Section 91 of IPC : Section 91: Exclusion of acts which are offences independently of harm caused

Explanation using Example

Example 1:

Ravi, a professional boxer, consents to participate in a boxing match with Suresh. During the match, Ravi gets injured. Under Sections 87, 88, and 89 of the Indian Penal Code, Suresh would not be held liable for Ravi's injuries because Ravi consented to the match, understanding the risks involved. However, if Suresh intentionally hits Ravi with a weapon during the match, causing severe injury, Suresh would be liable for assault with a deadly weapon. This is because the act of using a weapon is an offence independently of the harm caused, and Ravi's consent to the boxing match does not extend to consenting to being attacked with a weapon.

Example 2:

Dr. Mehta performs a surgery on Priya with her consent to remove a benign tumor. During the surgery, Dr. Mehta follows all medical protocols, but Priya suffers complications and needs further treatment. Under Sections 87, 88, and 89, Dr. Mehta would not be held liable for the complications because Priya consented to the surgery, understanding the risks. However, if Dr. Mehta performs an illegal abortion on Priya without any medical necessity, even with her consent, he would be liable for causing a miscarriage. This is because causing a miscarriage is an offence independently of the harm it may cause, and Priya's consent does not justify the act.