KembaraXtra - Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita - Section 290: Negligent Conduct with Respect to Pulling Down, Repairing or Constructing Buildings, etc.

Introduction

Section 290 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 (BNS) deals with negligent or knowing failure to take adequate safety measures while:

• Pulling down;
• Repairing; or
• Constructing

a building.

The section applies where such failure creates a probable danger to human life from the fall of the building or any part of it.

The provision is preventive in nature. It does not require that somebody must actually die or even suffer injury. The focus is on whether proper precautions were omitted despite a foreseeable risk from structural collapse.

Basic Formula

Building work + probable danger from collapse + knowing/negligent omission of sufficient measures = Section 290

Q1. What does Section 290 provide?

Answer:

Section 290 punishes a person who, while:

• Pulling down;
• Repairing; or
• Constructing

a building, knowingly or negligently fails to take sufficient measures to guard against probable danger to human life from:

• The fall of the building; or
• The fall of any part of the building.

The punishment may extend to:

• Imprisonment of either description up to six months; or
• Fine up to ₹5,000; or
• Both.

Q2. What is the object of Section 290?

Answer:

The object is to protect human life during building-related operations where structural instability may create danger.

Activities such as:

• Demolition;
• Repair;
• Construction

can create risks of:

• Falling walls;
• Collapsing roofs;
• Falling masonry;
• Structural failure;
• Falling portions of a building.

The law therefore requires adequate preventive measures.

Q3. Which IPC provision corresponds to Section 290 BNS?

Answer:

According to the supplied comments:

Section 290 BNS → Section 288 IPC

The provision remains substantially similar, but several drafting changes are highlighted.

Q4. What changes were made from Section 288 IPC?

Answer:

The supplied comments identify the following changes:

1.     The maximum fine has been increased from ₹1,000 to ₹5,000.

2.     In the marginal note, the words “or repairing” have been substituted with “repairing or constructing.”

3.     The word “constructing” has been expressly added in the body of the section.

4.     The term “order” has been substituted with “measures.”

Memory Point

IPC 288 → BNS 290

₹1,000 → ₹5,000

Construction expressly added

Order → Measures

Q5. What are the essential ingredients of Section 290?

Answer:

The essential ingredients are:

1.     The accused must be engaged in:

o    Pulling down;

o    Repairing; or

o    Constructing

a building.

2.     There must be a probable danger to human life.

3.     The danger must arise from:

o    Fall of the building; or

o    Fall of any part of the building.

4.     The accused must omit to take sufficient safety measures.

5.     The omission must be:

o    Knowing; or

o    Negligent.

Memory Formula

BUILDING WORK + COLLAPSE RISK + OMISSION + KNOWLEDGE/NEGLIGENCE = SECTION 290

Q6. What kinds of building activity are covered?

Answer:

Three broad kinds of activity are expressly covered:

1. Pulling down

Demolition or dismantling of a building.

2. Repairing

Work undertaken to restore or fix a building.

3. Constructing

Building or erecting a structure.

The express inclusion of construction is one of the important BNS changes highlighted in the supplied comments.

Q7. What does “pulling down” mean?

Answer:

It broadly refers to demolition or dismantling.

For example:

• Removing walls;
• Demolishing a roof;
• Knocking down part of a structure;
• Taking down an old building.

Where such work creates probable danger from falling portions and adequate precautions are not taken, Section 290 may apply.

Q8. What does “repairing” mean?

Answer:

Repairing includes work carried out to restore, fix or strengthen an existing building.

Examples may include:

• Repairing a roof;
• Replacing damaged walls;
• Structural reinforcement;
• Repairing balconies;
• Repairing damaged floors.

The section becomes relevant where the repair work creates probable danger from collapse or falling parts.

Q9. What does “constructing” mean?

Answer:

Constructing refers to erecting or building a structure.

The supplied comments specifically note that the word “constructing” has been added under the BNS.

This means the section expressly covers danger arising during the building process itself.

