Hurt and Grievous Hurt (Indian Penal Code 1860, Sections 319 to 338) INTRODUCTION Sections 319-338 deal with the causing of hurt and grievous hurt and the punishment therefor. The subject can be broadly divided into the following divisions: (1) Simple hurt (ss 319, 321, 323). (2). Grievous hurt (ss 320, 322, 325). (3) Causing hurr or grievous hurt by dangerous weapons or dangerous means (ss 324 and 326). (4) Causing hurt ot grievous hure to extort property (ss 327and 329). (5) Causing hurt by means of poison (5 328). (6). Causing hurt of grievous hurt to extort confession or compel restoration of property (ss 330 and 331). (7) Causing hurt or grievous hurt to deter public servant (ss 332 and 333). (8) Causing hurt or grievous hurt on provocation (ss 334 and 335). (9) Causing hurt or grievous hurt by endangering life or personal safety of others (ss 336, 337, 338). SimpLe Hurt The term ‘simple hurt’ is used nowhere in the IPC. However, to differentiate ordinary hurt covered by ss 319, 321, 323, from that of grievous hurt, the expression ‘simple hurt’ has come into popular usage. Section 319. Hurt-—Whoever causes bodily pain, disease ot infirmity to any person is said to cause hurt. Section 319 defines hurt as ‘whoever causes bodily pain, disease or infirmity to any ~ person is said to cause hurt’. This section does not define any offence. It merely states what is the meaning of ‘hurt’. The expression ‘bodily pain’ means that the pain must Scanned with CamScannebe physical as opposed to any mental pain. So, mentally or emotionally hurting | somebody will not be ‘hurt’ within the meaning of this section. However, in order to come within this section iis not necessary that any visible injury should be causedon | the vietim. Al! chac the section contemplates is the causing of bodily pain." The degree | or severity of the pain is not a material factor to decide whether this section will apply or not. A blow or a fisticuf will come within the meaning of ‘causing bodily pain’ and hence, will be covered under this section. “Causing disease’ means communicating a disease to another person. However, the communication of the disease must be done by contact. ‘Infirmigy’ denotes an unsound or unhealthy state of the body. This infirmity may be a result of disease or as a result of consumption of some poisonous, deleterious drug ot alcohol. “nfirmicy’ has been interpreted by courts to mean inability of an organ to perform its normal function. The inability may be temporary or permanent in nature? As per the section, the hurt must be caused to ‘any person’. This means ‘any person’ other than the person causing the hurt. Selinflicted hurt does not come within the purview of this section. Section 321 elaborates on what amounts to voluntarily causing hurt. Section 321. Voluntarily causing hurt—Whoever does any act with the intention of chereby causing hure to any person, or with the knowledge that he is likely thereby fo cause hurt to any person, and does thereby cause hurt to any person, is said “voluntarily to cause hurt”. vom a reading of the section, it is clear that the most essential component of this section is ‘intention’ to cause hurt, or the ‘knowledge’ that the act is likely to cause hurt. If ‘intention’ or ‘knowledge’ is absent, then ic will not amount ro voluntarily causing hurt. Section 323. Punishment for voluntarily causing hurt.—Whoeves, except in the case provided for by section 334, voluntarily causes hurt, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to one yeat, or with fine which may extend to one thousand rupees, or with both. As per this section, voluntarily causing hurtis punishable wich simple or tigorous imprisonment, which may extend to one year or with @ maximum fine of one thousand rupees or both However, if an act comes within the purview of s 334, which deals with causing hurt on Provocation, then the punishment prescribed under chis section will not apply, because a le punishment of maximum imprisonment of one month and a maximum fine of five hundred rupees is provided under that section. Intention or Knowledge Intention to cause hurt, or knowledge that an act is likely to cause hurt, is the most decisive factor to decide whether a person can be held guilty of voluntarily causing hurt, The extent 3 Rengansgakamma v Stare of Andhra Pradesh ALR 1967 AV 208, (1967) Ce LJ 849. 2 Anis Beg v Emperor AUR 1924 All 215, (1926) Cr L413 (All; Jashanomal hamnatmal » Brabmanand Sarupananda AIR 1944 Sind i9, 640 scanned witn Gamscann————-- rw a —,—,— MON of injury that is actually caused is not relevant, bue what is the intention with which the hihe Se was caused is relevant, There may be cases where the act may even result in death, But, if the a jntention of the accused as gathered from the surrounding background facts, yas only to cause hurt, then the accused will be punishable only under this section and not for murdets Sect ' No The following offences have been held 1 be one of causing only staple hure even thowsh ayy death occurred*: =i (i) Assaule with hands and foot; deceased died. Cause of death was not known. fe was held chac it was an offence under s 323. . sig fi) Stick blows on buttocks and thighs with the objece of chastisement: There 72 no h intention of apprehension of death. (iii) Several unarmed people beating crop thief at night, resulting in under s 323 was held proper. (iv) A single blow with open hand was given on the neck. any other violence. However, there was a fracture of the vertebrae an died. Ie was held to be an offence only under s 323. (@) A victim was given a single kick in the abdomen. He died due to fatcy heart and enlarged liver Iewas held to be an offence of only causing simple hurt his death. Conviction “This ace was not followed by d the victim All the above-mentioned instances have been decided on the settled principle that a person must be punished for the hurt he intended to cause or had knowledge that itis likely to be caused ata result of the act done by the person. No one should be punished for unfortunate and completely unforeseen result of the acts done. Grievous Hurt Section 320. Grievous hurt.