Page |1

Offences relating to Human Body

The offences relating to human body denote the importance attached to the preservation and
protection of the right to life and liberty-the two rights guaranteed by Article 21 of the
Constitution of India. The punishments of these offences aim at protecting the primary personal
rights to life, liberty, security of person, freedom of movement and enjoyment of one’s person
against intentional invasion by others.

The offences discussed in this note are as follows

Unlawful Unlawful Unlawful

Kidnapping Force
Homicide injury Captivity

Culpable Wrongful Criminal

Hurt Kidnapping
Homicide Restraint Force

Grievous Wrongful
Murder Hurt Confinement
Abduction Assault

Homicide
by
negligence

Dowry
Death

I. Unlawful Homicide
 Culpable Homicide and murder are the gravest of offences against a human being by a
human being. The word “homicide” is derived from the Latin word “homo” which means
a man and “caedere” which means to cut or kill. Thus, homicide means the killing of a
human being by a human being. However, in every case of killing, one is not culpable
(blameworthy). There may be cases where the law will not punish a man for committing
homicide. For instance, killing in self-defence or pursuance of lawful authority or by
reason of a mistake of fact is not culpable.

 A homicide may, therefore, be either lawful or unlawful. Unlawful homicide may be

classified into different categories depending on its nature.
 Page |2

1. Culpable Homicide
2. Murder
3. Homicide by negligence
4. Dowry Death

1. Culpable Homicide
 Meaning: Whoever causes death by doing an act
(a) With the intention of causing death or
(b) With the intention of causing such bodily injury as is likely to cause death
or
(c) With the knowledge that he is likely by such act to cause death commits the
offence of culpable homicide not amounting to murder.

 Ingredients:
(i) There must be an act
(a) With the intention of causing death or
(b) With the intention of causing such bodily injury as is likely to cause death or
(c) With the knowledge that he is likely by such act to cause death commits the
offence of culpable homicide not amounting to murder.
(ii) Such an act must result in death.

(a) A lays sticks and turf over a pit, with the intention of thereby causing death, or
with the knowledge that death is likely to be thereby caused. Z, believing the ground
to be firm, treads on it, falls in and is killed. A has committed the offence of culpable
homicide.
(b) A knows Z to be behind a bush. B does not know it. A, intending to cause, or
knowing it to be likely to cause Z's death, induces B to fire at the bush. B fires and
kills Z. Here B may be guilty of no offence; but A has committed the offence of
culpable homicide.
(c) A, by shooting at a fowl with intent to kill and steal it, kills B, who is behind a
bush; A not knowing that he was there. Here, although A was doing an unlawful act,
he was not guilty of culpable homicide, as he did not intend to kill B or to cause death
by doing an act that he knew was likely to cause death.

 A person who causes bodily injury to another who is suffering under a disorder,
disease or bodily infirmity, and thereby push him to death, shall be said to have caused
his death
 However, the court must be satisfied
(i) That the death at the time when it occurs is not caused solely by the disease and
 Page |3

(ii) That it is caused by the bodily injury to the extent that it is accelerated by such
i
A, a nschool teacher, had given a few slaps to B, a student, with a view to discipline
him. j B, who was a patient of epilepsy fell down unconscious. A believing B to be
dead,u in a panic hung him to give an impression of suicidal death. Here, A does not
possess
r the required guilty mind to culpable homicide unless it is shown that he was
aware y that B was an epileptic patient.

 Where death is caused by bodily injury, the person who causes such bodily injury
shall be said to have caused the death, even though if proper remedies and skillful
treatment would have been done the death might have been prevented.

A kicked his wife and surgeon applied brandy as medicine to the wife which went in
the wrong way and entered her lungs. This might have caused the death. The accused
was still considered as guilty.

 The causing of the death of a child in the mother's womb is not homicide. However, it
may amount to culpable homicide to cause the death of a living child if any part of
that child has been brought forth, though the child may not have breathed or been
completely born.

