Skip to main content

Concept of Hurt under the Indian Penal Code, 1860

Concept of Hurt under the Indian Penal Code, 1860

By Shweta Nair


The offence of ‘Voluntarily causing Hurt’ is one of the basic offences against the human body. 

The word ‘hurt’ conveys different meanings to different people. The Indian Penal Code has therefore defined the term in Section 319 as follows: 

Whoever causes bodily pain, disease or infirmity is said to cause hurt. 

Section 321 is the substantive section which brings into existence the offence of voluntarily causing hurt. It states: 

Whoever does any act with the intention of thereby causing hurt to any person or with the knowledge that he is likely thereby to cause hurt to any person and does thereby cause hurt to any person is said voluntarily to cause hurt. 

It is to be noted that every substantive section has 3 parts- 

Applicability, the physical element (Actus reus) and the state of mind 9mens Rea). For example, in Section 321, the applicability is general which is denoted by the word- Whoever. The physical elements required are 1) Doing of an act and 2) Thereby causing hurt. 

The state of mind required is intention or knowledge. 

Section 323 is a penal section which prescribes the punishment for voluntarily causing hurt i.e., up to one year or fine up to 1000 rupees or both. 

According to Section 321, the basic equation for causing hurt is- A + H + I/K- Act + Hurt + Intention/ Knowledge. 

Many situations in which this basic equation is satisfied can be envisaged. 

For example, one person slapping his friend during a sudden argument as well as a known offender cutting off the hand of a woman with a chopper in order to steal her jewellery, will both satisfy the basic requirements of the offence of causing hurt. However, common sense would suggest that the punishment required in both these cases will not be the same. 

What then would be the factors which would influence the seriousness and culpability of the offence of causing hurt? 

The four factors which will affect the basic offence of voluntarily causing hurt are as follows: 

  1. Nature of Hurt- Here the preposition is that the severity of the hurt caused itself should affect the culpability of the act. However, in the very nature of things, it would be impossible to allot a separate punishment for every possible type of hurt which is probable. Advisedly, the law does not attempt to do so. Section 320 defines ‘grievous hurt’ This section begins with the words- 

The following eight categories of hurt are only designed as grievous. 

Therefore, any type of hurt not covered by Section 320 would be, by default simple hurt. 

According to Section 320, the following would be grievous hurt: 

  1. Emasculation 

  2. Permanent privation of the sight of either eye. 

  3. Permanent privation of the hearing of either ear. 

  4. Privation of any member or joint. 

  5. Destruction or permanent impairing of the powers of any member or joint. 

  6. Permanent Disfiguration of head or face. 

  7. Fracture or dislocation of a bone or tooth. 

  8. Any hurt which endangers life or which causes the sufferer to be during the space of 20 days in severe body pain, or unable to pursue his ordinary pursuits. 


  1. Type of Weapon Used- Here the law feels that the type of weapon used by the assailant in causing the hurt lends an insight into his degree of evil intention. Here again it would be impractical to prescribe a separate punishment for every other type of weapon. The IPC has in Section 324 referred to ‘Dangerous Weapon’. Any weapon which does not fit within the description given in this section would be a simple weapon. Also clubbed in the category of simple weapon would be an assault with no weapon like a fist punch, kick, scratching etc


Section 324 describes dangerous weapon as- Any instrument for shooting, stabbing or cutting or any instrument which used as a weapon of offence is likely to cause death or fire or any heated substance or poison or any corrosive substance or explosive substance or any substance which is deleterious to the human body to inhale, swallow or receive into the blood or any animal. 


  1. Object of the Assault- Here, the thinking is that an act motivated by a specific object is more serious than an act which is spontaneous and with no particular object. The IPC in various sections has prescribed different objects such as to extort property, to constrain to an illegal act, to commit an offence, to extort a confession, to compel restoration of property to deter a public servant from doing his duty, Acid Attack 326 A/B. 

The acts causing hurt if done with any of these specific objects are more severely punishable. 


  1. State of Mind of the Assailant- The state of mind contemplated herein is whether the act was a provoked act or an unprovoked act. 

Provocation means that the accused did not originally intend to act in the manner in which he did but some utterness or action on behalf of the victim instigated him to do so. Provocation is given a lot of importance in our criminal jurisprudence. A provoked act is considered to be much less serious than an unprovoked pre-meditated one. 