—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 of ear. Fourthly — Privation of any member or joint. Fifihly— Destruction or permanent impairing of the powers of any member of 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. 3. Re Marana Goundan AIR 1941 Mad 560, (1942) Cr L] 707 (Mad). cA scanned witn Famscannre Af Section 320 states specifically the nature of injuries that can be categorised as ‘grievous hurt’, No other hurt outside the categoties of injuries enumerated in s 320 can be termed as grievous hurt. Therefore, unless a hurt caused comes wi uuties specified in s 320, this section will not apply:* All these clauses need to be interpreted strictly.s Clauses 1 to 7 of s 320 state the specific nature of injuries, such as emasculation, loss of sight, loss of hearing, loss of limb or joint, loss of use of any limb or joint, disfiguration of the head or face, fracture or dislocation of a bone or tooth. The eighth clause is a general clause which covers all injuries which endanger life or which caused bodily pain or disrupted a person's routine activity for twenty days or more, Clause 8, like any other clause, needs to be construed strictly. Mere hospitalisation for more than twenty days does not ipso facto turn the ‘hurt’ into ‘grievous hurt’. Therefore, if the victim has not co-operated or not consented for operation, the ‘hurt’ caused would not be ‘grievous hurt’ and the accused therefore cannot be held guilty for causing ‘grievous hurt’, hin the i Voluntarily Causing Grievous Hurt Section 322. Voluntarily causing grievous hurt.—Whoever voluntarily causes hurt, if the hurt which he intends to cause or knows himself to be likely to cause is grievous hurt, and if the hurt which he causes is grievous hurt, is said “voluntarily to cause grievous hurt”, Explanation —A person is not said voluntarily to cause grievous hurt except when he both causes grievous hurt and intends or knows himself to be likely to cause grievous hurt. But he is said voluntarily to cause grievous hurt, if intending or knowing hime to be likely to cause grievous hurt of one kind, he actually causes grievous hurt of another kind. llustration A, intending or knowing himself to be likely permanently to disfigure Z' face, gives Za blow which does not permanently disfigure Z’ face, but which causes Z to suffer severe bodily pain for che space of went’ days, A has voluntarily caused grievous hurt, Section 325. Punishment for voluntarily causing grievous hurt.—Whoever, except in the case provided for by section 335, voluntarily causes grievous hurt, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to seven years, and shall also be liable to fine. Section 322 states what amounts to voluntarily causing grievous hurt, Section 325 provides the punishment for the same, In Modi Ram v State of Madhya Pradesh, the accused was about 21-22 years of age, married ‘0 one Jani Bai. About a year and a half after marriage, Jani Bai was seduced by one Chunnilal 4 Mathai v State of Kerala AIR 2005 SC 710, (2005) Cr LJ 898 (SC); Prabbu v State of Madhya Pradesh AIR 2009 SC 745, JT 2008 (13) SC 72, 5 Mathai v State of Kerala (2005) 3 SCC 260, AIR 2005 SC 710. 6 AIR 1972 SC 2438, (1972) Cr LJ 1521 ( scanned with Camscannand thereafter they started living together in the same area. One morning, when Chunnilal \was going to answer the call of nature, about five or six petsons caught hold of him and gave him a beating. Apart from causing him other injuries, they also cut off his nose and his ma organ. The accused was convicted and sentenced to one year rigorous imprisonment. ‘The high court, however, enhanced the sentence to eight years rigorous imprisonment. On appeal, the Supreme Court, taking into consideration the young, age of the accused, the hurnility and hurt he would have faced in having his wife live with another man soon after marriage in the same vicinity, observed that there was grave provocation and hence reduced the sentence from eight years to three years. In Hori Lal v State of Uttar Pradesh,’ the accused had assaulted the victim. All che injuries disclosed that particular bones on which the injuries were inflicted were cut. There we' however no fractures. Hence, it was contended that the injuries did not consticute grievo! hurt. The Supreme Court rejected this contention. It observed: In order to constitute grievous hurt under section 320, it is not necessary that a bone should be cut through, and through or that the crack must extend from the outer to the inner surface or that there should be displacement of any fragment of the bone. If there is a break by cucting or splintering of the bone or there is a rupture ot fissure in it, it would amount to a the meaning of clause (7) of section 320. cture within Thus, the court held the injuries of cut in the bones would amount to ‘grievous hurt’. UZ in Pandurang v State of Hyderabad, the Supreme Court held that giving a blow on the head with an axe, which penetrates half-an-inch into the head, is an act which is likely to endange life and will be covered under cl (8) of s 320. The accused was convicted under s 326. Th dividing line between culpable homicide not amounting to murder and grievous burt is very thin. In the former case, injuries must be such as are likely to cause death and in the lacter they may endanger life.’ Causinc Hurt or Grievous Hurr sy DanGERous WEAPONS Section 324. Voluntarily causing hurt by dangerous weapon or means.—Whoever, except in the case provided for by section 334, voluntarily causes hurt by means of any instrument for shooting, stabbing or cutting, or any instrument which, used as a weapon of offence, is likely to cause death, or by means of fire or any heated substance, ot by means of any poison or any corrosive substance, or by means of any explosive substance or by means of any substance which it is deleterious to the human body to inhale, to swallow, or to receive into the blood, or by means of any animal, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to three years, or with fine or with both. 7 AIR 1970 SC 1969, 8 AIR 1955 SC 216, 9 Government af Bombay v State of Maharashtra AIR. 1974 SC 1803; Walke w State of Madhya Pradesh AIR 1994 Pa oe Lal Mandi v State of West Bengal AIR 1995 SC 2265; Dukbmochan Pandey v State of Bihar AUR 1998 scanned witn FamscannSection 326. Voluntarily causing grievous hurt by dangerous weapons or means.— Whoever, except, in the case provided for by section 335, voluntarily causes grievous hburt by means of any instrument for shooting, stabbing or cutting, or any instrument which, used as a weapon of offence, is likely to cause death, or by means of fie or any heated substance, or by means of any poison or any corrosive substance, or by means of any explosive substance, or by means of any substance which it is deleterious to the human body to inhale, to swallow, ot to receive into the blood, or by means of any animal, shall be punished with imprisonment for life, ot with imprisonment of either description for 2 term which may extend to ten years, and shall also be liable to fine. Where a dangerous weapon has been used to cause a simple hurt, then 5 324 will apply.” Where a dangerous weapon has been used to cause a grievous hurt as defined in s 320, then s 326 wil! apply." Under both these sections, ic is not the actual nature of the injury caused namely, whether simple hurt or grievous hurt, but the manner in which itis caused, which is relevant. Though the end resuleor nature of injuries may be the same in these and previous sections, the legislature has provided for enhanced punishments when hurt or grievous hurt is caused by dangerous weapons or by dangerous means. Thus, under s 323, the maximum punishment that can be awarded for voluntarily causing simple hurt is imprisonment of either description for a Period which may extend to one year or a maximum fine of one thousand rupees. However, if the same simpie hurt is caused by a dangerous weapon or by dangerous means, then the Punishment prescribed under s 324 is imprisonment of either description for a period which may extend to three years or with (unlimited) fine or both, Similarly, under s 325, the punishment prescribed for voluntarily causing grievous hurt is imprisonment of either description, which may extend to seven years and fine. However, if the grievous hurt is caused by a dangerous weapon or by dangerous means, then the maximum sentence that is prescribed under s 326 is life imprisonment or imprisonment of either description for aterm up to ten years and fine. Expression ‘any instrument which, used as a weapon of offence, is likely to cause death’, when read in the light of marginal note to s 324, means dangerous weapon which if used by the offender is likely to cause death."* However, what weapon becomes a ‘dangerous weapon’ depends upon the facts of each case and no generalization can be made," Causing Hurt or Grievous Hurt on Provocation Both ss 324 and 326 exempt cases covered by acts causing hurt of grievous hurt on provocation under ss 334 and 335 respectively. When simple hurt or grievous hurt is caused by a person asa result of grave and sudden provocation, even if the offender uses dangerous weapons, his acts will not come within the purview of s5 324 and 326, as the section specifically exemprs such acts. The accused will get the benefit of ss 334 and 335, where a lighter sentence has been prescribed by the legislature. 10 See Keshub Mahindra v State of Madhya Pradesh (1996) 6 SCC 129; Ved Praash v State of Haryana (1996) SCC 1182; Ch Pitchavadhanulu Appaiah uv State of Andhra Pradesh (2011) Cr LJ 469 (AP). WL Re Natraja Goundan ALR 1939 Mad 507. 12. Anwarul: ‘Hag v State of Uttar Pradesh (2005) 10 SCC 581, AIR 2005 SC 2382. 13° Mashai v State of Kerala (2005) Cr LJ 898 (SC), AIR 2005 SC 710; Prabhu v State. ‘of Madhya Pradesh AIR 2009 SC 745, JT 2008 (13) SC 72, 644 scanned witn Gamscannoo yg jon ‘dangerous weapons’. However, the body us weapons are: ‘instrument for shooting, weapon of offence is likely to cause death’, not designed for use as weapons, but are s, etc. The following have been held axe; (b) dao or chavi or sharp Dangerous Weapons or Dangerous Means é = The title of sections 324 and 326 uses the expres of the sections illustrates as to what these dang scabbing or cutting or any instrument which, used This description covers even instruments which capable of being uscd a to be dangerous weapons within the meaning of the secti¢ hay weapon; (©) knife; (@) razor blade; (e) revolver or gun; (f) hot ladles (g) arrow (h) jurmper o cudgel or iron, shod (i) a thick dais (j) a broken soda bores, (K) tooth.’ , These sections also include causing of hurt by dangerous ‘means’. The ‘dangerous means contemplated under the sections are fire or any heated substance, poison, corrosive substance, explosive substance or deleterious substance. However, itis important to note that whether a particular weapon comes under the category of ‘dangerous weapons’ or not depends upon various factors. Therefore, no generalisation can be made about what constitutes ‘dangerous weapon’. It needs to be ascertained in the light of the facts of each case.'® weapons stich as crowbars, spac ‘Causine Hurr or Grievous Hurr To Extort PROPERTY Section 327. Voluntarily causing hurt to extort property, or to constrain to an illegal act.—Whoever voluntarily causes hurt, for the purpose of extorting from the sufferer, or from any person interested in the sufferer, any property or valuable security, or of constraining the sufferer or any person interested in such sufferer to do anything which is illegal or which may facilitate the commission of an offence, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to ten years, and shall also be liable to fine. Section 329. Volun:arily causing grievous hurt to extort property, of to constrain to an illegal act—Whoever voluntarily causes grievous hust, for the purpose of extorting from the sufferer, or from any person interested in the sufferer, any property or valuable security, or of constraining the sufferer or any person interested in such sufferer to do anything thac is illegal or which may facilitate the commission of an offence, shall be punished with imprisonment for life, or imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to ten years, and shall also be liable to fine. Sections 327 and 329 apply to cases where the offender voluntarily causes hurt ot grievous hurt for the purpose of extorting property or to compel a peison to do an illegal act, The essential ingredients of these two sections are: (i) a person should voluntarily cause hurt of 14 See Haramant v State of Karnataka AIR 1994 SC 1545; Moti Lal v State of Madhya Prudesh AUR 1994 SC 15443 Bishwanath Singh v State of Bihar (1995) Cr L} 2626 (SC); State of Karnataka v Shivelingiah AUR 1988 SC 115; Jameel Hassan v State of Urar Pradesh, (1974) Cr L 867 (Als Jagat Singh v State of NCT of Delhi, (1984) Ct 1 1551 (Del); Mukard Prasad Rai @ Mukti Rai v State of Bihar (Now Jbarkband) AUR. 2005 SC. 1271, (2004) 13, SCC 144. 15 Mathai v State of Kerala (2005) Cr LJ 898 (SC); State of Kerala v Parashram Kallappa Ghevade & Ors (2006) 5 Ker L} 522. 645 scanned witn FamscannGs grievous hurt (ji) ie should be for the purpose of extorting from the vietim or from any person Interested in the victim, any property or valuable security, or should be for the purpose of compelling the victim or any person interested in the victim to do an illegal act or facilitate che commission of an offence. ‘Thus, the crux of these sections is not the nature of the injury, but the purpose for which the injury has been caused. Of course, the nature of the injury caused will determine che quantum of punishment. If the injury caused is simple hurt, then the punishment prescribed is simple or rigorous imprisonment for aterm up to ten years and fine. If the injury caused is grievous hurt, then the punishment prescribed is imprisonment for life or simple or rigorous imprisonment for a term up to ten years and fine. Causine Hurr py MEans oF Poison Section 328. Causing hurt by means of poison, etc., with intent to commit an offence.—Whoever administers to or causes to be taken by any person any poison or any stupefying, intoxicating, or unwholesome drug, or other thing with intent to cause hurt to such person, or with intent to commit or to facilitate the commission of an offence or knowing it to be likely that he will thereby cause hurt, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to ten years, and shall also be liable to fine. The essential ingredients of this section are: (i) the offender should administer a poisonous, stupefying, intoxicating or unwholesome drug; (ii) such administration should be with the intention to cause hurt, or to commit or facilitate the commission of an offences ot (ii) such administration should be with the knowledge that itis likely to cause hurt. Where an accused administered an intoxicating substance to a person with a view to rob him when the person was unconscious or stupefied, it would be an instance of administering intoxicating substance for facilitating the commission of an offence."