2. Murder
 Meaning: Culpable Homicide will amount to murder if any of the following
conditions exist.
(a) If the alleged act is done with the intention of causing death
(b) If it is done with the intention of causing such bodily injury as the offender had
knowledge that such act is likely to cause the death of the person to whom the
harm is caused, or
(c) If it is done with the intention of causing bodily injury to any person and such
bodily injury is sufficient in the ordinary course of nature to cause death, or
(d) If the person committing the act knows that it is so imminently dangerous that his
act must, in all probability, cause death, or such bodily injury as is likely to cause
death, and still commits such act.

 Thus murder is an aggravated form of culpable homicide

 Page |4

(a) A shoots Z with the intention of killing him. Z dies in consequence. A commits
murder.
(b) A, knowing that Z is labouring under such a disease that a blow is likely to cause
his death, strikes him with the intention of causing bodily injury. Z dies in
consequence of the blow. A is guilty of murder, although the blow might not have
been sufficient in the ordinary course of nature to cause the death of a person in a
sound state of health. But if A, not knowing that Z is labouring under any disease,
gives him such a blow as would not in the ordinary course of nature kill a person in a
sound state of health, here A, although he may intend to cause bodily injury, is not
guilty of murder, if he did not intend to cause death, or such bodily injury as in the
ordinary course of nature would cause death.
(c) A intentionally gives Z a sword-cut or club-wound sufficient to cause the death of
a man in the ordinary course of nature. Z dies in consequence. Here A is guilty of
murder, although he may not have intended to cause Z's death.
(d) A without any excuse fires a loaded cannon into a crowd of persons and kills one
of them. A is guilty of murder, although he may not have had a premeditated design to
kill any particular individual.

 Difference between culpable Homicide and murder

(i) In the scheme of Penal Code, culpable homicide is the genus and murders its
species. All murder is culpable homicide, but all culpable homicide is not murder.
Thus what we call culpable homicide is actually culpable homicide not amounting
to murder.
(ii) For the purpose of fixing punishment, proportionate to the gravity of this generic
offence, the Code recognizes three degrees of culpable homicide.
a) Culpable homicide of first degree- the gravest form of culpable homicide, i.e.
murder
b) Culpable homicide of second degree
c) Culpable homicide of third degree (lowest punishment)
(iii) The safest way of approach to the interpretations and application of the
provisions of culpable homicide and murder is to keep in focus the keywords
used in their definitions.
Clause (a) of the The first clause of the definition of murder reproduces
definition of (replicates) the first part of the definition of culpable homicide.
culpable homicide Thus, ordinarily, if the case comes within the first clause of the
and clause (a) of the definition of culpable homicide, it would amount to murder.
definition of murder
The second clause of the definition of culpable homicide
corresponds (is similar) with the second clause of the
definition of murder.
The distinguishing feature of the mens rea required under the
Clause (b) of the second part of the definition of murder is the knowledge
definition of possessed by the offender regarding the particular victim being
 Page |5

culpable homicide in such a peculiar condition or state of health (eg. Enlarged

and clause (b) of the spleen)- that the intentional harm caused is likely to be fatal
definition of murder (cause death) even though such harm would not in the ordinary
way of nature be sufficient to cause death in normal health.
The second clause of the definition of culpable homicide does
not lay down any such knowledge of the offender.

The second clause of the definition of culpable homicide also

corresponds (is similar) with the third clause of the definition
of murder.
In case of the third clause of the definition of murder, instead of
Clause (b) of the the words “likely to cause death” used in clause (b) of the
definition of definition of culpable homicide, the words “sufficient in the
culpable homicide ordinary course of nature” is used. The distinction is fine but
and clause (c) of the appreciable. It is the degree of probability of death which
definition of murder determines whether culpable homicide will amount to murder or
not. The words “bodily injury sufficient in the ordinary course
of nature” means that death will be the “most probable” result of
the injury. The words “likely to cause death” denotes the lesser
probability of death.
The third clause of the definition of culpable homicide and the
Clause (c) of fourth clause of the definition of murder use similar
definition of distinction.
culpable homicide Both apply to cases in which there is no intention to cause death
and clause (d) of the or bodily injury but knowledge that the act is dangerous and thus
definition of murder is likely to be fatal. Both require knowledge about the
probability of the act causing death. The fourth clause of the
definition of murder requires knowledge in a very high degree of
probability.

