Section 18 BNS 2023: Accident in Doing a Lawful Act — Complete Guide
Table of Contents
- 1. Introduction: Why Section 18 BNS Matters
- 2. What Exactly is Section 18 BNS?
- 3. The Complete Legal Text of Section 18 BNS
- 4. Essential Elements of Section 18 Explained
- 5. Understanding "Accident" and "Misfortune"
- 6. The Requirement of a "Lawful Act"
- 7. "Lawful Manner" and "Lawful Means"
- 8. "Proper Care and Caution": The Critical Test
- 9. Absence of Criminal Intention or Knowledge
- 10. The Official Illustration: Hatchet Example
- 11. Real-Life Examples and Case Studies
- 12. Section 18 BNS vs Section 80 IPC: What Changed?
- 13. Landmark Cases on Accident Defence in India
- 14. Sports Accidents and Section 18
- 15. Medical Procedures and the Accident Defence
- 16. Accident vs Negligence: The Thin Line
- 17. Burden of Proof Under Section 18
- 18. Practical Guide for Accused Persons
- 19. Conclusion: Justice for the Unintentional
Introduction: Why Section 18 BNS Matters
Imagine you are a carpenter working diligently at your workshop. You are using a hatchet to shape a piece of wood, exactly as you have done a thousand times before. Suddenly, the metal head of the hatchet flies off the handle due to a hidden defect you could not have known about. It strikes a passerby standing nearby, causing a fatal injury. The police arrive, and you are arrested for causing death. But here is the truth — you had no intention to hurt anyone. You were doing your lawful job, using proper tools, and exercising all the caution a reasonable person would. Should you be punished for this tragedy?
This is exactly the kind of situation that Section 18 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS), 2023 is designed to address. This provision is one of the most important general exceptions in Indian criminal law. It protects honest, law-abiding citizens from being criminally prosecuted when tragedy strikes despite their best efforts to act responsibly. Without this section, every accidental injury or death would expose people to criminal liability, creating a climate of fear where no one would dare to perform even the most ordinary daily tasks.
Section 18 corresponds to the old Section 80 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC), 1860. It has been carried forward into the new BNS with the exact same wording, which shows how fundamental and time-tested this principle is. The section came into force on 1st July 2024, when the BNS officially replaced the IPC. Since then, it has become a critical defence for thousands of accused persons across India who find themselves facing criminal charges for genuine accidents.
This article will take you through every aspect of Section 18 in plain, simple language. Whether you are a law student preparing for exams, a practicing lawyer building a defence, or a citizen who wants to understand your rights, this guide is written for you. We will break down the legal text, explain each element with real-life examples, discuss landmark cases, compare the old and new law, and give you practical guidance on how to use this defence effectively.
What Exactly is Section 18 BNS?
Section 18 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 is a general exception that provides immunity from criminal liability for acts done by accident or misfortune while performing a lawful act in a lawful manner by lawful means, provided that proper care and caution are exercised. In simple words, if you accidentally cause harm while doing something legal and legitimate, and you were being careful, you cannot be punished for that harm.
This section falls under Chapter III of the BNS, which is titled "General Exceptions." General exceptions are defences that apply across the entire Sanhita. They are not tied to any specific offence but can be raised as a defence to any criminal charge. The philosophy behind general exceptions is that criminal law should punish only those who act with a guilty mind — what lawyers call mens rea. If a person has no criminal intention and no criminal knowledge, and they cause harm purely by accident while doing something lawful, punishing them would serve no purpose of justice.
Section 18 is particularly important because it protects people in their everyday lives. From driving a car to performing surgery, from playing sports to operating machinery at work — accidents can happen in countless situations. Without this protection, the criminal justice system would be flooded with cases against innocent people, and the principle of fairness would be severely undermined.
The Complete Legal Text of Section 18 BNS
Let us look at the exact words of the law. The text of Section 18 is short but packed with meaning. Here is the complete provision as it appears in the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023:
Nothing is an offence which is done by accident or misfortune, and without any criminal intention or knowledge in the doing of a lawful act in a lawful manner by lawful means and with proper care and caution.
Illustration:
A is at work with a hatchet; the head flies off and kills a man who is standing by. Here, if there was no want of proper caution on the part of A, his act is excusable and not an offence.
