INDIAN PENAL CODE

SEMESTER- 3

PRN- 20010422099

SEAT NUMBER- 376588

COURSE- BBA.LLB
1A) The Right of Private Defence

Nothing is an offence which is done in the exercise of the right of private defense. Section 96-
106 of the IPC, 1860 codify the entire law relating to the right of private defense of body and
property including the limitation of the right. The basic principle is that when an individual or his
property is faced with a danger and immediate aid from the State machinery is not available, the
individual is entitled to protect himself and his property. It is the necessity of averting an
impending danger and not of self creation. The necessary corollary is that the violence which the
citizen defending himself or his property is entitled to use must not be unduly disproportionate to
the injury which is sought to be averted or which is reasonably apprehended and should not
exceed the legitimate purpose.

According to Section 97- Every person has a right, subject to the restrictions contained in Section
99 to defend his own body, and the body of any other person, against any offense affecting the
human body.

Limitations

1) That if there is sufficient time for recourse to public authorities, the right are not available
2) That more harm than is necessary should not be caused;
3) That there must be a reasonable apprehension of death or grevious hurt or hurt to the
person or damage to the property concerned.

There is a duty to retreat.

There should be reasonable force, which in the Indian context, means minimum force
under Section 99 of IPC.

No Private defence in a free fight

Where both sides can be convicted for their individual acts, normally no right of private
defence is available to either party and they will be guilty of their respective acts. Where
two parties armed with determination to measure their strength and to settle a dispute by
force and in the ensuing fight both sides receive injuries, no question of private defence
arises.

Injury to Accused- if makes out private defence

Number of injuries on the accused by itself may not be sufficient to establish the right of
private defence. The number of injuries is not always considered to be a safe criterion for
determining who the aggressor was. It cannot also be laid down as an unqualified
proposition of law that whenever injuries are on the body of the accused person, the
presumption must be raised that the accused had injuries in the exercise of private
defence.
Aggressor has no right to private defense
The accused cannot be aggressors.

According to Section 100 the right of private defence of the body extends, under the
restrictions mentioned in the last preceding section, to the voluntary causing of death or
of any other harm to the assailant, if the offfence which occasions the exercise of the
right of any of the descriptions namely-

1) Such an assault as may be reasonably cause the apprehension that death will
otherwise be the consequence of assault.
2) Such an assault as may reasonably cause the apprehension that grevious husrt will
otherwise be the consequence of such assault
3) An assault will the intention of commiting rape
4) An assault with the intention of gratifying unnatural lust
5) An assault with the intention of kidnapping or abducting
6) An assault with the intention of wrongfully confining a person, under circumstances
which may reasonably cause him to apprehend that he will be unable to have recourse
to the public authorities for his release
7) An act of throwing or adminstering acid or attempt to throw or admininster acid
which may reasonably cause the apprehension that grevious husrt will be the
consequence of the act.

2B) Before completion of crime, human mind has to pass four steps
1) Intention to commit;
2) Preperation to commit it
3) Attempt to commit it
4) If the attempt is unsuccessful, then crime is complete

A person commits the offense of the attempt to commit a particular offense 1) he

intends to commit that particular offense 2) he having made preperations and with the
intention to commit the offense, does an act towards its commission; such an act need
not be a penultimate act towards the commission of the offense. Section 511 of the
IPC is attracted.
Essentials
In every crime, there is first intention to commit it, second preparation to commit it,
third attempt to commit it.
1) Intention
Intention is the direction of conduct towards the object chosen upon considering
the motives which suggest the choice. The will is not to be taken for the deed,
unless there is some exeternal act which shows that progress has been made in the
direction of it, towards maturing and affecting it. In an attempt to commit an
offence there must be intention to commit the crime combined with doing of some
adopted to, but failing short of the actual commission.

2) Preperation
Preparation consists in devising or arranging the means or measures necessary for
the commission of an offense.

3) Attempt
It is the direct movement towards the commission after the preparations are made.
In the State of Maharastra v Mohd Yakub the Supreme Court observed the
attempt question is a mixture of law and fact. Attempt defies a precise and exact
definition. There are three stages of attempt. In the first stage, the culprit
entertains the idea or intention to commit an offense. In the second stage, he
makes preparation to commit it. The third stage is when the culprit takes
deliberate overt steps to commit the offense. Such overt act or step in order to be a
criminal need not be the penultimate act towards the commission of the offense. It
is sufficient if such acts or acts were deleiberately done, and manifest a clear
intention to commit the offence aimed, being reasonably proximate to the
consummation of the offense.

