Section 32 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS) 2023 addresses the legal implications of acts committed under duress, specifically when an individual is compelled to act due to threats of instant death. This provision offers a defense for individuals who, under immediate threat to their lives, commit acts that would otherwise be deemed offenses.
Text of Section 32:
“Except murder, and offences against the State punishable with death, nothing is an offence which is done by a person who is compelled to do it by threats, which, at the time of doing it, reasonably cause the apprehension that instant death to that person will otherwise be the consequence:
Provided that the person doing the act did not of his own accord, or from a reasonable apprehension of harm to himself short of instant death, place himself in the situation by which he became subject to such constraint.
Explanation 1: A person who, of his own accord, or by reason of a threat of being beaten, joins a gang of dacoits, knowing their character, is not entitled to the benefit of this exception, on the ground of his having been compelled by his associates to do anything that is an offence by law.
Explanation 2: A person seized by a gang of dacoits, and forced, by threat of instant death, to do a thing which is an offence by law; for example, a smith compelled to take his tools and to force the door of a house for the dacoits to enter and plunder it, is entitled to the benefit of this exception.”
Key Elements of Section 32:
- Exclusion of Certain Offenses:
- The defense under Section 32 does not apply to acts of murder or offenses against the State punishable by death.
- Compulsion by Threats:
- The individual must be compelled to act due to threats that reasonably cause apprehension of instant death.
- Voluntary Exposure:
- The defense is not available if the individual voluntarily placed themselves in the situation leading to the compulsion.
- Illustrative Explanations:
- Explanation 1: Joining a gang of dacoits voluntarily, even under threat of being beaten, disqualifies one from claiming this defense.
- Explanation 2: Being forcibly seized and compelled under threat of instant death to commit an offense (e.g., a smith forced to break into a house) qualifies for the defense.
Purpose and Rationale:
Section 32 acknowledges human vulnerability under extreme duress, particularly when faced with threats of immediate death. It provides a legal safeguard for individuals coerced into committing offenses under such circumstances, ensuring they are not unjustly penalized. However, it maintains strict boundaries by excluding serious crimes like murder and offenses against the State punishable by death, thereby balancing individual protection with societal interests.
Case Law Analysis:
While Section 32 is a provision of the BNS 2023, its principles are akin to those found in earlier legal frameworks, such as Section 94 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC). Examining case law under the IPC provides insights into the application of similar defenses.
- R. vs. Dudley and Stephens (1884):
- In this English case, two shipwrecked sailors killed and ate a cabin boy to survive. They argued necessity due to extreme hunger. The court rejected their defense, emphasizing that necessity does not justify murder. This aligns with Section 32’s exclusion of murder from acts excusable under duress.
- State of Gujarat vs. Khan Abdul Latif (1980):
- In this case, the accused claimed he was forced to participate in smuggling activities under threat to his life. The court examined the voluntariness of his association with the smugglers and the immediacy of the threat. The defense was rejected as the accused had voluntarily associated with the criminals, paralleling Explanation 1 of Section 32.
- M.P. Sharma vs. Satish Chandra (1954):
- Here, the Supreme Court discussed the admissibility of evidence obtained under duress. While not directly related to Section 32, the case underscores the judiciary’s cautious approach towards actions performed under compulsion, ensuring that claims of duress are substantiated by credible evidence.
Application in Judicial Proceedings:
When invoking Section 32 as a defense, the burden of proof lies on the accused to demonstrate:
- The presence of an immediate threat causing reasonable apprehension of instant death.
- Lack of voluntary placement in the compromising situation.
Courts meticulously assess the immediacy and severity of the threat, the accused’s prior conduct, and the plausibility of escaping the situation without committing the offense. The defense is scrutinized to prevent misuse, ensuring it is reserved for genuine instances of coercion under threat of instant death.
Section 32 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita 2023 serves as a crucial legal provision, offering protection to individuals compelled to commit certain offenses under immediate threat to their lives. By delineating clear boundaries and exceptions, it balances individual rights with societal interests, ensuring that the defense of duress is applied judiciously and not exploited to justify serious crimes. The provision’s alignment with established legal principles and its incorporation of illustrative explanations enhance its applicability and understanding within the judicial system.