This text may look simple, but every single word has been carefully chosen and has been the subject of extensive judicial interpretation over more than 160 years. Let us now unpack each part in detail.
Essential Elements of Section 18 Explained
To successfully claim the defence under Section 18, the accused must prove that ALL of the following conditions are satisfied. If even one condition is missing, the defence will fail. Here are the essential elements:
- The Act Must Be Done by Accident or Misfortune: The harmful result must be unintentional and unforeseeable. It must be something that happened beyond the control and expectation of the person doing the act.
- There Must Be No Criminal Intention: The person must not have intended to cause the harm that resulted. There should be no desire or plan to bring about the harmful consequence.
- There Must Be No Criminal Knowledge: The person must not have known that their act was likely to cause the harm. They should be genuinely unaware of the risk.
- The Act Must Be Lawful: The activity being performed must itself be legal. You cannot claim the accident defence if you were doing something illegal when the harm occurred.
- The Act Must Be Done in a Lawful Manner: The way the act was performed must comply with legal norms and accepted standards. Reckless or improper methods will disqualify the defence.
- The Act Must Be Done By Lawful Means: The tools, instruments, or methods used must be legal and appropriate for the task. Using banned or dangerous equipment will not support the defence.
- Proper Care and Caution Must Be Exercised: The person must have taken all reasonable precautions that a prudent person would take in the same circumstances. Negligence destroys this defence.
Understanding "Accident" and "Misfortune"
The words "accident" and "misfortune" are the foundation of this section. But what do they really mean in law? An accident is an event that happens unexpectedly and without design. It is something that occurs despite all reasonable precautions. Misfortune is similar — it refers to an unfortunate event that brings harm without any wrongdoing on the part of the person involved.
In legal terms, an accident under Section 18 has these characteristics:
- Unintentional: The harmful result was not planned, desired, or foreseen by the person.
- Unforeseeable: A reasonable person in the same situation could not have predicted that the harm would occur.
- Beyond Control: The event happened due to factors outside the person's control, such as mechanical failure, natural forces, or the actions of others.
- Not Due to Negligence: The accident was not caused by the person's failure to take reasonable care. If carelessness contributed to the harm, it is not a true accident under Section 18.
For example, if a farmer is ploughing his field with a tractor and a hidden stone flies up and injures a worker, this may be an accident. But if the farmer was driving the tractor at excessive speed in a crowded area without warning people, the same event would not qualify as an accident under Section 18 because proper care was lacking.
The Requirement of a "Lawful Act"
The first and most basic requirement of Section 18 is that the person must have been doing a lawful act when the accident occurred. This means the activity itself must be legal and not prohibited by law. You cannot claim the accident defence if you were engaged in illegal activity.
Let us understand this with examples:
- Lawful Act: A licensed doctor performing a surgery, a licensed driver driving within speed limits, a construction worker building a house with proper permits, a sports player participating in an organized match.
- Unlawful Act: A person driving without a license, someone trespassing on private property, a person manufacturing illegal drugs, someone participating in an illegal street race.
If harm occurs during an unlawful act, Section 18 does not apply. The law says that if you choose to do something illegal, you must accept the consequences, including the risk of accidental harm. This is a strict condition, and courts have consistently held that the accident defence is not available to persons engaged in illegal activities.
"Lawful Manner" and "Lawful Means"
Even if the act itself is lawful, Section 18 requires that it must be done in a lawful manner and by lawful means. These two conditions add an extra layer of protection against abuse of the accident defence.
Lawful manner means that the way the act is performed must comply with accepted norms, standards, and regulations. For example:
- A factory worker must follow safety protocols while operating machinery.
- A driver must follow traffic rules while on the road.
- A surgeon must follow medical standards while performing operations.
- A sports player must follow the rules of the game.
Lawful means means that the tools, equipment, and methods used must be legal and appropriate. For example:
- Using a properly maintained and certified vehicle on the road.
- Using sterilized and approved medical instruments in surgery.
- Using regulation sports equipment in a match.
- Using safety-certified construction tools at a building site.
If a person uses illegal means — such as driving a vehicle without valid registration, using banned chemicals in manufacturing, or using modified weapons in sports — the accident defence will not be available even if the harm was genuinely unintended.