The test for determining whether the acts constitute attempt or preparation is
whther the overt acts already done are such that if the offender changes his mind
and does not proceed further in its progress, the acts already done would be
completely harmless. But where thig done if not prevented by any extraneous
cause, would fructify into the commission of an offense, it would amount to an
attempt to commit that offense. An attempt to commit an offense does to cease to
be an attempt merely because after the attempt is made and before the actual
completeion of the offense the offender may be able to prevent its completion by
doing some other act in pursuance of the changed intention.

An accused is liable for attempt where his failure to commit an offence is not due
to any act or omission of his own, but due to the intervention of some factor
independent of his own volition.
 Preparation and Attempt Difference
A person attempts the offense when he intends to commit the particular offense.
He having made preparation and with the intention to commit an offense
Does an act towards its commission such an act need not be the penultimate act
for commission of the offense but must be an act during the course of committing
that offense.

Q4A) Criminal Misappropriation

of Property
[Sections 403 & 404]

Section 403: Dishonest Misappropriation of

Property

Whoever dishonestly mis-appropriates or converts to his own

use any movable property, shall be punished with imprisonment of
either description for a term which may extend to two years, or
with fine, or with both. Section 403: Dishonest Misappropriation
of Property

Misappropriation: Use of another person’s property for one’s own benefit.

Ingredients:

There is a movable property belonging to the complainant.

The accused dishonestly misappropriated that property or converted it for

his own use.

It is found that usually the intention of the accused while taking the
possession of the property was innocent but there is a change in the
intention subsequently which makes the accused use the property for his
own benefit.
Thus, some property belonging to others comes under the possession of the
accused, innocently, and later is misappropriated or converted by accused to
his own use.

The essence of the offence is that the accused got the possession of the
property in a lawful manner, however, after he got the posession, there was
unlawful use of the property subsequently.

Under Section 403, the offence lies in wrongful retention or usage of

property.

First Possession:

Lawful

Subsequent Use of the

Property:

Unlawful

Possession

The offender is already in possession of the property and his possession is

not punishable either because he has lawfully obtained it, or because he has
found it or is a joint owner of it or has acquired it under some mistaken
notion

The moving of property may he perfectly lawful; it is the subsequent

intention to dishonestly misappropriate or convert it to his own use that is an
offence

The possession may even be with the consent of the owner, e.g., he may be a
joint owner

It is the subsequent intention to misappropriate or convert to his own use that

constitutes the offence.

Misappropriates/ Converts to Use

Misappropriates: Any such use of property which is against the

interest of the real owner.
Giving it to some other person. (deprivation of property)

Unduly long retention of property.

Converts to use:

Treating the property as one’s own i.e. actual use of property.

Selling the property and making gains out of it.

Examples

1. X and Y were classmates. One day, X was in a hurry to catch the bus and
he picked up the bag similar to his, thinking it to be his own. On reaching
home, he realized that the bag belonged to Y and not X. Still, X kept the bag
to himself and later sold it to one of his juniors.
Dishonest intention to misappropriate the property may be permanent
or temporary in nature. A person who finds property not in the possession of any
other
person, and takes such property for the purpose of protecting it for, or
of restoring it to, the owner does not take or misappropriate it
dishonestly, and is not guilty of an offence; but he is guilty of the
offence above defined, if he appropriates it to his own use, when he
knows or has the means of discovering the owner, or before he
has used reasonable means to discover and give notice to the
owner and has kept the property a reasonable time to enable the
owner to claim it.

What are reasonable means or what is a reasonable time in such a

case, is a question of fact.

No “finders; keepers”

The finder of goods has to make a reasonable effort of finding

out the owner of the lost goods and if after doing so, he is
unable to find the true owner, he may use it for his own benefit.

If property is already in the possession of a person innocently and

later on he dishonestly misappropriates the property for the time
being and again he restores the property, he will be liable for criminal
misappropriation.