Exceptions to the offence of murder

 Grave and Sudden Provocation
 Culpable Homicide will not amount to murder if there exists grave and sudden
provocation on the part of the offender.
Ingredients
(i) The deceased must have given provocation to the accused.
(ii) The provocation must be grave
(iii) The provocation must be sudden
(iv)The offender, by reason of such provocation, should have been deprived of his
power of self- control.
(v) The accused killed the deceased during the continuance of the deprivation of the
power of self-control.
 Page |6

(vi) The offender must have caused the death of the person who gave such
provocation.
However, this exception will not be available under the following conditions
(i) If the accused gives provocation or use it as an excuse for assaulting another
(ii) If the act is legally done by a public servant in the exercise of his legal right as a
public servant.
(iii) If the act is done in exercise of the right of private defence.

A naval officer was charged with the murder of a businessman for having illicit
intimacy with his wife. On coming to know from his wife about the relationship, he
drove his wife and children to a cinema and left them there. Then he went to a ship,
took from the stores a semi-automatic revolver and six cartridges, loaded the gun and
did some official work. After this he went to the office of the businessman but he did
not find the latter there. So he went to the flat of the businessman. He straight entered
the bedroom of the latter and after a heated argument shot him dead.

The time lapse between his leaving his house and the time of the murder was three
hours. This was sufficient time for passion to cool down and for self control to be
regained even if he had not regained it earlier i.e. during the time lapse between his
wife’s confession and putting his plan into action against the deceased.

 Exceeding the Right of Private Defence

 If a person intentionally exceeds his right of private defence, the offence is murder.
However, if the exceeding is unintentional, then it is culpable homicide not
amounting to murder.
Ingredients
(i) The death caused must be without premeditation/ pre-planning to cause it.
(ii) The accused caused death without any intention of causing more harm than was
necessary for the purpose of private defence.
(iii) The act must be done in good faith.

A sub inspector deputed a havildar and constable to arrest an accused but gave no
order in writing. The havildar was not in uniform. The havildar confronted the
accused and a tussle began between them. The accused’s shirt is torn. The accused
then took out a knife and gave a blow on havildar’s arm. As a result the havildar fell
on the drains with the accused on top of him. The accused then gave several blows to
havildar, got out of the drains and ran away. The havildar died. The accused was
convicted for murder as his act was intentional.
 Page |7

 Public Servant exceeding his powers

 If the death is caused by public servant in exceeding his power as a public servant, the
offence will be culpable homicide not amounting to murder.
Ingredients
(i) The death is caused by a public servant
(ii) The death is caused in excess of the power of the public servant
(iii) The exceeding of the power was unintentional.
(iv) The act must be done in good faith.

The accused, a constable of the Railway Protection force, while on duty arrested a
man under suspicion, who was standing near a goods wagon. The constable took him
to the compartment. When the train moved a few paces, the arrested man jumped off
the train. The accused followed him with a rifle and suspecting the fireman to have
concealed the thief enquired from the fireman. The fireman asked that why he would
shoot the thief. Hearing this, the constable shot the fireman. It was held that he caused
the death by doing an act which he, in good faith, believed to be lawful and necessary
for the due discharge of his duty. Thus, he committed culpable homicide not
amounting to murder.
 Sudden Fight
 If the death is caused as a result of a sudden fight in the heat of passion, without any
premeditation, the offence is culpable homicide not amounting to murder.
Ingredients
(i) The fight must result in the death of a person
(ii) The death must be caused in a sudden fight
(iii) The death must be caused in the heat of passion without premeditation/pre-
planning
(iv) The death must be caused without the offender taking undue advantage
(v) The offender should not act in a cruel or unusual manner