"Proper Care and Caution": The Critical Test
Perhaps the most important and most contested element of Section 18 is the requirement of "proper care and caution." This is the test that separates a genuine accident from negligence. The law does not protect careless people. It only protects those who acted with the level of care that a reasonable, prudent person would exercise in the same circumstances.
What constitutes "proper care and caution" depends on the facts of each case. Courts consider factors such as:
- Nature of the Activity: More dangerous activities require greater caution. A brain surgeon must exercise more care than a person walking on the street.
- Skill and Experience of the Person: A professional is expected to exercise a higher standard of care than an amateur. A trained pilot must be more careful than a first-time flyer.
- Circumstances of the Case: Emergency situations may justify actions that would otherwise be considered careless. A doctor performing emergency surgery in a remote area may not have the same resources as one in a city hospital.
- Industry Standards: Courts look at what is considered standard practice in the relevant profession or industry. If the accused followed established protocols, they are more likely to succeed.
- Foreseeability of Risk: If the risk was obvious and the person failed to address it, they will be found lacking in proper care. If the risk was hidden and unforeseeable, the defence is stronger.
The burden of proving proper care and caution lies on the accused. This means the person claiming the accident defence must show evidence that they took all reasonable precautions. This can include witness testimony, safety records, maintenance logs, training certificates, and expert opinions.
Absence of Criminal Intention or Knowledge
The core principle of criminal law is actus non facit reum nisi mens sit rea — an act does not make a person guilty unless their mind is also guilty. Section 18 embodies this principle by requiring that the accident must occur without any criminal intention or knowledge.
Criminal intention means the desire or purpose to cause the harmful result. If a person wants to hurt someone and accidentally causes more harm than intended, Section 18 does not apply. For example, if a person throws a stone at someone to scare them, and the stone hits a bystander instead, the person cannot claim the accident defence because they had the criminal intention to throw the stone at a person.
Criminal knowledge means awareness that the act is likely to cause harm. If a person knows that their action is dangerous and proceeds anyway, they cannot claim the accident defence even if they did not intend the specific harm. For example, if a person fires a gun into a crowded street "just for fun" and accidentally hits someone, they cannot claim Section 18 because they knew their act was likely to cause harm.
The distinction between intention and knowledge is subtle but important:
- Intention: "I want this result to happen."
- Knowledge: "I know this result is likely to happen, even though I do not want it."
- Neither: "I had no idea this could happen, and I did not want it to happen." — This is where Section 18 applies.
The Official Illustration: Hatchet Example
The BNS provides an official illustration to Section 18 that has become one of the most famous examples in Indian criminal law:
A is at work with a hatchet; the head flies off and kills a man who is standing by. Here, if there was no want of proper caution on the part of A, his act is excusable and not an offence.
This illustration is simple but teaches us several important lessons:
- Lawful Act: Using a hatchet for work is a lawful act. Carpentry and woodwork are legitimate occupations.
- Lawful Manner: A was using the hatchet in the normal way it is meant to be used — for cutting or shaping wood.
- Lawful Means: A hatchet is a lawful tool for carpentry. It is not a banned or illegal weapon.
- Accident: The head flying off was unexpected and beyond A's control. It was a mechanical failure.
- No Criminal Intention: A did not want to kill anyone. He was simply doing his job.
- Proper Care: The illustration adds the critical condition — "if there was no want of proper caution on the part of A." If A had inspected the hatchet before use, maintained it properly, and used it correctly, he is excused. But if A knew the hatchet was damaged and used it anyway, or if he was swinging it recklessly near people, the defence would fail.
This illustration has been cited in countless court judgments and law school classrooms. It perfectly captures the balance that Section 18 seeks to achieve — protecting the innocent while demanding responsibility.
Real-Life Examples and Case Studies
Let us look at some real-life scenarios where Section 18 may or may not apply. These examples will help you understand how courts analyze the accident defence in practice.
Example 1: The Careful Driver
Rajesh is driving his car at 40 km/h in a 50 km/h zone. He is wearing his seatbelt, his car is properly maintained, and he is fully attentive. Suddenly, a child runs onto the road from between parked cars. Rajesh slams the brakes but cannot stop in time, and the child is injured. In this case, Rajesh was driving lawfully, in a lawful manner, by lawful means, and with proper care. The child's sudden appearance was an accident beyond his control. Section 18 would likely protect Rajesh.