Q10. Is the section limited to completed buildings?

Answer:

No.

Because the provision expressly includes construction, it may apply during the process of building a structure.

The essential issue is whether there is probable danger to human life from collapse or falling parts.

Q11. What kind of danger must exist?

Answer:

The danger must be a:

Probable danger to human life

arising from:

• The fall of the building; or
• The fall of any part of it.

Thus, the risk contemplated is serious and concerns possible loss of life.

Q12. Does the section mention probable grievous hurt, as Section 291 does?

Answer:

No.

Section 290, as supplied, specifically speaks of:

Probable danger to human life

from the fall of the building or part thereof.

This is different from Section 291, which expressly includes danger to human life or probable grievous hurt from an animal.

Exam Point

Do not automatically import the wording of Section 291 into Section 290.

Q13. Must the whole building be at risk of collapse?

Answer:

No.

The section expressly covers danger from:

• Fall of the entire building; or
• Fall of any part thereof.

Therefore, danger from a wall, roof, beam, slab, balcony or other portion may be sufficient.

Q14. Must actual collapse occur?

Answer:

No.

The offence is preventive.

The statutory focus is on probable danger, not actual collapse.

Therefore, liability may arise before any part of the building actually falls.

Q15. Must someone actually be injured or killed?

Answer:

No.

Actual death or injury is not made an essential ingredient in the supplied wording.

The section punishes the omission to take sufficient precautions against probable danger to human life.

Memory Rule

Probable danger is enough — actual harm is not necessary.

Q16. What omission is punished by Section 290?

Answer:

The section punishes failure to take such safety measures with the building as are sufficient to guard against the probable danger.

The central wrongful conduct is therefore:

Failure to take adequate structural or safety precautions.

Q17. What may “measures” include?

Answer:

Depending on the circumstances, sufficient safety measures may include matters such as:

• Supporting unstable walls;
• Proper scaffolding;
• Barricading dangerous areas;
• Securing falling materials;
• Controlled demolition;
• Temporary structural supports;
• Restricting access to danger zones;
• Proper supervision.

The exact measures required depend on the nature of the building work and the foreseeable risk.

Q18. What is the significance of the word “sufficient”?

Answer:

The law does not merely require token precautions.

The measures must be sufficient to guard against the probable danger.

Thus, merely taking some precaution does not automatically satisfy the requirement if those precautions are clearly inadequate.

Q19. Must every conceivable risk be eliminated?

Answer:

No.

The provision focuses on guarding against probable danger.

The test is whether reasonable and sufficient measures were taken in light of the actual risk.

The law is concerned with foreseeable and serious danger, not every remote possibility.

Q20. What does “knowingly omits” mean?

Answer:

It refers to a situation where the person is aware that safety measures are required but nevertheless fails to take them.

Example

A knows that a wall being demolished is unstable and may fall onto a public pathway, but does not secure the area or support the wall.

That may amount to a knowing omission.

Q21. What does “negligently omits” mean?

Answer:

It means failing to exercise reasonable care expected in the circumstances.

The accused may not intend any harm, but careless failure to take proper precautions may still satisfy the section.

Memory Rule

Knowing omission = aware of risk but fails

Negligent omission = fails to exercise reasonable care

Q22. Is intention to cause death necessary?

Answer:

No.

Section 290 is not based on an intention to kill.

The offence may arise through:

• Knowledge; or
• Negligence.

Its focus is unsafe building activity rather than intentional violence.

Q23. Give a simple demolition example.

Answer:

A is demolishing an old building beside a busy road.

A knows a wall is unstable but fails to barricade the area or properly support the wall.

If the wall presents probable danger to human life, Section 290 may apply even before it actually collapses.

Q24. Give a repair-work example.

Answer:

A is repairing a damaged roof above an area used by members of the public.

Loose structural material is left unsecured despite a foreseeable risk that it may fall.