The accused and his brother took alcohol together and were walking on the road to
home. On the way, the accused questioned as to why the brother decided to sell his
property to which the brother replied that as it was his own property he could dispose
in any way he chooses. This conversation led to a quarrel and during the quarrel the
accused stabbed his brother once with a knife. The brother died. It was held that as the
accused caused slight injury without premeditation in a sudden fight in the heat of a
passion and as he did not take any undue advantage or acted in a cruel manner, so it is
culpable homicide not amounting to murder.
 Page |8

 Consent
 This exception deals with what is commonly known as euthanasia. The exception is
justified on the ground that a man’s life is not only valuable to himself but also family
members, the State, and society. A person is thus not entitled to give up his life by
consent though it may mitigate the intensity of the offence.
Ingredients
(i) The deceased had consented to the act of the accused.
(ii) The consent giver is above 18 years of age.
(iii) The consent was free and voluntary
(iv) The consent was not obtained under fear of injury or misconception of fact.

The accused was a student of class X. he failed at the annual examination for
consecutive three years. The accused was upset and depressed. He decided to end his
life and informed his wife, aged 19 years about his decision. The wife asked him to
first kill her and then himself. He killed his wife but before he could kill himself, he
was arrested. It was held that since the deceased was above 18 years of age and
suffered death with her own consent voluntarily, thus the act is culpable homicide not
amounting to murder.

3. Homicide by negligence
 If a person causes death by a rash and negligent act shall be said to have committed
homicide by negligence. However, such an act must not amount to culpable homicide.
Ingredients
(i) There must be a death of the person in question.
(ii) The accused must have caused such death.
(iii)That such act was rash and negligent, and it did not amount to culpable homicide.

The deceased was an inmate of a house near that of accused. The wall of the latrine of
the house of the deceased had fallen down with the result that her latrine became
exposed to public view. As a result, the deceased among others started using the
latrine of the accused. The accused resented it and made it clear to them that they did
not have permission to use it. The accused fixed up an electrically charged copper
wire at the back of the house to prevent the entry of intruders. The deceased while
sneaking to the accused’s house died as a result with the contact of such copper wire.
It was held that the act of the accused was rash enough and done in reckless disregard
of the serious consequences to people coming in contact with it and thus it amounted
to homicide by negligence
 Page |9

4. Dowry Death
 If a married woman, within seven years of marriage dies by burns or bodily injuries
or in abnormal circumstances and if immediately before his death, he was subjected
to cruelty or harassment by her husband or the relatives of her husband in relation to
the demand for dowry; such death is called dowry death. The husband or the relatives
of her husband are liable for such death.
Ingredients
(i) Death of a woman should be caused by burns or bodily injury or under abnormal
circumstances
(ii) Death must have occurred within seven years of marriage
(iii) The woman must have been subjected to cruelty or harassment by her husband or
any relative of her husband
(iv) Cruelty or harassment should be for the demand for dowry

A, a married woman died within seven years of her marriage. According to her father,
before her death, she had come to his house. She informed him that her husband, B
was torturing her as they had to purchase a new house, B and his family was
demanding Rs. One lakh from her. It was contended by the accused that there was no
link of the demand for dowry with the death as the accused were rich persons and thus
there was no need for asking for dowry. Nevertheless, the accused were convicted as
the contention was erroneous.

