to five years or fine or both. Furthermore, Section 509 of the same Act clearly stated that any word or gesture  done intentionally to insult the honor of a woman or violate her privacy. Then, performing such audacity, unpleasant actions are punished by simple imprisonment up to 1 year and a fine, which is decided by the competent court as in the case of Rupan Deol Bajaj vs. KPS Gill (1995). Rupan Deol Bajaj vs. KPS Gill case summary: In that case, the accused was a Superintendent of Police who patted the victim’s (an IAS officer) posterior when they