Act Causing Slight Harm – Not an Offence?

[leaglesamiksha]

Sec 95 of the Indian Penal Code is an exception which states that, “Nothing is an offence by reason that it causes, or that it is intended to cause, or that it is known to be likely to cause, any harm, if that harm is so slight that no person of ordinary sense and temper would complain of such harm.” What is meant by “slight harm”? What needs to be considered in order to judge whether the harm is “slight” or not? Does it depend merely on the physical injury caused? Does it include any other factors too?

Topic

[Intern]

Section 95 of the Indian Penal Code talks about this. Slight harm is the one, as it mentions in the definition, that is so slight that no person of ordinary sense and temper would complain of such harm. For example, if a person plays light music with low volume at a party and it is a one-time thing. He doesn’t always disturb his neighbours with such activities and the time is well before the restricted time. Now, if a person living next to this person’s neighbour complains against him, and if they find that no one except the complainant has any problem with the music, this act would be considered as “slight harm”. One can also conclude that the person having a complaint had bad relations with this person and only wanted to get back at him in some way or the other. We come to this conclusion because, no one else has any problem with the music, the volume is low and the timing seems appropriate.
This would surely not be considered as an offence. If it was, every person who has some sort of dislike for the other would have filed a complaint against him/ her for trivial issues. This would constitute a wrong and the courts would eventually become overburdened. A harm is a “slight harm” if it is established that the complainant has trouble for reasons a normal person would not have. It depends on the circumstances and the past actions of both the parties. The court will have to determine this first before coming to a decision regarding the same.
It does not merely depend on the physical injuries caused. As depicted in the example above, it may also be mental injury. This could include factors like disturbance or causing irritation. In many parts of the IPC, the word ‘harm’ is used. Depending on the context in which it is used, its meaning would vary. It means injury to a person’s body, mind, reputation or property. The Court would make the final decision as to the severity of the harm.

[Intern]

According to section 95 of Indian Penal Code, Nothing is an offence which is caused by a person not intending to harm or not intended to cause or lightly would cause hurt to the person of which a normal ordinary person and temper would complain of it. And this provision of Indian penal code actually discards the claims of people who complain of small inflicted harm to the court in which a normal person wouldn’t complain off. This section is based on the principle of “de minimis non-curat lex” which provides that the “law is not concerned with trifles.”And this section even reduces its burden in dealing with cases by introducing this section by dismissing the claims under slight harm and insignificant cases. This makes the court to work more on things which is severe and which need demand justice. However, the act comes under this section only when an ordinary men wouldn’t complain of it. And in considering whether the following case comes under this section or not then we have examine all the facts of the case and circumstances will be taken into account, the relationships between the parties will be also play a major role in deciding a case whether it comes under the ambit of this case. The nature of injury the scope of loss caused to the victim due to the act and then even the intention matters in deciding a case whether it falls under this section or not. So, all these factors will be measured and then conclude whether it falls under this section or not. For example, no man can pass through a crowd without dashing against somebody or without treading on somebody’s toes and hence, no man of reasonable sense would complain of such small annoyance caused to him.

[Intern]

The law does not take trifling matters into account. Nothing is to be wrong if a person of ordinary temper and rationale would not complain about. The Latin term for this concept is De minimus non curat lex. The judiciary applies this term to trivial matters that do not require judicial scrutiny. For instance: If A is driving along a dusty road and a little dust is thrown on a passerby B, A would not be liable for damage caused to B. The court would apply the principle of De minimus non curat lex.

This maxim is also recognised in Sec. 95 of the Indian Penal Code which states that nothing is an offence that causes slight harm and that a person of ordinary temper would not complain about.
This principle of common law is to highlight the fact that judiciary will not take notice of extremely minor violations of the law, taking place in peoples day to day lives. The law does not encourage litigants to bring legal action where there is negligible damage, as it would only waste the time and resources of the judiciary.
In the case of Coward v. Bradley, a bystander B touched C’s arm, a fireman, to attract his attention to another part of the building where the fire was raging. On a suit filed by C against B for battery, the court held that the bystander was not liable for the tort, and that it amounted to trivial act before the court.

However there are a few cases where the maxim was not applied by the court. In the case of Helford V. Bailey, B casts and draws a net in water where H has an exclusive right of fishing. It was held that whether any fish was caught or not, B had committed a tort against H.
Thus, some injuries merit so little consideration that no suit can be filed in such cases. This defence, does not mean that the act is not justified, it merely means that there will be no punishment for such an act because of it’s frivolous and trivial nature.