If sufficient precautions are negligently omitted and human life is probably endangered, Section 290 may apply.

Q25. Give a construction example.

Answer:

A is constructing a multi-storey building.

An unfinished wall is unstable and likely to fall into an area where workers and passers-by are present.

A negligently fails to support or secure it.

This may fall within Section 290.

Q26. Does Section 290 depend on ownership of the building?

Answer:

The supplied wording does not make ownership the central element.

The focus is on the person involved in:

• Pulling down;
• Repairing; or
• Constructing

the building and failing to take sufficient safety measures.

Thus, a contractor or another person responsible for the work may potentially fall within the provision depending on the facts.

Q27. Is merely being present at the construction site enough?

Answer:

No.

The offence requires a relevant omission connected with the building work.

There must be proof that the accused knowingly or negligently failed to take sufficient measures against the probable danger.

Mere physical presence is not enough by itself.

Q28. Is every building accident automatically an offence under Section 290?

Answer:

No.

An accident alone does not automatically establish criminal liability.

The required elements must still be shown, particularly:

• Probable danger;
• Failure to take sufficient measures;
• Knowing or negligent omission.

If all proper precautions were taken and the incident was genuinely unavoidable, the section would not automatically apply.

Q29. What must the prosecution broadly prove?

Answer:

The prosecution must broadly establish:

1.     The accused was involved in pulling down, repairing or constructing a building.

2.     There was probable danger to human life from the fall of:

o    The building; or

o    Part of it.

3.     Safety measures were required.

4.     The accused failed to take sufficient measures.

5.     That failure was knowing or negligent.

Q30. What is the punishment under Section 290?

Answer:

The punishment is:

• Imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to six months; or
• Fine which may extend to ₹5,000; or
• Both.

Punishment Formula

Up to 6 months / fine up to ₹5,000 / both

Q31. Is the imprisonment simple or rigorous?

Answer:

The section uses the expression:

“imprisonment of either description.”

Therefore, the imprisonment may be:

• Simple; or
• Rigorous.

Q32. What is the maximum fine?

Answer:

The maximum fine is:

₹5,000

Q33. What was the fine under Section 288 IPC?

Answer:

According to the supplied comments:

IPC

Maximum fine = ₹1,000

BNS

Maximum fine = ₹5,000

Memory Formula

₹1,000 → ₹5,000

Q34. What is the classification of Section 290?

Answer:

According to the supplied classification, Section 290 is:

• Non-cognizable
• Bailable
• Triable by any Magistrate

Classification Formula

Non-cognizable + Bailable + Any Magistrate

Q35. What is the significance of replacing “order” with “measures”?

Answer:

According to the supplied comments, the BNS substitutes the word:

“order”

with:

“measures.”

The term “measures” more directly captures the practical precautions required to prevent structural danger.

Memory Point

Old terminology = order

BNS terminology = measures

Q36. Why is the addition of “constructing” important?

Answer:

It expressly extends the provision to risks occurring during the construction process.

The provision therefore now clearly covers all three principal building operations:

PULLING DOWN → REPAIRING → CONSTRUCTING

Q37. What is the central duty created by Section 290?

Answer:

The person involved in the building work must take sufficient precautions to ensure that the building, or any part of it, does not create a probable danger to human life through falling or collapse.

Core Duty

Secure the structure against foreseeable life-threatening collapse.

Q38. Is Section 290 a result-based or risk-based offence?

Answer:

It is primarily risk-based and preventive.

The law intervenes at the stage of probable danger and negligent or knowing omission.

It does not require actual death or actual collapse.

Q39. How should Section 290 be approached in an exam problem?

Answer:

Ask the following:

Question 1

Was the accused pulling down, repairing or constructing a building?

Question 2

Was there a probable danger to human life?

Question 3

Did the danger arise from possible fall of the building or part of it?

Question 4

What safety measures were required?

Question 5

Were sufficient measures omitted?

Question 6

Was the omission knowing or negligent?