* In Dharm Das Wadbwani v State of Uttar Pradesh," the accused was a compounder in a small hospital, The senior doctor of the hospital arrived in the morning with a bad headache and asked the accused for 10 grams of aspirin. The accused took 12-13 minutes to bring the aspirin, which was readily available in the dispensing room. The doctor consumed the medicine. It was bitter, which was an unusual taste for aspirin. He asked the attender to fetch him a glass of water. By then, the second doctor was sitting in the next chair. The senior doctor complained about the strange bitterness in the tongue, though aspirin was supposed to be tasteless, He gargled, washed his face with water and asked the attendant to buy some betel leaves to overcome the bad taste, He thereafter proceeded to do his normal work and tried to give injection to a waiting patient but began to feel shaky, He had sensation of cramps in the calf muscles. The othet doctor ran into the dispensing room and asked the accused fiom which bortle he had given the aspirin, The accused showed him the aspirin bottle. The doctor asked him if he had given 16 Madbukar Danu Patil v State of Maharashtra (1996) Cx L} 1062 (Bom); Gaya Prasad v State of Uttar Pradesh (1996) Cr LJ 1599 (Ail); Xavier @ Thambi v Inspector of Police (1993) Cr LJ 3506 (Mad). 17 AIR 1975 SC 241, (1974) Cr LJ 1249 (SC); see also Joseph Kurian v State of Kerala AIR 1995 SC 4; EK Chandrasenan v State of Kerala AIR 1995 SC 1066, (1995) Cr LJ 1445 (SC). 646 scanned witn Gamscannseychnine, 2 deadly poison accidentally. The accused denied it, stating, that strychnine was not in stack at all, He started trembling, In the meant me, the doctor was rushed to the hospital and given a stomach wash, It was found that it was indeed strychnine, which was administered to the doctor by the accused, The accused was convicted under § 328, IPC. Causinc Hurr or Grievous Hurr to Exrorr Conression on Comer oF PROPERTY ResToRATION Arcction 330. Voluntarily causing hurtto extort confession, of to compel restoration of property. —Whoever voluntarily causes hurt for the purposes of extorting from the sufferer or from any person interested in the sufferer, any confession or any information which may lead to the detection of an offence or misconduct, or for the purpose of constraining the sufferer or any person interested in the sufferer to restore or to cause the restoration of any property or valuable security or to satisfy any claim or demand, or to give information which may lead to the restoration of any property or valuable security, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to seven years, and shall also be liable to fine. Illustrations (a) A, police officer, tortures Z in order to induce Z to confess that he committed a crime. A is guilty of an offence under this section. (0) A, a police officer, tortures B to induce him to point out where certain stolen property is deposited. A is guilty of an offence under this section. (Aya revenue officer, tortures Z in order to compel him to pay certain arrears of revenue due from Z. A is guilty of an offence under this section. (@) A, a zamindar, tortures a raiyat in order to compel him to pay his rent. A is guilty of an offence under this section. Section 331. Voluntarily causing grievous hurt te extort confession or to compel restoration of property. t the purpose of extorting from the sufferer or from any person interested in the sufferer any confession or any information which may lead to the detection of an offence or misconduct, or for the purpose of constraining the sufferer or any person interested in the sufferer to restore or to cause the restoration of any property or valuable security, or to satis! any claim or demand, or to give information which may lead to the restoration of any property or valuable security, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to ten years, and shall be liable to fine, The essential ingredients of these sections are: (i) the offender should voluncatily cause hurt of grievous hurt; (ii) it should be done for the purpose of: (a) to extort contession or information, (b) to restore or cause restoration of any property or valuable security, (c) to satisfy any claim ot demand, ot (d) to obtain information, which may lead to the restoration of anv property or valuable security; (ii) if it is for the purpose of extorting confession ot information, such, confession or information should lead to the detection of an offence or misconduct. cen scanned with CamscannThe punishment provided for voluntarily causing hurt or grievous hurt under _s 330 and $331 is simple or rigorous imprisonment for aterm up to seven and ten years and fine respectively. In one case," a boy was accused of theft. In order to extort a confession from him thet he committed the theft, his hands were tied together, wrapped with a cloth and kerosene oil found guilty under this section and a sentence poured over it and a fire was lit. The accused was of one year’s rigovous imprisonment was imposed. In another case," an investigation officer, investigating, a case of house breaking and thef-, called an ex-convict and tied up his wrists with cloth, hung him up by wrists to a peg d into the wall and rorcured him whilst so suspended, to extract a confession or information from him regarding the offences under investigation, ‘The ex-convict died because of the torture Laver on, the police officer, with the help of his colleagues, threw the dead body in the nearby well, subsequently removed it from the well and buried it in a place very far away from the police station, The Andhra Pradesh High Court, holding the torture a crude, barbarous and reprehensible method of investigation, held him guilty under s 330 of the IPC. Any third degree treatment given by police to extort confession falls within the ambit of s 330. Ic is not duty of a police officer to beat a person at the police station to ext confession.2” A police officer who causes grievous hurt to extort confession, even at the behest of his superior officer, is guilty under s 330 of the IPC.”