Section 405: Criminal Breach of Trust

Whoever, being in any manner entrusted with property, or with

any dominion over property, dishonestly misappropriates or
converts to his own use that property, or dishonestly uses or
disposes of that property in violation of any direction of law
prescribing the mode in which such trust is to be discharged, or of
any legal contract, express or implied, which he has made
touching the discharge of such trust, or wilfuly suffers any other
person to do so, commits “criminal breach of trust”.

Section 405: Criminal Breach of Trust

Criminal breach of trust is a special kind of criminal misappropriation where

the property was entrusted to the accused by the owner and accused
dishonestly misappropriated that property.

It may be treated as a kind of criminal misappropriation but in the Indian

Penal Code it has been categorised as a separate offence under section 405.

The act must be done deliberately, intentionally and not by accident.

Please note that it may be any kind of property: movable or immovable as it

has not been specified in the section.

A fiduciary relationship is created between the parties.

Offence of embezzelment under English law.

Essentials

Accused must be entrusted with property or with dominion over the property.

The person so entrusted must-

Dishonestly misappropriate or convert to his own use

Dishonestly use or dispose of that property or wilfully suffer any person so to

do.

i) in violation of any directions of law prescribing the mode in which

such property is to be discharged.

ii) any legal contract made regarding discharge of such trust. Difference between
Criminal Misappropriation and Criminal
Breach of Trust

In misappropriation, the property is always movable while in

criminal breach of trust, it may be movable or immovable.

In misappropriation, the possession of the property comes to the

offender in some natural manner. In CBT, the possession is through
entrustment or dominion over property and the property is
converted by a person acting in fiduciary capacity.

Other Sections related to Criminal Breach of Trust

Section 406:

Imprisonment up to three years

or fine or both.

Section 407: Offence committed by

carrier, warehouse keeper, wharfinger

Aggravated form of the offence

Punishment is imprisonment up to
seven years or fine or both

Section 409: Offence committed

by public
servant/banker/merchant/
agent etc.

Punishment of imprisonment of
life or imprisonment up to ten
years and fine.

Section 408: Offence committed

by clerk or servant.

Punishment of imprisonment up
to seven years and fine.

A3B) Amitesh had committed the offense of forgery.

Section 463- Forgery

Whoever makes any false document or false

electronic record or part of a document with
intent to cause damage or injury, to the public or
to any person, or to support any claim or title, or
to cause any person to part with property, or to
enter into any express or implied contract, or
with intent to commit fraud or that fraud may be
committed, commits forgery.

Forgery includes alteration or addition to a true

instrument or making malo animo of any
written instrument for purpose of fraud and
deceit.

The offence is committed when an instrument is

made with the intention that somebody will be
induced to believe it as genuine.

The words “ any false document or false

electronic record” have been added vide First
Schedule to the Information Technology Act,
2000.
It is necessary that the false document or
electronic record must be made with a criminal
intent.

Section 464: Making a false document

A person is said to make a false document or false electronic

record—

First —Who dishonestly or fraudulently—

(a) makes, signs, seals or executes a document or part of a

document;

(b) makes or transmits any electronic record or part of any

electronic record;

(c) affixes any [electronic signature] on any electronic record;

(d) makes any mark denoting the execution of a document or the

authenticity of the [electronic signature], with the intention of
causing it to be believed that such document or part of
document, electronic record or [electronic signature] was made,
signed, sealed, executed, transmitted or affixed by or by the
authority of a person by whom or by whose authority he knows
that it was not made, signed, sealed, executed or affixed;

Secondly —Who, without lawful authority,

dishonestly or fraudulently, by cancellation or
otherwise, alters a document or an electronic record
in any material part thereof, after it has been made,
executed or affixed with [electronic signature] either
by himself or by any other person, whether such
person be living or dead at the time of such
alteration.

Thirdly —Who dishonestly or fraudulently causes

any person to sign, seal, execute or alter a document
or an electronic record or to affix his [electronic
signature] on any electronic record knowing that
such person by reason of unsoundness of mind or
intoxication cannot, or that by reason of deception
practiced upon him, he does not know the contents
of the document or electronic record or the nature of
the alteration.

A, without Z 's authority, affixes Z 's seal to a document purporting to

be a conveyance of an estate from Z to A, with the intention of selling
the estate to B, and thereby of obtaining from B the purchase-money.
A has committed forgery.