II. Unlawful Injury

 Difference between Hurt and Grievous Hurt
Parameters Hurt Grievous Hurt
Definition If any person causes The following kinds of hurt only are called “grievous
bodily pain, disease or hurt”:
infirmity to any other (a) Emasculation (Crippling, breaking of muscle)
person, he is said to (b) Permanent loss of the sight of either eye.
cause hurt (c) Permanent loss of the hearing of either ear.
(d) Loss of any member or joint.
(e) Destruction or permanent damage to the powers
of any member or joint.
(f) Permanent disfiguration of the head or face.
(g) Fracture or dislocation of a bone or tooth.
(h) Any hurt which endangers life or which causes
the sufferer to be during the space of twenty days in
severe bodily pain, or unable to follow his ordinary
pursuits.
Ingredients To constitute hurt it is The eight types of hurt are grievous hurt. They are as
necessary to cause follows
(i) Bodily pain (i) Emasculation (Crippling, loss of male virility)
 P a g e | 10

(ii) Disease (ii) Permanent loss of the sight of either eye.

(iii) Infirmity to (iii) Permanent loss of the hearing of either ear.
another (iv) Loss of any member or joint.
(v) Destruction or permanent damage to the
powers of any member or joint.
(vi) Permanent disfiguration of the head or face.
(vii) Fracture or dislocation of a bone or tooth.
(viii) Any hurt which endangers life or which causes
the sufferer to be during the space of twenty
days in severe bodily pain, or unable to follow
his ordinary pursuits.
Example A punched B, a In the course of quarrel, A stabbed B with a knife on
woman in the face the forearm piercing the radial artery resulting in his
while she was holding death of B of hemorrhage soon after. A was held
her 1-year-old child. guilty of causing grievous hurt.
As a result, the child
fell from his arms and
hit his head on the
floor. A contended
that he cannot be
made liable as there
was no physical
contact between him
and the child. It was
held that his punch on
B resulted in B’s
movement and thus
the child fell down.
Thus, A was liable.
Nature Hurt is the genus Grievous Hurt is the species. It is a specific form of
hurt.
Characteristics The characteristics are The characteristics are grievous
simple

III. Unlawful Captivity

 Difference between Wrongful Restraint and Wrongful Confinement
Parameters Wrongful Restraint Wrongful Confinement
Definition If a person voluntarily obstructs any If any person wrongfully restrains any
person with the intention to prevent person in such a manner so as to
that person from proceeding in any prevent that person from proceeding
direction in which that person has a beyond certain confined limits, he is
right to proceed, he is said to have said to have wrongfully confined that
wrongfully restrained that person. person
Exception.—The obstruction of a
private way over land or water which a
 P a g e | 11

person in good faith believes himself

to have a lawful right to obstruct, is
not wrongful restraint
Ingredients For wrongful restraint, (iii) (i) The obstruction must be voluntary
(i) (i) The obstruction must be voluntary obstruction of a person
obstruction of a person (ii) It must be in order to prevent that
(ii) (ii) It must be in order to prevent that person from proceeding beyond a
person from proceeding in any particular limit in which the latter has a
direction in which the latter has a right right to proceed.
to proceed
Example A obstructs a path along which Z has a (a) A causes Z to go within a walled
right to pass, A not believing in good space, and locks Z in Z is thus
faith that he has a right to stop the prevented from proceeding in any
path. Z is thereby prevented from direction beyond the circumscribing
passing. A wrongfully restrains Z. line of the wall. A wrongfully confines
Z.
(b) A places men with firearms at the
outlets of a building and tells Z that
they will fire at Z if Z attempts leave
the building. A wrongfully confines Z.
Seriousness Wrongful restraint is not severe as Wrongful confinement is a serious
wrongful confinement, and hence offence and hence more punishment
lesser punishment is provided by the provided by the code.
code
Restriction Wrongful restraint is the partial Wrongful confinement is the total and
restraint to the personal liberty of a absolute restraint to the personal liberty
person of a person
Obstruction In wrongful restraint movement of In wrongful confinement movement in
in one or some direction is obstructed all direction is obstructed and a person
movement leaving thereby the opportunity for the is either not allowed to move or is
victim to move in any other direction compelled to move in any other
direction.
Nature Wrongful restraint is the genus Wrongful confinement is the species. It
is a specific form of wrongful restraint.
 P a g e | 12