Example 2: The Reckless Driver
Same situation, but this time Rajesh is driving at 80 km/h in a 50 km/h zone, talking on his phone, and his brakes are worn out. When the child runs onto the road, he cannot stop in time. Here, Rajesh was not exercising proper care. He was speeding, distracted, and driving a poorly maintained vehicle. Section 18 would NOT protect him. He may be guilty of rash and negligent driving under Section 125 BNS.
Example 3: The Construction Site
A construction company is building a high-rise. They have installed safety nets, warning signs, and barriers around the site. All workers are wearing helmets and harnesses. Despite these precautions, a small bolt falls from the 10th floor and injures a passerby on the sidewalk. The company followed all safety regulations and industry standards. Section 18 may protect the company because they exercised proper care, and the bolt falling was an unforeseeable accident.
Example 4: The Factory Worker
A factory worker is operating a machine that he knows has a faulty safety guard. His supervisor has warned him not to use it until repaired, but he uses it anyway to meet a deadline. The machine malfunction causes injury to a colleague. Section 18 will NOT protect this worker because he knowingly used defective equipment and ignored safety warnings. He lacked proper care and caution.
Section 18 BNS vs Section 80 IPC: What Changed?
Section 18 of the BNS is the direct successor to Section 80 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860. When the BNS was drafted, the government had the opportunity to modify, expand, or restrict this provision. But they chose to carry it forward with the exact same wording. This tells us something important — the principle of accident as a general exception is so well-settled and universally accepted that no change was considered necessary.
Here is a comparison of the two provisions:
- IPC Section 80 (Old Law): "Nothing is an offence which is done by accident or misfortune, and without any criminal intention or knowledge in the doing of a lawful act in a lawful manner by lawful means and with proper care and caution."
- BNS Section 18 (New Law): "Nothing is an offence which is done by accident or misfortune, and without any criminal intention or knowledge in the doing of a lawful act in a lawful manner by lawful means and with proper care and caution."
As you can see, the text is identical. The only difference is the section number. This means:
- All judicial interpretations of Section 80 IPC remain fully applicable to Section 18 BNS.
- Lawyers and judges can rely on precedents from the IPC era when arguing cases under the BNS.
- Law students who studied Section 80 IPC can apply the same understanding to Section 18 BNS.
- The legal concept has stood the test of time for over 160 years.
However, there is one practical change. The BNS came into force on 1st July 2024. Any offence committed before that date will be governed by the IPC, and any offence committed on or after that date will be governed by the BNS. This transition period has created some confusion in courts, but the substantive law on accident defence remains unchanged.
Landmark Cases on Accident Defence in India
Indian courts have decided numerous cases involving the accident defence under Section 80 IPC (now Section 18 BNS). These cases have shaped our understanding of what constitutes a valid accident defence. Here are some of the most important ones:
1. Tunda v. Rex (AIR 1950 All 95)
This is one of the most famous cases on the accident defence. Two friends who enjoyed wrestling were engaged in a wrestling match. During the match, one of them sustained fatal injuries. The court held that there was an implied consent between the friends to suffer potential injuries while wrestling. Since there was no foul play, the injury was deemed accidental and the act unintentional. The court applied Sections 80 and 87 of the IPC (now Sections 18 and 25 of the BNS) to acquit the accused. This case established that sports and recreational activities can fall under the accident defence if conducted fairly and with consent.
2. Bhupendra Sinha v. State of Bihar
In this case, the accused was driving a truck when a cyclist suddenly swerved in front of him. Despite applying brakes, the accused could not avoid hitting the cyclist, who died. The court held that the death was caused by accident. The accused was driving carefully, within speed limits, and the cyclist's sudden movement was unforeseeable. The court acquitted the accused under Section 80 IPC, emphasizing that proper care and caution had been exercised.
3. State of Rajasthan v. Kishanlal
The accused was working in a mine when a sudden landslide occurred, killing a fellow worker. The prosecution argued that the accused was negligent in not predicting the landslide. The court held that landslides in mines are often unpredictable and that the accused had followed all safety protocols. The accident defence was allowed because proper care had been taken and the harm was beyond the accused's control.
