IPC 92→BNS 30

IPC 92 to BNS 30: Act done in good faith for benefit of a person without consent

Section 92 IPC (1860) replaced by Section 30 BNS (2023)

View IPC Section 92 →View BNS Section 30 →

IPC 92 to BNS 30 at a Glance

Section 92 IPC (Act done in good faith for benefit of a person without consent) is now Section 30 BNS, in force from 1 July 2024. What changed is set out below.

What Changed From IPC 92 to BNS 30?

Section 30 BNS keeps the exception, the four limits and the four illustrations. It prints the provisos as clauses a to d, numbers the illustrations 1 to 4 in place of a to d, says bullet where the IPC says ball, and spells house top as two words. Its Explanation refers to Section 26 BNS, Section 27 BNS and this section.

IPC 92 vs BNS 30: Comparison Table

AspectIPC 1860 (repealed)BNS 2023 (in force)
Section9230
OffenceAct done in good faith for benefit of a person without consentSame
PunishmentNone. Section 92 IPC creates no offence.None. Section 30 BNS creates no offence.
FineNone.Same
BailNon-BailableSame
CognizanceNon-CognizableSame
CompoundableNon-CompoundableSame

IPC 92 and BNS 30: Bare Act Text Side by Side

IPC 1860 (repealed)

Section 92, IPC 1860

92. Act done in good faith for benefit of a person without consent.—Nothing is an offence by reason of any harm which it may cause to a person for whose benefit it is done in good faith, even without that person's consent, if the circumstances are such that it is impossible for that person to signify consent, or if that person is incapable of giving consent, and has no guardian or other person in lawful charge of him from whom it is possible to obtain consent in time for the thing to be done with benefit: Provided— Provisos. First.—That this exception shall not extend to the intentional causing of death, or the attempting to cause death; Secondly.—That this exception shall not extend to the doing of anything which the person doing it knows to be likely to cause death, for any purpose other than the preventing of death or grievous hurt, or the curing of any grievous disease or infirmity; Thirdly.—That this exception shall not extend to the voluntary causing of hurt, or to the attempting to cause hurt, for any purpose other than the preventing of death or hurt; Fourthly.—That this exception shall not extend to the abetment of any offence, to the committing of which offence it would not extend. Illustrations (a) Z is thrown from his horse, and is insensible. A, a surgeon, finds that Z requires to be trepanned. A, not intending Z's death, but in good faith, for Z's benefit, performs the trepan before Z recovers his power of judging for himself. A has committed no offence. (b) Z is carried off by a tiger. A fires at the tiger knowing it to be likely that the shot may kill Z, but not intending to kill Z, and in good faith intending Z's benefit. A's ball gives Z a mortal wound. A has committed no offence. (c) A, a surgeon, sees a child suffer an accident which is likely to prove fatal unless an operation be immediately performed. There is no time to apply to the child's guardian. A performs the operation in spite of the entreaties of the child, intending, in good faith, the child's benefit. A has committed no offence. (d) A is in a house which is on fire, with Z, a child. People below hold out a blanket. A drops the child from the house-top, knowing it to be likely that the fall may kill the child, but not intending to kill the child, and intending, in good faith, the child's benefit. Here, even if the child is killed by the fall, A has committed no offence. Explanation.—Mere pecuniary benefit is not benefit within the meaning of sections 88, 89 and 92.
BNS 2023 (in force)

Section 30, BNS 2023

Nothing is an offence by reason of any harm which it may cause to a person for whose benefit it is done in good faith, even without that person’s consent, if the circumstances are such that it is impossible for that person to signify consent, or if that person is incapable of giving consent, and has no guardian or other person in lawful charge of him from whom it is possible to obtain consent in time for the thing to be done with benefit: Provided that this exception shall not extend to— (a) the intentional causing of death, or the attempting to cause death; (b) the doing of anything which the person doing it knows to be likely to cause death, for any purpose other than the preventing of death or grievous hurt, or the curing of any grievous disease or infirmity; (c) the voluntary causing of hurt, or to the attempting to cause hurt, for any purpose other than the preventing of death or hurt; (d) the abetment of any offence, to the committing of which offence it would not extend. Illustrations. (1) Z is thrown from his horse, and is insensible. A, a surgeon, finds that Z requires to be trepanned. A, not intending Z’s death, but in good faith, for Z’s benefit, performs the trepan before Z recovers his power of judging for himself. A has committed no offence. (2) Z is carried off by a tiger. A fires at the tiger knowing it to be likely that the shot may kill Z, but not intending to kill Z, and in good faith intending Z’s benefit. A’s bullet gives Z a mortal wound. A has committed no offence. (3) A, a surgeon, sees a child suffer an accident which is likely to prove fatal unless an operation be immediately performed. There is no time to apply to the child’s guardian. A performs the operation in spite of the entreaties of the child, intending, in good faith, the child’s benefit. A has committed no offence. (4) A is in a house which is on fire, with Z, a child. People below hold out a blanket. A drops the child from the house top, knowing it to be likely that the fall may kill the child, but not intending to kill the child, and intending, in good faith, the child’s benefit. Here, even if the child is killed by the fall, A has committed no offence. Explanation.—Mere pecuniary benefit is not benefit within the meaning of sections 26, 27 and this section.

Ingredients: IPC 92 vs BNS 30

Under IPC 92
  1. The act is done in good faith for the benefit of the person who suffers the harm
  2. It is impossible for that person to signify consent, or that person is incapable of giving consent
  3. There is no guardian or other person in lawful charge from whom consent can be obtained in time for the thing to be done with benefit
  4. None of the four provisos applies
Under BNS 30

Same ingredients apply

What IPC 92 to BNS 30 Means for Pending Cases

For Section 92 IPC (now Section 30 BNS): nothing changes in the protection for an act done in good faith for a person who cannot consent. Section 30 BNS keeps all four limits, sets them out as clauses a to d and numbers the illustrations 1 to 4.

FAQs: IPC 92 to BNS 30

What changed when Section 92 IPC became Section 30 BNS?▼

Only the form. The four provisos become clauses a to d, the illustrations are numbered 1 to 4, and the Explanation refers to the BNS sections. The limits stay the same.

Where does Section 92 IPC sit in the BNS?▼

In Section 30 BNS, in Chapter III, General Exceptions.

Does Section 92 IPC or Section 30 BNS apply to an act done before 1 July 2024?▼

Section 92 IPC. Section 358 BNS repealed the IPC from 1 July 2024 but saves any liability already incurred under it, so an act done before that date is still dealt with under Section 92 IPC. Section 30 BNS governs acts done on or after 1 July 2024.

Disclaimer: This comparison is for informational purposes only. The new criminal laws came into effect on 1 July 2024. Consult a qualified advocate for legal advice.

Sources: Indian Penal Code, 1860 · Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 · Last updated: 16 Oct 2026 ·