! Iris duty of a court to pass a deterrent sentence to a police officer engaged in investigation of a crime who causes hurt to a person for extorting confession or information leading to detection of a crime. Such a police officer does not deserve any leniency from the court. The court will be failing in its duty if appropriate punishment is not awarded for offence falling within the ambit of s 330 and the punishment to be awarded must be consistent with the atrocity and brutality with which the offence was committed.” The Supreme Court held that the punishment provided under s 330 is inadequate to repair the wrong done to citizens and the victims of crime should be compensated.?* However, a simple reading of the provisions exhibits certain limitations that dilute theic underlying objectives. They are restricted only to the cases of extorting confession or inform: pertaining to an offence, Ic keeps out of its ambic custodial violence caused by officers for oth purposes. They are governed by the provision of s 323, dealing with voluntarily causing huce and providing for milder penalties. : Causine Kurr or Grievous Hurr to Derer PusLic SERVANTS Section. 332. Voluntarily causing hurt to deter public servant from his duty— Whoever voluntarily causes hurt to any person being a public servant in the discharge 18 Public Prosecutor v Ranniappa AIR 1955 Mad 424, (1955) Cr LJ 1080 (Mad). 19 Public Prosecutor v Sheikh Ibrahim AIR1964 AP 548, (1964) 2 Cr 1] 636 (AP). 20 Diyarn Kant v Stare of Mabarashtea (1972) Supp (2) SCC 521. 21. Dinanath v Emperor AYR 1940 Nag 186, 22. Lal Muhammad v Emperor AIR 1936 Lah 471; see also Public Prosecutor » Ranniappa AIR. 1955 Mad 42. (1955) Ce LJ 1080 (Mad); Anup Singh v State of Himachal Pradesh (1995) Cr LJ 3223 (SC). 23. Stare of Madhya Pradesh v Saleem AIR 2005 SC 3996, (2005) Cr L] 3435 (SC), (2005) 5 SCC 554. 74 DK Basu 1 State of West Bengal AIR 1997 SC 610. “ae scanned witn GamscannAiurt and Grievos 22"* “4 of his duty as such public servant, or with intent to prevent or deter that perso br any other public servant from discharging his duty as such public servant, oF in consequence of anything done or attempred to be done by that person in the laviful discharge of his duty as such public servant; shall be punished with imprisonment cf tither description for a term which may extend to three years, oF with fine, or wit both. section 333. Voluntarily causing grievous hurt to deter public servant from his duty-—Whoever voluntarily causes grievous hust to any person being a public servant in the discharge of his duty as such public servant, or with intent to prevent or deter that person of any other public servant from discharging his duty as such public servant, of in consequence of anything done or attempted to be done by that person in the lawful discharge of his duty as such public servant, shall be punished with imprisonment of cither description for a term which may extend to ten years, and shall also be liable to fine. The essential ingredients of this section are: (i) the offender should voluntarily cause hurt or grievous hurt to a public servant; (i) it should be caused: (a) when the public servant acted in discharge of his duties, (b) to prevent or deter that public servant or any other public servant from discharging his duty; or (c) in consequence of anything done or attempted to be done by the public servant in the discharge of his duty. The term ‘public servant is defined under s 21, IPC. This section will apply only if the public servant was acting in the discharge of his duty as a public servant, or it should be proved thar it was the intention of the accused to prevent or deter the public servant from discharging his duty. In Allauddin Jiyauddin v State of Maharashtra? a head-constable disclosed his identity and informed the accused that he was arresting him in respect of a cognisable offence of theft. The accused resisted the arrest and beat him. However, since the police officer was not in his uniform at the time of arrest, though he is said to have disclosed his identity and the accused was not fully informed about the charge against him, it may have prompted the accused to resist the arrest. In view of this, the accused was convicted and sentenced to three months ‘igorous imprisonment. In D Chattaiah v State of Andhra Pradesh* che accused were working as health inspector, lower division clerk and health worker in a primary health centre, The accused had a private quarrel with the victim complainant, who was working as a typist in the panchayat samiti. As a result of the private quarrel, the accused assaulted the complainant. The first accused slapped him. The second accused hit him with a ruler and the third accused hit him with a stick. The complainant caught hold of the stick. The third accused then picked up a pair of scissors from the complainant’ table and hit him below the left eye. It was held that there was no real nexus or causal connection or consequential relation with the performance of his duty as public servant and the assault upon the complainant, There was not even a scintilla of evidence, 251968 SCD 477, 26 AIR 1978 SC 1441, (1978) Cr LJ 1473 (SC), 649 scanned witn Gamscann/ / from which it could be reasonably inferred that the intent of the assailants was to prevent o: deter the victim complainant