If all these elements are established, Section 290 may apply.

Key Provisions (Study Notes)

1. Activity Covered

Section 290 applies to:

Pulling down

Repairing

Constructing

a building.

2. Nature of Danger

The danger must be:

Probable danger to human life

arising from:

• Fall of the building; or
• Fall of any part of it.

3. Wrongful Conduct

The accused must omit to take:

Sufficient measures

to guard against the danger.

4. Mental Element

The omission must be:

Knowing

or

Negligent

IPC Equivalent and BNS Changes

IPC Equivalent

Section 290 BNS = Section 288 IPC

Change 1 — Construction

The word “constructing” has been expressly added.

Change 2 — Marginal Note

According to the supplied comments:

“or repairing” → “repairing or constructing”

Change 3 — Terminology

“order” → “measures”

Change 4 — Fine

₹1,000 → ₹5,000

Punishment Study Note

Imprisonment

Either description up to 6 months

Fine

Up to ₹5,000

Alternative

Both may be imposed.

Classification Study Note

Section 290 is:

Non-cognizable

Bailable

Any Magistrate

Section 290 and Section 291: Note-Form Comparison

Section 290

Subject

Building work.

Activity

Pulling down, repairing or constructing.

Danger

Probable danger to human life.

Source of Danger

Fall of building or part thereof.

Classification

Non-cognizable, bailable, any Magistrate.

Section 291

Subject

Animal.

Connection

Animal in accused's possession.

Danger

Probable danger to:

• Human life; or
• Grievous hurt.

Source of Danger

The animal.

Classification

Cognizable, bailable, any Magistrate.

Common Principle

Both provisions punish a:

Knowing or negligent omission to take sufficient measures against probable danger.

Memory

290 = BUILDING

291 = ANIMAL

Quick Revision Notes

Section

290 BNS

Title

Negligent conduct with respect to pulling down, repairing or constructing buildings, etc.

IPC Equivalent

288 IPC

Activities

Pulling down / repairing / constructing

Danger

Probable danger to human life

Source

Fall of building or any part thereof

Mental Element

Knowing or negligent omission

Duty

Take sufficient measures

Punishment

Up to 6 months, or fine up to ₹5,000, or both

Classification

Non-cognizable + Bailable + Any Magistrate

Exam Traps

Trap 1 — Assuming actual collapse is necessary

Incorrect.

Probable danger is enough.

Trap 2 — Assuming actual death or injury is required

Incorrect.

The provision is preventive.

Trap 3 — Forgetting construction

The BNS expressly includes constructing.

Trap 4 — Looking only for deliberate conduct

Negligence is expressly sufficient.

Trap 5 — Assuming only total building collapse matters

Incorrect.

The fall of any part of the building is enough if it creates the required danger.

Ultimate Memory Formula

SECTION 290

PULLING DOWN / REPAIRING / CONSTRUCTING

+

BUILDING

+

PROBABLE DANGER TO HUMAN LIFE

FROM FALL OF BUILDING / PART

+

KNOWING OR NEGLIGENT FAILURE

TO TAKE SUFFICIENT MEASURES

=

NEGLIGENT CONDUCT WITH RESPECT TO BUILDING WORK

Key Takeaway

Section 290 BNS imposes a preventive duty on persons involved in demolishing, repairing or constructing buildings.

The central question is whether the person knowingly or negligently failed to take sufficient precautions against a probable danger to human life arising from the fall of the building or any part of it.

Actual collapse or actual injury is not required by the supplied wording.

The provision corresponds to Section 288 IPC, with the supplied comments highlighting four important BNS changes:

Construction expressly added

Marginal note updated

“Order” replaced by “measures”

Fine increased from ₹1,000 to ₹5,000

For rapid revision:

290 = BUILDING + COLLAPSE RISK + NEGLIGENCE

Punishment = Up to 6 months / ₹5,000 fine / both

Classification = Non-cognizable + Bailable + Any Magistrate