Z 's will contains the these words—“I direct that all my remaining
property be equally divided between A, B and C .” A dishonestly
scratches out B 's name, intending that it may be believed that the
whole was left to himself and C. A has committed forgery.

A writes a letter and signs it with B 's name without B 's authority,
certifying that A is a man of good character and in distressed
circumstances from unforeseen misfortune, intending by means of
such letter to obtain alms from Z and other persons. Here, as A made
a false document in order to induce Z to part with property. A has
committed forgery. Explanation I

A man's signature of his own name may amount to

forgery.

Example: A purchases an estate sold under execution of a

decree against B. B, after the seizure of the estate, in
collusion with Z, executes a lease of the estate of Z at a
nominal rent and for a long period and dates the lease six
months prior to the seizure, with intent to defraud A,
and
to cause it to be believed that the lease was granted
before the seizure. B, though he executes the lease in his
own name, commits forgery by antedating it.

Explanation II

The making of a false document in the name of a

fictitious person, intending it to be believed that the
document was made by a real person, or in the name
of a deceased person, intending it to be believed that
the document was made by the person in his
lifetime, may amount to forgery.

Example: A draws a bill of exchange upon a fictitious

person, and fraudulently accepts the bill in the name
of such fictitious person with intent to negotiate it. A
commits forgery.

Section 465: Punishment for forgery

Whoever commits forgery shall be punished with

imprisonment of either description for a term
which may extend to two years, or with fine, or
with both.

Section 466: Whoever forges a document or an electronic record],

purporting to be a record or proceeding of or in a Court of Justice, or
a register of birth, baptism, marriage or burial, or a register kept by a
public servant as such, or a certificate or document purporting to be
made by a public servant in his official capacity, or an authority to
institute or defend a suit, or to take any proceedings therein, or to
confess judgment, or a power of attorney, 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 467: Whoever forges a document which purports to be a

valuable security or a will, or an authority to adopt a son, or which
purports to give authority to any person to make or transfer any
valuable security, or to receive the principal, interest or dividends
thereon, or to receive or deliver any money, movable property, orvaluable
security, or any document purporting to be an acquaintance
or receipt acknowledging the payment of money, or an acquaintance
or receipt for the delivery of any movable property or valuable
security, shall be punished with [imprisonment for life], or with
imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to
ten years, and shall also be liable to fine.

Section 468: Whoever commits forgery, intending

that the [document or electronic record forged] shall
be used for the purpose of cheating, 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 469: Whoever commits forgery, [intending

that the document or electronic record forged] shall
harm the reputation of any party, or knowing that it
is likely to be used for that purpose, shall be
punished with imprisonment of either description
for a term which may extend to three years, and shall
also be liable to fine.

Section 470: A false [document or electronic

record] made wholly or in part by forgery is
designated “a forged [document or electronic
record]

Section 471: Whoever fraudulently or

dishonestly uses as genuine any [document or
electronic record] which he knows or has reason
to believe to be a forged [document or electronic
record], shall be punished in the same manner
as if he had forged such 1[document or electronic
record].
valuable security, or any document purporting to be an acquaintance
or receipt acknowledging the payment of money, or an acquaintance
or receipt for the delivery of any movable property or valuable
security, shall be punished with [imprisonment for life], or with
imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to
ten years, and shall also be liable to fine.
Section 477: Whoever fraudulently or dishonestly, or with intent to
cause damage or injury to the public or to any person, cancels,
destroys or defaces, or attempts to cancel, destroy or deface, or
secretes or attempts to secrete any document which is or purports to
be a will, or an authority to adopt a son, or any valuable security, or
commits mischief in respect of such documents, shall be punished
with [imprisonment for life], or with imprisonment of either descrip
tion for a term which may extend to seven years, and shall also be
liable to fine.
6A) 1) Section 3. Punishment of offences
committed beyond, but which by law may
be tried within, India

Any person liable, by any (Indian law) to be tried for an

offence committed beyond (India) shall be dealt with
according to the provisions of this Code for any act
committed beyond (India) in the same manner as if such
act had been committed within [India].