from the discharge of his duty as such public servant, So, it was held that charge under s 332 cannot be sustained. Instead, the accused were convicted under fine of € 200 cach, or in default to undergo one rao s 323 and were ordered to pay a rigorous imprisonment, The fine, if realised, was directed to be paid as compensation to ¢ complainant. In Muntmiya v State of Gujarat the accused was a deputy sarpanch. He tried to enter 0 public transport bus from the driver's cabin, At that time, the driver was not occupyin seat, but was standing near the bus. The driver stopped the accused from entering the dri cabin, The accused abused and kicked the driver, which resulted in a grievous injury, It was held that the drives, while driving the bus or even while standing at the bus stand was dischargi his duties and when he tried to prevent the accused from trespassing into the driver's cabin. he was undoubtedly acting in the due discharge of his duties as a driver of the bus belong the transport department. The court observed that the accused, being a deputy sarpanch of a village and as such a public servant, should have known that he ought not to have interfered with another public servant in the performance of his duties. He was convicted under s 333 and sentenced to six months rigorous imprisonment. In Kesho Ram v Delhi Administration,® the complainants were section inspectors of the Delhi Municipal Corporation. The accused was in defaule of payment of milk tax. So, the inspectors went to seize the buffalo belonging to the accused in the discharge of their duty to realise the mille tax from him. The accused obstructed the inspectors when they went to seize the buffalo and struck one of them on the nose with the result that it bled and was also fractured. The Supreme Court found the accused guilty under ss 332 and 333, but in view of the fact that the inspectors did not follow the procedure for recovery of the tax and the accused did not refuse to pay, but merely cold them he was nor ready to pay the money instantly, the sentence imposed by the lower courts was reduced by the Supreme Court to the period already undergone. The fine amount imposed was set aside, In Siyasaran v State of Madhya Pradesh, the Supreme Court convicted the accused under s 333 (as well as under s 506) who, being not satisfied with the treatment given to his brother assaulted the doctor whose tooth was dislocated. In Sheikh Aashif v State of Madhya Pradesh,®, wherein the appellant caused injury to 2 public servant with a blade lying on the table, the high court set aside his conviction under $307 and upheld his sentence under s 332, IPC. It justified its verdict on the ground that the appellant had neither any motive to kill the complainant nor had any inimical cerms with him. He did not possess any weapon. His act was spontaneous. He picked-up blade lying on the table of the complainant and gave him a blow without targeting any particular pare of the body. The blow fell on vital part but caused simple injury to complainane, 27 AIR 1979 SC 1706, (1979) Cr LJ 1384 (SC). 28 AIR 1974 SC 1158, (1974) Cr LJ 814 (SC). 29 (1995) Cr LJ 2126 (SC). 30 (2010) Cr L} 140 (MP), 2012 (2) Crimes 812. scanned witn GamscannHurt and Grievous Hurt Causinc Hurt or Griivous Hurr oN PRovocATION Section 334. Voluntarily causing hurton provocation: Whoever voluntarily causes hurt on grave and sudden provocation, if he neither intends nor knows himself to be ation, likely to cause hurt to any person other than the person who gave the prov dhall be punished wich imprisonment of either description for a term which may setend to one month, or with fine which may extend to five hundred rupees, of 4 both. Section 335. Voluntarily causing grievous hurt on provocation wolunearily causes grievous hurt on grave and sudden provocation, if he neich veromde not knows himself to be likely to cause grievous hurt to any person other char the person who gave the provocation, shall be punished with imprisonment of either desctiption for a term which may extend to four years, or with fine which may extend to two thousand rupees, or with both. Whoever Explanation —The last two sections ate subject to the sarne provis Explanation 1, section 300. The essential ingredients of the section are: (i) offender should voluneaily cause hake of grievous hur; (i) it should be caused on provocation; (ii) provocation caused should be both grave and sudden; (i) he should not intend to cause hurt to any person other than the person sho provoked; (x) or he should not have knowledge that his act is likely zo cause hurt 0 any person other than the person who provoked. Section 334 and s 335 serve as a proviso to ss 323 & 324, and ss 325 & 326, respectively, If the injury caused is simple hurt, then the punishment prescribed under s 334 is imprisonment of either description, which may extend to one month or with fine which m cand to five hundred rupees ot with both." Ifthe injury caused is grievous hurt, chen the punishment prescribed under s 335 is simple or rigoro years, or with fine of up to two thousand rupees, or with both. The order that this section should apply, it is important to establish thac there was provocation and such provocation was grave and sudden. Ifthe provocation is only sudden bur not grave, he offence will not be one punishable under either of these sections. Similarly, if che provocation is only grave and not sudden, the act will not amount to an offence under these sections. “The test of ‘grave and sudden’ provocation is whether a reasonable man, belonging ro the same class of society as the accused, placed in the situation in which the accused would be so provoked as to lose his control’ ” In Dhondey v State of Uttar Pradeh, the accused found his wife in the company of the victim and on seeing them together, he completely lost his temper, caught hold of borh of them and cut their noses, In view of this, the conviction of the accused was altered from one under $326 to s 335, IPC. The sentence was reduced from four years rigorous imprisonment (0 Ovo s imprisonment fora term up to four 31 Abmed Ali & Ors v State of Tripura (2009) 6 SCC 704, 2009 (7) SCALE 442. 