[Intern]

‘De minimis non curat lex’ the legal maxim in it’s literal sense means the law does not entertain the trail of trifle matters. The judge may refuse to perform a trail in the court of law if it is an extremely minor transgression of law. The maxim is backed by Section 95 of the I.P.C it states that it is intended to prevent penalisation of negligible wrongs. For example, a person cannot file a case of battery against another person if he/she was pressed or pushed while getting into a railway compartment.

In the case of Veeda Menezes v/s Yusuf Khan Hai Ibrahim Khan, the Supreme Court dismissed the appeal, because a slight scratch on the elbow by the respondent would constitute only a slight harm, since if a person of ordinary temper and sense would have been placed in the same circumstances as the appellant would not have reasonably complained of the damage and therefore would not have been entertained
However, the meaning and essence of this maxim should not be mixed with the fact that the court of law dismisses every trail on the basis of the amount of damage. If the damage is significant and harmful enough caused by the accused then the court of law might instruct minor damages to be paid and may even award punishment.

[Intern]

In my opinion, when the ‘harm’ caused is so slight that a person of normal logic and temper would not complain of any action. nature of the injury, the situation of the parties, intention or knowledge with which the act was done and other related conditions are relevant concerns to determine as to whether a person of ordinary sense and temper would complain of the harm or not. Like for example a mother beating the child for misbehavior doesn’t cause any kind of severe harm or adults fighting for petty issues or even children fighting while playing or in any argument these harms cannot be regarded as something harm that needs to complain. Any trivial matters that take place in day to day life which causes slight harm.

There are a countless number of acts being done daily everywhere in the world which is ‘offenses’ technically, but the law cannot and should not take cognizance of these because doing so would possibly be impossible and would also harm the attention of the public permanently while at the same time troubling the courts unnecessarily.

Some such instances may be hustle and bustle in a crowded area like a busy local market area where power is applied almost always by one against another in the form of pushes, goings-on in a busy railway or bus station where even deliberate physical contacts take place between individuals, entering into the premises of another without authority with a view to drink water from a tap on the corner of the lawn there, or just randomly visiting or lurking around my also cause harm but that won’t be subjected to any requirement for filing complain. Also, the measure of harm depends on the situation and thus cannot be judged only by the measure of physical or other damage the act causes.

[Intern]

It is already known that Section 95 is intended to prevent penalisation of negligible wrongs, or of offences of trivial nature. As per the Draft Penal Code, the section provides an exception from criminal liability in respect of those acts which though fall under the letter of law but are yet not accounted under its spirit rather are considered innocent. For example, it is theft to take a white paper from another man’s drawer, or taking someone’s pen without telling them, pressing against a man while getting into a crowded train. If such trivial acts were made punishable then all free movement and interaction in society would come to an end and men would not be able to live freely. If a person is subject to criminal trial for every petty act he does, he would be exposed to all the troubles and worries of criminal trial. Thus, the law will not take notice of trifles, that is, de minimis non curat lex. The parties are allowed to settle such petty matters between themselves and outside the court. In this section the act that causes harm, is intended to cause harm or is known likely to cause harm and such harm is so slight that no man of ordinary sense or temper will complain of such harm. The expression “harm” has not been defined in the code although it has been used in different sections of the code differently and very specific however in section 95 IPC “Harm” has a wider meaning including physical injury, financial loss, loss of reputation, mental worry and even apprehension to injury.
Thus the term “slight harm” does not have any special or specific meaning. The only condition of slight harm is that it needs to be a petty matter or a trivial matter. This same view was kept forward by the Supreme Court in Veeda Menezes v. Yusuf Khan Hani Ibrahim Khan, the court held that whether an act amounts to an offence is trivial or otherwise totally depend upon the nature of the injury, the position of the parties, the knowledge or intention with which the offending act is done and other related circumstance.

[Intern]

Section 95 is intended to prevent penalisation of negligible wrongs or of
offences of trivial character. Whether an act which amounts to an offence is
trivial would undoubtedly depend upon the nature of the injury, the position of
the parties, the knowledge or intention with which the offending act is done, and
other related circumstances. There can be no absolute standard or degree of
harm which may be regarded as so slight that a person of ordinary sense and
temper would not complain of the harm. It cannot be judged solely by the
measure of physical or other injury the act causes. A soldier assaulting his
colonel, a policeman assaulting his Superintendent, or a pupil beating his
teacher, commit offences, the heinousness of which cannot be determined
merely by the actual injury suffered by the officer or the teacher, for the assault
would be wholly subversive of discipline. As assault by one child on another, or
even by a grown-up person on another, which causes injury may still be
regarded as so slight, having regard to the way and station of life of the parties,
relation between them, situation in which the parties are placed, and other
circumstances in which harm is caused, that the victim ordinarily may not
complain of the harm. (Veeda Menezes vs. Yusuf Khan and Ors. AIR1966SC1773)

[Author]

Replies