Indian Penal Code, 1860
Section 95
repealedAct 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.
Why this exists
This section reflects the legal principle 'de minimis non curat lex' (the law does not concern itself with trifles). The drafters of the IPC recognized that criminal law should focus on real, meaningful wrongs, not petty annoyances of everyday life. Without such a provision, courts could be flooded with trivial complaints over minor bumps, brief touches, or negligible inconveniences, wasting judicial resources and criminalizing normal human interaction.
How courts read it
Indian courts have applied Section 95 sparingly and cautiously, emphasizing that the harm must be genuinely trivial from the perspective of a reasonable, ordinary person—not the hypersensitive complainant. Courts have clarified that this section does not excuse harm that is significant even if brief, and that intent or context still matters. It is often invoked in minor scuffles, incidental contact, or negligible property damage cases, but courts are careful not to let it become a blanket excuse for genuine wrongdoing.
Common misconceptions
- Myth: Section 95 means minor injuries are always legal.
Fact: Courts have clarified that harm must be genuinely trivial to an ordinary person; if the harm is real or the victim's complaint is reasonable, this section does not apply. - Myth: This section can excuse any minor criminal act if the accused claims it was 'not a big deal.'
Fact: The test is objective—what an ordinary, reasonable person would think—not the accused's personal opinion of triviality.