सं Samvidhan

Indian Penal Code, 1860

Section 88

repealed

Act not intended to cause death, done by consent in good faith for person's benefit

Nothing, which is not intended to cause death, is an offence by reason of any harm which it may cause, or be intended by the doer to cause, or be known by the doer to be likely to cause, to any person for whose benefit it is done in good faith, and who has given a consent, whether express or implied to suffer that harm, or to take the risk of that harm.

Why this exists

The IPC's drafters needed a way to protect doctors, surgeons, and ordinary people who help others in ways that involve some risk or pain — like an operation, a vaccination, or even a risky rescue — from being treated as criminals just because harm resulted. Section 88 codifies the common-sense idea that good-faith, consented-to acts meant to benefit someone shouldn't be punished, provided death was never the intention. It sits alongside Sections 87–92, which together build a consent-based framework of exceptions to criminal liability.

How courts read it

Indian courts have leaned on Section 88 mainly in medical-treatment cases, treating it as the legal basis for why a surgeon who operates in good faith with a patient's consent isn't guilty of an offence even if the surgery causes pain, injury, or complications. In Samira Kohli v. Dr. Prabha Manchanda (2008), the Supreme Court examined the doctrine of informed consent in medical treatment, discussing how Sections 88 and 90 interact — stressing that 'good faith' and genuine, informed consent are essential; consent obtained through fraud or without real understanding does not attract this protection.

Common misconceptions
  • Myth: Section 88 means doctors can never be sued or punished for anything that goes wrong during treatment.
    Fact: It only protects acts done in good faith, with real consent, and never intended to cause death; negligence, fraud, or acting without proper consent falls outside its protection.
  • Myth: This section allows people to consent to being killed and escape liability.
    Fact: The section explicitly excludes acts 'intended to cause death' — consent to being killed is never protected here (that is addressed, with limits, under a different provision, Section 92, and consent to death is generally not a valid defence).