INDIAN PENAL CODE

ASSIGNMENT NO.:- 4

TOPIC: (1) DISCUSS HURT AND GRIEVOUS HURT

(2) DIFFERENCE BETWEEN WRONGFUL RESTRAINT
AND WRONGFUL CONFINEMENT

SUBMITTED TO: MR. SUNEEL KUMAR

SUBMITTED BY : JAYA VATS
ENROLLMENT: 18FLICDDN01049
BATCH: BBA LLB (H)
 INTRODUCTION

Presently, a large share of criminal cases, more specifically, in the Courts of Judicial
Magistrate First Class in India, is ‘Hurt’ cases. For example, offences culpable under Section
323, 324, and 326 of Indian Penal Code, 1860. There is no criminal Court without these
cases. ‘Hurt’ is known as influence damage to, prompt torment to, harm, debilitate, harm,
wound, cripple, weaken, harm. In different words, it implies ‘be unfavourable to’. In the
event that a delineation utilizes “wounds” as an action word, it doesn’t separate between the
damage of “simple nature” or ”grievous nature”. The designers thought that it was hard to
draw a line between those substantial damages which are serious in nature and those which
are slight. They say that to draw such a line with great precision was totally impossible.
Therefore, specific sorts of hurt were assigned as grievous.
Section 319 to 338 of Indian Penal Code deals with hurt and Grievous Hurt in various forms.
Section 319 defines simple hurt as causing bodily pain, disease, or infirmity, and section 321
makes voluntary causing of hurt an offence punishable under section 323, IPC.

 SECTION 319: Hurt

Whoever causes bodily pain, disease or infirmity to any person is said to cause hurt.
To constitute hurt any of the following essentials needs to be caused: -
1. Bodily pain, or
2. Disease, or
3. Infirmity to another.
1. Bodily Pain
To cause hurt, there need not be any direct physical contact. Where the direct result of an act
is causing of bodily pain it is hurt whatever be the means employed to cause it. Hurt is
constituted by causing bodily pain, not mental pain.
In the absence of an intention to cause death, or grievous bodily hurt, where a person died as
a result of two kicks on the abdomen, the accused was held guilty of causing hurt only. [In re
Marana Goundan] Dragging a person by hair or fisting him falls under this section.
2. Disease
A person communicating a particular disease to another would be guilty of hurt. In Raka v.
Emperor, the Bombay High Court held a prostitute who had sexual connection with the
complainant and thereby communicated syphilis, liable under section 269, IPC, for spreading
of infection and not of causing hurt, because the interval between the act and disease was too
remote to attract sections 319 and 321, IPC.
3. Infirmity
It means the inability of an organ to perform its normal function which may either be
temporary or permanent. It denotes a temporary mental impairment, hysteria or terror.

 SECTION 320: GRIEVOUS HURT

The code on the basis of the gravity of the physical assault has classified hurt into simple and
grievous so that the accused might be awarded punishment commensurate to his guilt.
The following kinds of hurt only are designated as “grievous”:
 First. — Emasculation.
 Secondly. — Permanent privation of the sight of either eye.
 Thirdly. — Permanent privation of the hearing of either ear.
 Fourthly. — Privation of any member or joint.
 Fifthly. — Destruction or permanent impairing of the powers of any member or joint.
 Sixthly. — Permanent disfiguration of the head or face.
 Seventhly. — Fracture or dislocation of a bone or tooth.
 Eighthly. — 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.
Section 320 designates eight kinds of hurt as grievous and provides enhanced punishment in
such cases. Thus, to make out the offense of causing grievous hurt, there must be some
specific hurt, voluntarily inflicted, and should come within any of the eight kinds enumerated
in this section.
1. Emasculation
This clause is confined to males only. It means depriving a male of masculine vigour, i.e. to
render a man impotent. This clause was inserted to counteract the practice common in this
country for women to squeeze men’s testicles on the slightest provocation.
2. Injury to Eyesight
The test of gravity is the permanency of the injury caused to one eye or both eyes.
3. Deprivation of Hearing
It may be with respect to one ear or both ears. To attract this clause the deafness caused must
be permanent.
4. Loss of Limb or Joint
The expression used in is section is deprivation of any member, section or join, crippling a
man with life-long misery. The term member is used to mean nothing more than an organ or a
limb.
5. Impairing of Limb
Disabling is distinguishable from disfiguring as discussed in the sixth clause. To disfigure
means to cause some external injury which detracts from a person’s personal appearance. It
may not weaken him. On the other hand, to disable means to do something creating a
permanent disability and not a mere temporary injury.
6. Permanent disfiguring of Head or Face
In Gangaram v. State of Rajasthan, where the bridge of the nose was cut, as the injury was
inflicted by a sharp-edged weapon, it was held that the act amounted to permanent
disfiguration within the meaning of this clause and hence the injury was grievous.
7. Fracture or dislocation of a bone or tooth
A fracture, in order to attract this clause, must extend to the inner surface. If the act results
only in abrasion and does not break the bone, it will not be a fracture.
8. Dangerous Hurt
The hurt Which causes severe bodily pain for the period of twenty days means that a person
must be unable to follow his ordinary pursuits.
Grievous Hurt resulting in Death
In the case of grievous hurt, the hurt inflicted only endangers life but in case of culpable
homicide not amounting to murder, the hurt is likely to cause death. The distinction between
culpable homicide not amounting to murder and grievous hurt is very thin.
Where the evidence shows that the intention of assailants was to cause death, the case should
fall under section 302 and not under section 325.