4. Joginder Singh v. State of Punjab
In this case, the accused was cleaning a loaded gun when it accidentally discharged, killing his neighbour. The court refused to allow the accident defence because the accused was handling a loaded firearm without taking basic safety precautions. The court held that anyone handling a loaded gun must ensure it is pointed in a safe direction and the safety catch is on. The lack of proper care disqualified the defence.
Sports Accidents and Section 18
Sports present a unique challenge for the accident defence. On one hand, physical contact and risk of injury are inherent in many sports. On the other hand, players are expected to follow the rules and not act with malicious intent. Section 18, read with Section 25 BNS (consent to suffer harm), provides important protection for sports participants.
Consider these scenarios:
- Football Match: During a legal tackle, a player accidentally breaks another player's leg. Both were playing by the rules, wearing proper gear, and the tackle was within the spirit of the game. Section 18 would likely protect the tackling player because the injury was accidental, the act was lawful, and proper care was exercised.
- Boxing Match: A boxer lands a legal punch that knocks out his opponent, who suffers a brain injury. Boxing is a lawful sport with rules, and both participants consented to the risk. Section 18, along with consent, would protect the boxer.
- Illegal Move: A hockey player deliberately hits an opponent with his stick in the head after the whistle has blown. This is not an accident. It is assault. Section 18 would not apply because there was criminal intention and the act was not done in a lawful manner.
The Tunda v. Rex case remains the leading authority on sports accidents. The principle is clear: if you play by the rules and act without malice, the law protects you. But if you break the rules intentionally or act recklessly, you face criminal liability.
Medical Procedures and the Accident Defence
Medical professionals often face situations where a procedure results in unexpected harm. Section 18 can be a valuable defence for doctors and surgeons, but the standard of care expected is extremely high.
Consider these scenarios:
- Successful Defence: A surgeon performs a routine appendectomy following all medical protocols. During the surgery, a rare and unforeseeable allergic reaction to anesthesia causes the patient's death. The surgeon followed standard procedures, used approved drugs, and could not have predicted the reaction. Section 18 may protect the surgeon.
- Failed Defence: A surgeon performs surgery while intoxicated, uses unsterilized instruments, and ignores the patient's known allergies. The patient dies. Section 18 will NOT protect the surgeon because there was a complete lack of proper care and caution.
Medical negligence cases are complex because they often overlap with civil liability (compensation) and criminal liability (punishment). Section 18 is more likely to succeed in criminal cases where the doctor acted in good faith and followed protocols, even if the outcome was tragic.
Accident vs Negligence: The Thin Line
The most difficult question in Section 18 cases is distinguishing between a genuine accident and negligence. This is where most defences succeed or fail. Let us understand the difference clearly.
Accident: An event that occurs despite all reasonable precautions. No amount of care could have prevented it. It is truly unforeseeable and beyond control.
Negligence: An event that occurs because the person failed to take reasonable precautions that they should have taken. The harm was foreseeable and could have been prevented with proper care.
Here are some practical distinctions:
- Accident: A tree falls on a car during a sudden storm, killing the driver. No one could have predicted the tree would fall at that exact moment.
- Negligence: A tree that was visibly rotten and leaning dangerously falls on a car. The municipality knew about the danger but did nothing. This is negligence, not accident.
- Accident: A factory machine that passed all safety inspections suddenly explodes due to a microscopic metal fatigue.
- Negligence: A factory machine with known electrical faults explodes because management refused to repair it to save costs.
Courts use the "reasonable person test" — would a reasonable person in the same circumstances have foreseen the risk and taken precautions? If yes, and the accused failed to do so, it is negligence. If no reasonable person could have foreseen it, it is an accident.
Burden of Proof Under Section 18
A critical aspect of Section 18 is the burden of proof. In criminal cases, the general rule is that the prosecution must prove the accused's guilt beyond reasonable doubt. But when it comes to general exceptions like Section 18, the law places a different burden on the accused.
The accused must prove the circumstances that bring the case within the general exception. However, the standard of proof is not "beyond reasonable doubt." It is the lower standard of "preponderance of probabilities" — meaning the accused must show that it is more likely than not that the conditions of Section 18 are satisfied.
This means:
- The prosecution must first prove that the accused committed the act that caused harm.
- Once the act is proved, the accused must raise the defence of accident.