Section 334 and 335 prescribe lesser punishment to hurt caused as a result of provoked acts. 
Labels:

Comments

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

Section 58B of The Advocates Act - Special provision relating to certain disciplinary proceedings

 Section 58B The Advocates Act Description (1) As from the 1st day of September, 1963, every proceeding in respect of any disciplinary matter in relation to an existing advocate of a High Court shall, save as provided in the first proviso to sub-section (2), be disposed of by the State Bar Council in relation to that High Court, as if the existing advocate had been enrolled as an advocate on its roll. (2) If immediately before the said date, there is any proceeding in respect of any disciplinary matter in relation to an existing advocate pending before any High Court under the Indian Bar Councils Act, 1926 (38 of 1926), such proceeding shall stand transferred to the State Bar Council in relation to that High Court, as if it were a proceeding pending before the corresponding Bar Council under clause (c) of sub-section (1) of section 56: Provided that where in respect of any such proceeding the High Court has received the finding of a Tribunal constituted under section 11 of the Indian B
Post a Comment
Read more

Case Laws related to Defamation in favour of ClaimantCase Laws related to Defamation in favour of Claimant. TOLLEY Vs, J.S FRY & SONS LTD – (1931) Facts The defendants were owners of chocolate manufacturing company. They advertised their products with a caricature of the claimant, who was a prominent amateur golfer, showing him with the defendants’ chocolate in his pocket while playing golf. The advertisement compared the excellence of the chocolate to the excellence of the claimant’s drive. The claimant did not consent to or knew about the advertisement. Issue The claimant alleged that the advertisement suggested that he agreed to his portrait being used for commercial purposes and for financial gain. He further claimed that the use of his image made him look like someone who prostituted his reputation for advertising purposes and was thus unworthy of his status. At trial, several golfers gave evidence to the effect that if an amateur sold himself for advertisement, he no longer maintained his amateur status and might be asked to resign from his respective club. Furthermore, there was evidence that the possible adverse effects of the caricature on the claimant’s reputation were brought to the defendants’ attention. The trial judge found that the caricature could have a defamatory meaning. The jury then found in favor of the claimant. Held The House of Lords held that in the circumstances of this case – as explained by the facts – the caricature was capable of constituting defamation. In other words, the publication could have the meaning alleged by the claimant. The Lords also ordered a new trial limited to the assessment of damages. NEWSTEAD V LANDON EXPRESS NEWSPAPER LTD, (1939) Facts: A newspaper published a defamatory article about Harold Newstead. However, another person with this name brought an action in libel. He claimed that the article had been misunderstood as leading to him. The defendant newspaper recognised that they published the article. Also, they denied that they had the intention of being defamatory of him. Consequently, the claimant argued that the newspaper was under a duty. The duty was to give a clear and complete description of the correct person. Moreover, the claimant argued that the defendants were in breach of the duty. Issues: The issue in Newstead v London Express Newspaper, was if the reasonable persons would have understood the words complained of to refer to the plaintiff. Held: The Court of Appeal stated that in accordance with the current law on libel, liability for libel does not depend on the intention of the defamer; but on the fact of the defamation. Accordingly, a reasonable man, in this case a newspaper publisher, must be aware of the possibility of individuals with the same name and must assume that the words published will be read by a reasonable man with reasonable care.

  Case Laws related to Defamation in favour of Claimant.  TOLLEY  Vs,  J.S FRY & SONS LTD – (1931) Facts The defendants were owners of chocolate manufacturing company. They advertised their products with a caricature of the claimant, who was a prominent amateur golfer, showing him with the defendants’ chocolate in his pocket while playing golf. The advertisement compared the excellence of the chocolate to the excellence of the claimant’s drive. The claimant did not consent to or knew about the advertisement.   Issue The claimant alleged that the advertisement suggested that he agreed to his portrait being used for commercial purposes and for financial gain. He further claimed that the use of his image made him look like someone who prostituted his reputation for advertising purposes and was thus unworthy of his status. At trial, several golfers gave evidence to the effect that if an amateur sold himself for advertisement, he no longer maintained his amateur status and might be aske
1 comment
Read more

Rules as to delivery of goods

                             Rules as to delivery of goods Section 2(2) of Sale of Goods Act defines ‘delivery’ as a ‘voluntary transfer of possession from one person to another.’ Thus, if the transfer of goods is not voluntary and is taken by theft, by fraud, or by force, then there is no ‘delivery. Moreover, the ‘delivery’ should have the effect of putting the goods in possession of the buyer. The essence of the delivery is a voluntary transfer of possession of goods from one person to another. There is no delivery of goods where they are obtained at pistol point or theft. 1. Mode of Delivery: According to Section 33, delivery of goods sold may be made by doing anything which the parties agree shall be treated as delivery or which has the effect of putting the goods in the possession of the buyer or of any person authorized to hold them on his behalf. Delivery of goods may be actual, symbolic or constructive. 2. Expenses of Delivery: According to Section 36(5), unless otherwise agree
Post a Comment
Read more