Extra Territorial Jurisdiction of IPC

By any Indian Law – the expression restricts the

operation of the section to the cases specified in the
Extradition Act, 1962 & sec 179, 188 & 189 of Criminal
Procedure code, 1973

Beyond India – territories covered by another sovereign

state

Extra Territorial Jurisdiction Sec -3

Sec 34 – Extradition Act, 1962- states that “Extradition Offence”

committed by any person in foreign state shall be deemed to have
been committed in India and such person shall be liable to be
prosecuted in India for such offence

(i) In relation to foreign state, being a treaty state, an offence

provided for in the extradition treaty (ii) in relation to a foreign state
other than treaty state an offence punishable with imprisonment for a
term which shall not be less than 1 year under the laws of India or of
foreign state and includes a “composite offence”

“composite offence”- an act or conduct of a person occurred wholly

or in part in a foreign state or in India –but its effect or intended
effects taken as a whole would constitute an extradition offence in
India or foreign state

‘Fugitive criminal’ a person who is accused or convicted of an

extradition offence within the jurisdiction of a foreign state and
includes a person who while in India conspires, attempts to commit or
incite or participate as an accomplice in the commission of the
extradition offence of a foreign state

Extra Territorial Jurisdiction Sec -3

Section 179: Offence triable where act is done or consequence ensues:

When an act is an offence by reason of anything which has been done and
of a consequence which has ensued, the offence may be inquired into or
tried by a Court within whose local jurisdiction such thing has been done or
such consequence has ensued

Sec 188- Cr PC- when an offence is committed outside India (a) by a citizen
of India whether on high sea or elsewhere or (b) a person not being India
Citizen, on any ship ore aircraft registered in India ---- may be dealt –with
in respect of such offences as if it had been committed at any place within
India at which he may be found—previous sanction of the central
Government

Sec 189- when any offence alleged to have been committed in a territory
outside India is being inquired into or tried under the provisions of sec 188 –
Central Govt- if thinks fit- direct the copy of the depositions made or
exhibits produced before judicial officers in or for that territory or before
diplomatic or consular representative of India in or for that territory shall
be received as evidence by the court holding such enquiry or trial in any
case in which such court might issue a commission for taking evidence as
to the matters to which such depositions or exhibits relate

Extra Territorial Jurisdiction Sec -3

If any person commits any offence beyond India for

which he is liable by any Indian Law, the matter will
be taken care of according to the provisions of this
code ---- on the same lines as if the offence would
have been committed within India

Sec 3 deals with any citizen of India and foreigner as

well

It is specifically regarding to territory outside India

(a) any citizen of India in any place beyond India

 (b) any person on any ship, Aircraft registered in India
wherever it may be

Offence – includes every act committed outside India

would be punishable under IPC

Extra Territorial Jurisdiction Sec -3

If alleged offence was committed outside India and the accused is not a
Indian citizen – IPC has no application

If the victim is Indian citizen and the offence was committed in a

foreign country by a foreigner - IPC has no application

If the act committed by an Indian citizen in a foreign country

constitutes an offence under IPC as well as foreign law and he is tried
and convicted under foreign law – he may not be tried under IPC –
doctrine of Double Jeopardy

If offences are different he may be tried under both laws

Eg: A who is a citizen of India commits a murder in Turkey. He can be

tried and convicted of murder in any place in India in which he may be
found

If offence is committed outside India and offender is found within India

(i) He may be given up for trial in the country where the offence was
committed (extradition)

He may be tried in India (extra-territorial Jurisdiction).

6A2) COMMON OBJECT

SECTION 149

Elements Of Section 149:- The essence of offence under

Section 149 is assembly of several (five or more) persons

having one or more of the common objects mentioned in
Section 141 and it could be gathered from the nature of the
assembly, arms used by them and the behaviour of the assembly
 at or before scene of occurrence. Section 149 creates joint
liability of all members of an unlawful assembly for
criminal act done by any member in prosecution of the
common object of the said assembly. So the essential
ingredients of Section 149 are:
1. There must be an unlawful assembly, as defined in Sec 141;
2. Criminal act must be done by any member of such
assembly;
3. Act done is for prosecution of the common object of the
assembly or such which was likely to be committed in
prosecution of the common object;
4. Members have voluntarily joined the unlawful assembly like Section 34, is the
other instance of
constructive joint liability.