- The accused must produce evidence showing that the act was accidental, lawful, and done with proper care.
- If the accused succeeds in raising a reasonable doubt about their guilt by showing the accident defence, they are entitled to acquittal.
The accused can discharge this burden through various types of evidence:
- Witness Testimony: Eyewitnesses who saw the accident and can confirm the accused was acting carefully.
- Documents: Maintenance records, safety inspection reports, training certificates, licenses.
- Expert Opinion: Engineers, doctors, or safety experts who can testify that the accident was unforeseeable.
- Photographs and Videos: CCTV footage, photos of the scene, dashcam recordings.
- Accident Reports: Police accident reports, factory incident reports, hospital records.
Practical Guide for Accused Persons
If you or someone you know is facing criminal charges for an incident that was genuinely accidental, here is a step-by-step guide to using Section 18 effectively:
Step 1: Preserve All Evidence
- Collect and preserve any physical evidence from the scene.
- Obtain CCTV footage before it is deleted (most systems overwrite after 30 days).
- Take photographs of the scene, equipment, and any relevant conditions.
- Keep maintenance records, inspection reports, and safety certificates.
Step 2: Document Proper Care
- Gather evidence that you followed all relevant rules, regulations, and industry standards.
- Collect witness statements from people who saw you acting carefully.
- Obtain expert opinions if technical issues are involved (e.g., mechanical failure, medical complications).
Step 3: Engage a Competent Lawyer Early
- Section 18 defences require careful preparation and presentation of evidence.
- Your lawyer should understand the technical aspects of your case and be able to explain them to the court.
- Do not wait until the trial begins. Start building the defence from day one.
Step 4: Be Honest and Consistent
- Tell your lawyer the complete truth, even if some facts are unfavourable.
- Inconsistencies in your statements will damage your credibility.
- Courts appreciate honesty and are more likely to believe a straightforward account.
Step 5: Understand the Limits
- Section 18 is not available if you were doing something illegal.
- It is not available if you were negligent or reckless.
- It is not available if you had criminal intention or knowledge.
- Be realistic about your chances. If you were careless, focus on mitigating punishment rather than claiming full innocence.
Conclusion: Justice for the Unintentional
Section 18 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 is one of the most important safeguards in Indian criminal law. It embodies the fundamental principle that criminal punishment should be reserved for those who act with a guilty mind. When honest, law-abiding citizens cause harm despite their best efforts to act responsibly, the law should not add injustice to tragedy.
The section has remained unchanged for over 160 years — from Section 80 of the IPC to Section 18 of the BNS — because its wisdom is timeless. It recognizes that human beings are not omniscient. We cannot foresee every risk, prevent every mishap, or control every variable. Accidents happen, even to the most careful among us. And when they do, the law must distinguish between the wicked and the unfortunate.
However, Section 18 is not a licence for carelessness. It demands that we act with proper care and caution. It requires that our acts be lawful, performed in a lawful manner, and by lawful means. It insists on the absence of criminal intention and knowledge. These conditions ensure that only the truly innocent are protected, while the negligent and reckless are held accountable.
For lawyers, Section 18 is a powerful tool in the defence arsenal. For citizens, it is a reassurance that the law understands the difference between malice and misfortune. For society, it is a reminder that justice is not about punishing every harmful outcome — it is about punishing only those who deserve it.
As India moves forward under the BNS, the principles of Section 18 will continue to protect countless individuals from unjust prosecution. The hatchet may fly off, the car may skid on black ice, the machine may fail despite maintenance — but if we have acted with care, the law stands with us. That is the promise of Section 18. That is the promise of justice.
Source Links and References
- India Code - The Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 (Official Bare Act)
- Ministry of Home Affairs - BNS 2023 Official Text
- Devgan.in - BNS Section 18: Accident in Doing a Lawful Act
- LawRato - BNS Section 18 Explained with Examples
- Vakilsearch - BNS Section 18: Accident in Doing a Lawful Act
- GoLegal Consultancy - Section 18 BNS Detailed Analysis
- Pahuja Law Academy - Defences Related to Accidental Acts Under BNS
- PRS India - BNS 2023 Bill Text
- SSRN - General Exceptions Under the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita
- Comparative Table of IPC 1860 and BNS 2023
COMMENTS