IV. Kidnapping
 Difference between Kidnapping and Abduction
Parameters Kidnapping Abduction
Definition In a kidnapping, a person takes or entices In abduction, a person by force
any minor or any person of unsound mind, compels, or by any deceitful means
out of the keeping of the lawful guardian induces any person to go from any
of such minor or person of unsound mind, place
without the consent of such guardian. By
minor is meant a male under sixteen years
of age and a female less than eighteen
years of age. By lawful guardian is meant
any person who is lawfully entrusted with
the care or custody of such minor or
another person.
Exception-The act of any person who in
good faith believes himself to be the father
of an illegitimate child, or who in good
faith believes himself to be entitled to the
lawful custody of such child will not
amount to kidnapping unless such act is
committed for an immoral or unlawful
purpose.

Ingredients (i) There must be taking or enticing of a (i) There must be compulsion by
minor or a person of unsound mind force or inducing of any
(ii) Such minor must be under sixteen person by deceitful means.
years of age, if male or under eighteen (ii) Such compulsion or inducing
years of age, if female must be to go from any place
(iii) Taking or enticing must be without
the consent of such guardian
Example A, aged 38 years had a relationship with a
A, left the house of her relative
15 years old girl. One day, on the girl’s
where she was staying temporarily
request, he took her to London in his car.
when B telephoned her. B asked
After nine days, she was returned back to
her to meet him on a particular
her parents. A was convicted for road. They met, and B took A to
kidnapping. the Registrar’s office. They entered
into an agreement of marriage there
without A’s consent. B was
convicted for abduction as there
was
Meaning Kidnapping is the removal of a person Abduction has reference only to the
from lawful guardianship person abducted
Means Kidnapping is simply taking away of a In abduction, force, compulsion or
minor or a person of unsound mind. The deceitful means are used.
means are not relevant.
 P a g e | 13

Consent Consent of the person kidnapped is Free and voluntary consent of the
immaterial. person abducted condones
abduction.
Intention The intention of the kidnapper is The intention of the abductor is an
immaterial for the offence important factor in determining the
guilt of the accused.
Substantive Kidnapping is a substantive offence Abduction is not a substantive
Offence offence and not separately
punishable.
Continuing Kidnapping is not a continuing offence. It Abduction is a continuing offence
Offence is complete as soon as the minor or a and continues so long as the
person of unsound mind is removed from abducted person is removed from
lawful guardianship. one place to another.
Taking or In a kidnapping, there must be taking or In abduction, the question of taking
enticing enticing from a lawful guardian or enticing does not arise.

V. Force
 Difference between Criminal Force and Assault
Parameters Criminal Force
Definition In criminal force, a person
(i) intentionally uses force to any
person, without that person's
consent, in order to the
committing of any offence,
(ii)
(a) intending by the use of such
force to cause, or
(b) knowing it to be likely that by
the use of such force he will
cause injury, fear or annoyance
to the person uses force
Ingredients The force used must be
(i) Used intentionally against a
person
(ii) Without such person’s consent
(iii) To commit an offence
(iv) With the intention to cause or
knowing it to be likely to cause
injury, fear or annoyance to a
person
Example (a) Z is sitting in a moored boat on a
river. A unfastens the moorings, and thus
Assault
In the assault, a person makes any
gesture, or any preparation intending
or knowing it to be likely that such
gesture or preparation will cause any
person present to apprehend that the
gesture or preparation maker is about
to use criminal force to that person.
It is noteworthy that mere words do
not amount to an assault. However,
the words which a person uses may
give to his gestures or preparation
such a meaning as may make those
gestures or preparations amount to
an assault.
(i) Making of any gesture or
preparation in the presence of
another
(ii) Intention or knowledge of
likelihood that such gesture or
preparation will cause the
person to apprehend that the
person making it is about to use
criminal force to him.
(a) A shakes his fist at Z, intending
or knowing it to be likely that he
 P a g e | 14