 WRONGFUL RESTRAINT AND WRONGFUL CONFINEMENT

 WRONGFUL RESTRAINT
Restraint means- the action of keeping someone or something under control or, restricting
someone’s personal liberty or freedom of movement. Wrongful restraint is defined in Section
339 of the Indian Penal Code. It states that whoever on purpose obstructs any person with the
intent to prevent him from moving in any direction in which he has a right to move or to
proceed is said to wrongfully restrain that person.
In a simpler language- it means intentionally blocking someone’s right to move from one
place to another. It is important to note that restraining someone’s right physically is not the
only factor which constitutes restraint. Threats to restrain someone’s right of way to proceed
will also constitute wrongful restrainment.
Wrongful restraint is a partial restraint because only a particular direction is restricted and not
all the directions of a person to move is restricted.
Exception
It is not an offence under this section when a person in good faith believes himself to have a
lawful right to prevent another person’s private way over land or water.
Punishment
Punishment for wrongful restraint is defined under Section 341 of the Indian Penal Code as
whoever wrongfully restraints someone’s right will be sentenced with either simple
imprisonment which may extend to one month, a fine which may extend to ₹500, or with
both.
Ingredients:
 Purposefully or voluntarily obstructing a person.
 To prevent him to move in any direction.
 Where the person has a right to move or proceed.
 An obstruction was in bad faith.
The objective of Section 339
The object is to protect the right of a person to move freely wherever he wants to and also to
protect his life and personal liberty. The obstruction of a person’s right in a bad faith is an
offence and punishable under this Section.
As soon as the freedom or a right of a person to proceed in a way is obstructed, wrongful
restraint takes place.
Illustrations
i) ‘A’ intentionally builds a wall across a path in bad faith where he knows that ‘Z’ has a
right to pass. As a result, ‘Z’ is prevented from passing the path. Here ‘A’ has
wrongfully restrained ‘Z’s’ right to proceed.
ii) ‘P’ has a right to proceed in a path but is threatened by ‘M’ to proceed. If he proceeds,
‘M’ will place a wild dog in ‘P’ path. By doing this, ‘M’ has wrongfully restrained
‘P’s’ path. If ‘P’ pretends that the dog is ferocious when he is actually not and thus
obstructs ‘M’s’ path, it will constitute wrongful restrainment.

 WRONGFUL CONFINEMENT
Confinement means the action of restraining or restricting someone in a place or within
boundaries. Wrongful confinement is defined in Section 340 of the Indian Penal Code.
It states that whoever wrongfully restrains a person so as to prevent that person to move
beyond a certain restricted limit, is said to have committed the offence of wrongful
confinement. In simpler language, it means restricting a person’s right to move within
restricted limits in which he has a right to move. Wrongful confinement is full restrainment
because a person is restricted within a defined space or area.
Punishment
Punishment for wrongful confinement is defined under Section 342 of the Indian Penal Code
as whoever confines any person shall be sentenced to imprisonment which may either extend
to one year, a fine which may extend to ₹1,000, or both.
Ingredients
 Without any lawful justification restraining a person's right to proceed wrongfully and
completely.
 Such a restrainment should prevent a person to move beyond defined limits.

Illustration
i) ‘A’ deceived ‘T’ to move into a walled space. The moment ‘T’ entered; ‘A’ locks up
the door in bad faith in order to confine him. Here ‘A’ has committed an offence of
wrongfully confining ‘T’ within a defined wall. This is because he cannot move
anywhere else beyond that place.
ii) ‘D’ in bad faith and with an intention to confine ‘Z’, places few men with firearms out
of the building where ‘Z’ resides. He threatens him that if he attempts to move out
from the building then the men will fire. Here ‘D’ has committed an offence of
wrongful confinement
iii) ‘P’ was travelling from Delhi to Amritsar. ‘R’ asked him for a ride to a town, Sonepat
which comes in between the two cities where ‘P’ was travelling. ‘P’ agreed to give
him a lift to drop him in Sonipat but when they reached there ‘P’ did not stop until he
reached Amritsar. Here, ‘P’ has wrongfully confined ‘R’ as he did not stop where he
agreed to and also kept him within the boundary limits where he can’t move out. He
committed an offence of wrongful confinement.

 Important points

 Without any desire to proceed or to move, there cannot be any wrongful confinement
in that case.
 If there is a consent by the person for the confinement, it cannot be said that it is
wrongful confinement.
 Proof of actual physical obstruction is not essential in wrongful confinement
 In this section, the period of confinement is immaterial. The period of confinement
only becomes material while giving punishments as at that time it might vary.
Conclusion
A comprehensive analysis of the two offences is that wrongful restraint is preventing a person
to move in a direction. This does not mean or includes all the direction; it means only a
particular direction. For example, you are walking on a street and someone comes and blocks
your way to proceed in the direction you wanted to go here you have an option to move in
any other direction apart from the restrained one.
Wrongful Confinement is the blocking of all the ways of a person where he has a right to go.
The objective of these offences is to protect personal liberty and their right to move freely
throughout the territory of India. But if anyone in good faith and with a lawful justification
obstructs a path, that will not fall under this offence.