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 were at a dinner held by the Finance Commissioner of Punjab in Chandigarh. Here, the victim, who was an IAS officer, felt scared and uncomfortable with the behavior of the DGP and lodged a complaint against him for indecent act.
The Punjab and Haryana High Court convicted KPS Gill under Sections 354 and 509 of the IPC and ordered him to pay a compensation of INR 2,00,000 to the complainant Rupan Deol Bajaj, apologizing for his lack of modesty and honesty and 3 months rigorous imprisonment and 2 months simple imprisonment and 3 years probation. In that case, under Section 482 of the Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 (“CrPC”), IPS officer KPS Gill, who was the offender, filed an application in the Punjab and Haryana High Court to quash the FIR filed by the complainant.
Where the court gave an interim order to stay further investigation in the complainant’s FIR but did not stay the proceedings against Mr. Gill. The appellant, Rupan Deol Bajaj, appealed against this High Court order to the Supreme Court of India.
In this case, the Supreme Court found that although the action may seem like a trivial action, it is of great importance, because the judgment can change the perception of the public of the decency and dignity of women. There may have been a mistake or a misunderstanding in the actions of the criminal, but that does not exclude the fact that he caused a serious offense to the virtue of women by his inappropriate actions. Therefore, the court rejected the defendant’s defense under section 95 of the Criminal Code and the defendant was convicted, although he instead received a 3-month prison sentence with probation. The court directed the money collected as fines from the defendant to the mandatory points of the women, because the applicant did not want this amount as compensation for her lack of virtue and dignity. In addition, the court noted that the motive and intention of the act can be interpreted as not only being done in a public environment, but also by the defendant, if it repeatedly caused discomfort to the plaintiff. From the behavior of the accused, it can be concluded that he is guilty of intending to violate the privacy of the complainant through repeated means. Even if the court assumes that he had no intention behind such an act, he must be aware of how his actions would look in the presence of the elite of society.
Conclusion:
According to Section 95 of the IPC, contempt refers to acts which constitute the attempt of trivial injury, and no reasonable person would file a complaint against them under the IPC or any other law or provision, or seek the intervention of an offence. in court in such trivial matters. The parties have to resolve them among themselves because most of the actions under this section of the IPC talk about common cases which are easy to avoid or excuse.
Section 95 was added so that there would not be many suits in court arising out of trivial matters which the parties could settle themselves. The law is very clear and provides that these trivial acts should not be treated as an offense within the meaning of the Criminal Code and the accused is entitled to claim protection under Section 95 for an offense which is reasonable in nature. However, the damage caused to the complainant must not be serious and must not cause him serious harm. No sane person of normal character would complain in court about such small temptations. The provision of Section 95 under the IPC is intended to prevent the accused from being punished for minor offenses committed without causing injury to a person or for any trivial offense arising out of ill will or petty.
Author details:
Name: Kaaviya b Soman
UIM: 2024040117
Institute: RV Institute of Law Year: 5th year student BBA-LLB
EMAIL: somankaaviyarvils2019@gmail.com
References:
Kartik Bohra; Trivial acts under section 95 in the Indian Penal Code, 1860; https://blog.ipleaders.in/trivial-acts-section-95-indian-penal-code-1860/#:~:text=It%20states%20that%20%E2%80%9Cnothing%20is,conviction%20of%20the%20accused%20in
Vatsala Walia; Rupan Deol Bajaj & Anr. v. Kanwar Pal Singh Gill &Anr; Supreme Court Case Analysis; https://www.latestlaws.com/adr/case-analysis/sc-case-analysis-rupan-deol-bajaj-anr-v-kanwar-pal-singh-gill-anr-by-vatsala-walia
Abhisek Dash; Section 95 in The Indian Penal Code: Deminis Non Cureta Lex; https://www.scribd.com/document/518720301/IPC-assingement
Ragini Sehgal and Sanuj Kanwar; Dilating Upon Section 95 Of IPC With A Highlight Of IPS KPS Gill’s Case; https://www.legalserviceindia.com/legal/article-12529-dilating-upon-section-95-of-ipc-with-a-highlight-of-ips-kps-gill-s-case.html#google_vignette
1 Comment
[…] and Online Transactions Indian Parliament Addressing Judicial Issues in Revenge Porn Cases Triviality section 95 INDIAN YOUNG LAWYERS ASSOCIATION v. STATE OF KERALA & Ors Legal Framework governing […]