intentionally causes the boat to drift may thereby cause Z to believe that
down the stream. Here A intentionally A is about to strike Z. A has
causes motion to Z, and he does this by committed an assault.
disposing of substances in such a manner (b) A begins to unloose the muzzle
that the motion is produced without any of a ferocious dog, intending or
other action on any person's part. A has knowing it to be likely that he may
therefore intentionally used force to Z; thereby cause Z to believe that he is
and if he has done so without Z's consent, about to cause the dog to attack Z. A
in order to the committing of any offence, has committed an assault upon Z.
or intending or knowing it to be likely (c) A takes up a stick, saying to Z, “I
that this use of force will cause injury, will give you a beating.” Here,
fear or annoyance to Z, A has used though the words used by A could in
criminal force to Z. no case amount to an assault, and
(b) Z is riding in a chariot. A lashes Z's though the mere gesture,
horses, and thereby causes them to unaccompanied by any other
quicken their pace. Here A has caused a circumstances, might not amount to
change of motion to Z by inducing the an assault, the gesture explained by
animals to change their motion. A has the words may amount to an assault
therefore used force to Z; and if A has
done this without Z's consent, intending
or knowing it to be likely that he may
thereby injure, frighten or annoy Z, A has
used criminal force to Z.
(c) Z is riding in a palanquin. A,
intending to rob Z, seizes the pole and
stops the palanquin. Here A has caused
cessation of motion to Z, and he has done
this by his bodily power. A has therefore
used force to Z; and as A has acted thus
intentionally, without Z's consent, in
order to the commission of an offence. A
has used criminal force to Z.
(d) A intentionally pushes against Z in
the street. Here A has by his bodily
power moved his person so as to bring it
into contact with Z. He has therefore
intentionally used force to Z; and if he
has done so without Z's consent,
intending or knowing it to be likely that
he may thereby injure, frighten or annoy
Z, he has used criminal force to Z.
(e) A throws a stone, intending or
knowing it to be likely that the stone will
be thus brought into contact with Z, or
with Z's clothes, or with something
carried by Z, or that it will strike water
 P a g e | 15

and dash up the water against Z's clothes

or something carried by Z. Here, if the
throwing of the stone produce the effect
of causing any substance to come into
contact with Z, or Z's clothes, A has used
force to Z, and if he did so without Z's
consent, intending thereby to injure,
frighten or annoy Z, he has used criminal
force to Z.
(f) A intentionally pulls up a Woman's
veil. Here A intentionally uses force to
her, and if he does so without her consent
intending or knowing it to be likely that
he may thereby injure, frighten or annoy
her, he has used criminal force to her.
(g) Z is bathing. A pours into the bath
water which he knows to be boiling. Here
A intentionally by his bodily power
causes such motion in the boiling water
as brings that water into contact with Z,
or with other water so situated that such
contact must affect Z's sense of feeling; A
has therefore intentionally used force to
Z; and if he has done this without Z's
consent intending or knowing it to be
likely that he may thereby cause injury,
fear or annoyance to Z, A has used
criminal force.
(h) A incites a dog to spring upon Z,
without Z's consent. Here, if A intends to
cause injury, fear or annoyance to Z, he
uses criminal force to Z.
Stage of In criminal force, the assault has already An assault consists of an attempt by
commission taken place, and the force is actually used a person who is having the capacity
on that person to use force and cause hurt or
violence to the other person.
Nature Every criminal force includes assault In the assault, a comprehension
arises that criminal force may be
used but is not used yet.
Phase of Criminal Force if takes place always Assault always precedes criminal
occurrence succeeds assault, i.e. happen after an force.
assault

…………………………………………………………………………………………………..