32. KM Nanavati v State of Maharashtra AIR 1962 SC, (1962) 1 Cr1J 521 (SC) 33 AIR 1972 SC 1273, 651 scanned witn Gamscannyears, However in Sham Bebari w State of Orissa, the Orissa High Court refused to invoke § 334 of the IPC in favour of the husband of a woman (and his friend), who, suspecting his wife’ fidelity and after waiting for a clay in his cowshed to catch his wife's paramour redhanded, caused hurt to the paramour when he stealthily approached his wife and had sexual intercourse with hes, and acer, che man died. The high court held that the element of sudden and grave lay to catch the deceased. ‘ourt convicted the Provocation was absent as the accused waited for a In State of Madhya Pradesh v Rajesh & Ors)’ Madhya Pradesh High accused, who, on provocation, stabbed the victim who was urinating in front of his house, under s 535. Causinc Hurr or Grievous Hurt py ENDANGERING Lire OR PERSONAL SAFETY OF OTHERS Section 336. Act endangering life or personal safety of others.—Whoever does any act so rashly or negligently as co endanger human life or the personal safety of others, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to three months, or with fine which may extend to two hundred and fifty rupees, or with both. Section 337. Causing hust by act endangering life or personal safety of others.— Whoever causes hurt to any person by doing any act so rashly or negligently as to endanger human life, or the personal safety of others, 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 hundred rupees, or with both. Section 538, Causing grievous hurt by act endangering life or personal safety of others.—Whoever causes grievous hurt to any person by doing any act so rashly or negligently as to endanger human life, or the personal safety of others, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend 0 two years, or with fine which may extend to one thousand rupees or both. Section 336 stipulates that ifany act is done in a rash and negligent manner, so as to endanget human life or the personal safety of others, it will be an offence under this section. Such 2n offence is punishable wich imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend 9 three months or with fine of up to two hundred and fifty rupees or with both. Sections 337 and 338 make the causing of simple hurt and grievous hurt respectively, an act endangering life or personal safety offences. The essential ingredients of these sections are: (i) the act of accused must have resulted in simple or grievous hurr; (i) the act must be done in a rash and negligene manner; and (iii) the rashness or negligence must be to the extent of endangering human life or personal safety of others. Sections 337 and 338 are couched in identical phraseology. The only distinction between them is that the latter comes into play when grievous hurt is caused to someone and the consequential punishment.» 34 AIR 1953 Ori 308, 35 (1997) Cr L} 2466 (MP). 36 Ashok Chandak v State of Andhra Pradesh (2011) Cr 1} 638 (AP), 2010 (2) ALD (Cri) 297. 652 scanned witn Famscann“These sections will be applicable only in cases where the hurt caused is a direct result of vA negligent or rash act."” , * halohundra v Suate of Maharashtra, the accused had licences under the Indian Explosives ‘ ‘Act 1884, to manufacture, possess and sell fire works and gunpowder. There was an explosion in the factory manufacturing explosives resulting in the death of eleven persons and injuries eaeven. Ie was found that the accused had stored large quantities of raw material, gunpowder od finished reworks in the same premises. ‘They also had unauthorised explosives in their possession and it was also found that the accused had committed a number of breaches of the onditions of licence issued to him. In view of this, the accused were found guilty under ss 304A and 337, IPC, in Alister Anthony Pereira v State of Maharashtra,” the appellant drove a car rashly or negligently and killed seven persons sleeping on the pavement. He was convicted under 5 304A ind 338, IPC. On appeal, Supreme Court upheld his conviction and sentence. Ie ruled chat criminal rashness ot negligence is a dangerous or wanton act carried with the knowledge that icmay or will probably cause injury, but with no intention of causing it. The criminality lies in running the tisk of doing such an act wich feckless or indifference to as to the consequences. In such a case, it held, knowledge of the dangerous consequences, referred to in 338, IPC, can be safely presumed, if he, having regard to the circumstances he was placed in, has failed to exercise reasonable care and precaution to guard against injury either to the publi to an individual in particular. ic generally or Scanned with CamScann«