DEMINIS NON CURETA LEX
Section 95 in the Indian Penal Code “Act causing slight harm.—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”.
The objective of this application is Deminis non cureta lex the law does not concern itself
with trifles. Which is an old doctrine of Roman law. A man living in the society, undeniable, cannot
either avoid in convinces to himself or others. It would be therefore an idle travesty of law to deal
with such delinquencies as crimes. section 95 hence intendeds to exclude form the operation of the
code of those cases which from the imperfection of the language , fall within the letter of the pineal
law but are not within its sprit and to prevent penalization of negligible wrongs or offences of
trivial character
No reasonable man complains of trifles. No man can pass through a crowed thoroughfare without
treading on somebody’s toes or without clashing agnist somebody and no reasonable man would
complain of such annoyance.
Illustration: A gets into a public carriage in which Z was sitting and in sitting slightly hurt Z by
pushing the side of the carriage. Here As act fall within the definition of the clause. If the whole
harm of such a nature that no man of ordinary sense or temper would complain it. So A has
committed no offence.
Meaning of harm which it causes:
Harm is not defined in the IPC. Its dictionary meaning connotes hurt injury damage impairment
moral wrong or evil. The word harm is used in many section in the IPC would vary according to
the context.in the case of Vedas Menezes v Yusuf Khan , Yusuf was a tenant of Mr. Veeda
Meenzes . Robert , the servant of Mr. Menzes called Yusuf’s wife a thief . Next day Yusuf slapped
Robert due to which heated exchange of abusive words followed between Yusuf and Mr. Menezs
. Yusuf threw a file at Mr. Menzes , though it did not hit him . But scratched Mr. Menezes elbow.
A complaint was registered in the Bandra police station that Yusuf has committed house trespass
to committee a crime punishable at imprisonment , threw a shoe at her slapped her servant and
bleeding incised wound in his forearm. Yusuf was charged under 323 sec of IPC a special public
prosecutor was appointed to prosecute him. The trail court found the defendant guilty and charged
him with 10 Ruppes each for Menzes and his servant .When the case was taken to SC the verdict
of the Bombay High Court was upheld. The injuries which was caused is trivial in nature and the
gross exaggeration of the incident. In the case of Brendiswari Prasad v Kali Singh, the allegation
against the accused was that he took away a certified copy of a judgment meant for the complaint
by signing his name. The complaint obtained another copy thereafter. The court held it as trivial
offence can be covered under sec 95 of IPC.
OFFENCES UNDER PUBLIC WELFARE ENACTEMENTS:
Certain offences in the various welfare legislation where mens rea is not a component, the strict
liability is imposed on the person. Now the question arises the plea of triviality can be arises as to
whether in respect of such offences, the plea of triviality can be accepted. For instances violation
of traffic rule such as parking a vehicle in no parking area or exceeding the speed limit. However
the plea of trivial is not accepted.
In Jadish Prasad v State of Uttar Pradesh, it was contended that the prevention of food
adulteration act 1955 imposed a heavier punishment for a second offence under the act and where
the first offence was of a serious nature and second is a trivial one it would render a provision of
stance as it would punish a smaller offence with a harsher punishment. The Supreme Court rejected
the contention and labeled the entire argument as fallacious. It held that there was no foundation
in the act for distinguishing and serious offences.
Compounding of trivial offences:
Compounding offences means settling or condoning matters between the parties sec 320 , CrPC ,
provides a scheduled offences that may be compounded by parties. In one case a person by name
Hazarika was the holder of a fire wood mahal license. Under the license he was entitled to cut and
collect firewood from dead and fallen trees and converted it into firewood. By mistake he made
some green trees in to fire wood. He was fined with 50 rupees. And it was held a trivial offences.
The fifth law commission of India expressing its satisfaction with the legislative intent of sec 95
recommended no changes in the existing law relating to triviality.
BY ABHISEK DASH , BA0170001