Section 149 creates a specific

offence. It runs as under:
“If an offence is committed by any
member of an unlawful assembly in
prosecution of the common
object of that assembly, or such
as the members of that assembly
knew to be likely to be committed
in prosecution of that object,
every person who, at the time of
the committing of that offence, is a
member of the assembly, is guilty
of that offence.”

6B) 1) Absence of Criminal Intention or Knowledge

The two essential elements for committing an offence is mens rea and actus reus. Mens rea being
one of the most important elements, if any act was done with the very purpose of committing that
act intentionally, then he is said to be liable or punishable under IPC. However, in cases of
accident and misfortune, there is something that happens out of the ordinary course of things
which was not prudent and no reasonable precautions can be taken against it.
However, in case of Sukhdev Singh v. State of Delhi, the accused pleaded that while doing a

lawful act, he accidentally committed murder of deceased. But the evidence showed that accused

during the course of scuffle deliberately used gun and fired shots at deceased.

2) Difference between Wrongful Restraint and Confinement

Wrongful Restraint Wrongful Confinement

It is the genus, i.e. it is a wider term and includes It is a species of wrongful restraint i.e. a type of
several types of restraints under it. wrongful restraint.

It prevents a person from proceeding in a

It keeps a person within certain circumscribing
direction in which that person has a right to
limits.
proceed.

It is not a very serious offence and is punishable It is a more serious offence and is punishable with a
with lesser punishment. more severe punishment than wrongful restraint.

There is total suspension of liberty beyond certain

There is only a partial suspension of one’s liberty.
circumscribing limits.

Punishment: Sec. 341. Imprisonment to one Punishment: Sec. 342. Imprisonment to one year, or
month, or fine Rs. 500/-, or with both. fine Rs. 1000/-, or with both.

Accident covered under Section 80.

A5B) Criminal Force

When a person intentionally uses force on another person without that person’s consent, in order to
commit an offence and with the prior intention of causing harm to that person in the form of injury,
fear or annoyance to whom the force is used, is said to use criminal force on the other person. It
comes under Section 350 of the Indian Penal Code.

Force
A person is said to be using “force” on another person when he causes a change in motion, cessation
of motion or a substantial change in motion of another person, or brings a substance in contact with
another person’s body or it affects another person’s sense of feeling. The term force in Section 349 is
force used in connection with the human body.

Consent
In criminal force, a person may use undue force on another person without the consent of that person
so as to cause harm to him. If there is consent, it won’t be counted as criminal force.

Assault
When a gesture is made to any person, knowing that the person is going to apprehend it as the person
is going to use criminal force on that person is known as assault. Mere words do not consist of an
assault. But a person may use certain gestures and expressions or preparation, such gestures,
expressions and preparations may amount to assault. For example:

 X shakes his fist at Y, intending or knowing that may cause to believe Y that X is about to
strike Y. X has committed assault.
 X loosens the muzzle of a ferocious dog knowing that the dog will cause harm to Y. So, X
has committed an assault upon Y.
 A takes up a stick, says to Z, “I am going to beat you up”. Here, although the words
employed by A may in no case amount to a direct assault, and although the mere gesture,
unaccompanied by the other circumstances, may not amount to an assault, the gesture
explained by the words might amount to an assault.

Ingredients

Gesture or Preparation
When a gesture or preparation is made from one person to another person with the intention to use
criminal force, it is said to commit assault.
Cause Apprehension of Assault
Generally speaking, assault happens when someone causes harm to other person’s body which may
be usually followed by battery, as this may include things like unlawful physical conduct, violence or
unlawful sexual contact. Though, all threats are not considered assault. Also, to rise to the level of
actionable offence, the plaintiff may file the suit:

 The act was intended to cause apprehension of harm or offensive contact;

 The act caused apprehension in the eyes of the victim that he would be harmed by the
other person’s actions.

Difference between Assault, Criminal Force and Hurt

When a person intentionally uses force on another person without that person’s consent, in order to
commit an offence and with the prior intention of causing harm to that person in the form of injury,
fear or annoyance to whom the force is used, is said to use criminal force on the other person. It
comes under Section 350 of the Indian Penal Code whereas assault is when a gesture is made to any
person, knowing that the person is going to apprehend it as the person is going to use criminal force
on that person is known as assault and whoever causes bodily pain, disease or infirmity to another
person is known as hurt. It is defined in Section 319 of the Indian Penal Code.