Section 291 punishes a person who knowingly or negligently fails to take measures sufficient to guard against probable danger to human life, or probable danger of grievous hurt, from an animal in his possession. The punishment is imprisonment of up to six months, or a fine of up to ₹5,000, or both. It is the Sanhita's version of IPC Section 289, with the word “order” replaced by “measures” and the maximum fine raised from ₹1,000 to ₹5,000.
Verified against the National Crime Records Bureau's official BNS–IPC concordance (Sankalan Portal) and cross-checked directly against the bare text of both Acts. Section 291 is marked Substantively changed — it descends from one section of the old Indian Penal Code, 1860, with a change in the fine (and one drafting change):
| BNS 291 | Covers | IPC, 1860 equivalent | Category |
|---|---|---|---|
| 291 | Negligent conduct with respect to animal | S.289 “Negligent conduct with respect to animal” | Substantively changed |
The offence is worded almost identically in both Acts: knowingly or negligently omitting to take such precautions with an animal in one's possession as are sufficient to guard against probable danger to human life, or probable danger of grievous hurt, from that animal. Two differences appear in the statutory texts. IPC Section 289 speaks of omitting to take such order with the animal; BNS Section 291 speaks of omitting to take such measures with the animal. And the maximum fine is raised from one thousand rupees to five thousand rupees. The imprisonment limit (either description, up to six months) is unchanged.
Whoever knowingly or negligently omits to take such measures with any animal in his possession as is sufficient to guard against any probable danger to human life, or any probable danger of grievous hurt from such animal, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to six months, or with fine which may extend to five thousand rupees, or with both.
Source: Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 (Act No. 45 of 2023), as published in the Gazette of India Extraordinary.
Section 291 makes a keeper answerable for failing to control the danger that an animal in his charge can pose. The ingredients are: (1) an animal is in the accused's possession; (2) the accused omits to take measures with that animal; (3) the measures omitted are ones sufficient to guard against either probable danger to human life or probable danger of grievous hurt from the animal; and (4) the omission is knowing or negligent. The section is one of omission: the wrong lies in not doing what the situation required, not in setting the animal on anyone.
“In his possession” is the link between the accused and the danger. The Sanhita does not define “possession” for this section and whether a particular person has the animal in his possession is a question of fact. The kind of harm guarded against is also specific: danger to human life, or danger of grievous hurt. “Grievous hurt” is the category of serious injuries listed in BNS Section 116 (for example, emasculation, permanent loss of sight or hearing, fracture or dislocation of a bone or tooth, and any hurt that endangers life or causes severe bodily pain or inability to follow ordinary pursuits for fifteen days). Danger of mere trivial injury, or damage to property, does not fit the words of the section. The danger must also be probable, not just conceivable.
As with the neighbouring negligence offences, the mental element is alternative. A person who knows the animal is dangerous and still leaves it unrestrained acts “knowingly”; a person who fails to take due care acts “negligently” (the Sanhita does not define the word in Section 2). The punishment is imprisonment of either description for up to six months, or fine up to ₹5,000, or both. Unlike Sections 289 and 290, this offence is cognizable under the BNSS First Schedule, meaning that, under BNSS Section 2(1)(g), a police officer may arrest without warrant in accordance with the First Schedule; it is also bailable, triable by any Magistrate, and not compoundable under BNSS Section 359. Section 291 should be kept distinct from Section 289 (negligence with machinery) and Section 290 (negligence in pulling down, repairing or constructing buildings), which concern other sources of danger, and from Section 292, the residuary public-nuisance penalty.
The section applies to a person who has an animal “in his possession” and fails to take sufficient measures. The section does not define “possession”, and whether a particular person has the animal in his possession is a question of fact.
The section's wording is about omitting to take measures sufficient to guard against probable danger to human life or of grievous hurt. It does not, in terms, require that an injury has already occurred. If an injury does occur, other provisions of the Sanhita on hurt may also come into play.
Under the First Schedule to the BNSS it is cognizable and bailable, triable by any Magistrate. Cognizable means the police may arrest without a warrant; bailable means bail can be claimed as of right (BNSS Section 478). It is not listed in either table of BNSS Section 359, so it cannot be compounded.
Two changes: “such order” became “such measures”, and the maximum fine rose from ₹1,000 to ₹5,000. The description of the offence and the six-month imprisonment limit remain the same.