Legal Provisions of Section 89 of Indian Penal Code, 1860.
Act done in good faith for benefit of child or insane person, by or by consent of guardian:
ADVERTISEMENTS:
This section, along with sections 88 and 92 of the Code, deals with acts done for the benefit of others whereas section 93 deals with communication made for the benefit of a person. The authors of the Code observed:
“A lunatic may be in a state which makes it proper that he should be put into a straight waistcoat. A child may meet with an accident which may render the amputation of a limb necessary. But to put a straight waistcoat on a man without his consent is, under our definition, to commit an assault. To ampute a limb is, by our definition, voluntarily to cause grievous hurt, and as sharp instruments are used, is a very highly penal offence. We have therefore provided by Clause 71 (this section that the consent of the guardian of a sufferer who is an infant or who is of unsound mind shall, to a great extent, have the effect which the consent of the sufferer would have, if the sufferer were of ripe age and sound mind.”
Image Source: 185.26.182.219
The section states that when something is done in good faith for the benefit of a person under twelve years of age, or of unsound mind, by the guardian himself or by other person having lawful charge of that person, or by express or implied consent of the guardian or other person having lawful charge of that person, it is not an offence even though it may cause, or be intended by the doer to cause, or be known by the doer to be likely to cause, any harm to that person.
This provision is subject to four provisions mentioned in the section itself. The first proviso states that where the doer intentionally causes death or intentionally attempts to cause death, this section will not protect him. For example, where A, in good faith, for his daughter’s benefit intentionally kills her to prevent her from falling into the hand of dacoits, A is not within this exception.
ADVERTISEMENTS:
According to the second proviso this section does not apply where the doer does something which he knows to be likely to cause death, for any grievous disease or infirmity. For instance, A, in good faith, for his child’s benefit without his child’s consent, has his child cut for the stone by a surgeon, knowing it to be likely that the operation will cause the child’s death, but not intending to cause the child’s death. A is within the exception, inasmuch as his object was to cure the child.
According to the third proviso this exception shall not extend to the voluntary causing of grievous hurt, or to the attempting to cause grievous hurt, unless the purpose of the doer be to prevent death or grievous hurt, or to cure any grievous disease or infirmity. For example, A in good faith, for his child’s pecuniary benefit, emasculates his child. Here inasmuch as A has caused grievous hurt to the child for a purpose other than for preventing of death or grievous hurt to the child, A is not within the exception.
The fourth proviso states that this exception shall not extend to the abetment of any offence, to the committing of which offence it would not extend. For instance, A, intending in good faith the pecuniary benefit of Z, his daughter, a child under twelve years of age, abets a rape committed by В on Z. Neither A nor В is within the exception.
The protection under this section is available only when the act is done in good faith for the benefit of a person who is under twelve years of age, or a person of any age who is of unsound mind. The explanation to section 92 of the Code states that mere pecuniary benefit is not benefit within the meaning of sections 88, 89 and 92.
ADVERTISEMENTS:
The expression ‘good faith’ has the same meaning as is given in section 52 of the Code. It has been held that a school teacher is entitled to inflict moderate punishment on a pupil for enforcing discipline not only within the school premises but also outside of it except when the school is closed for regular holidays.