This article is written by Kaustubh Phalke. The article exhaustively explores the punishment for grievous hurt under IPC. The article starts with a brief introduction of the topic and then the meaning of grievous hurt, simple hurt and the types of injuries that constitute an offence of grievous hurt, followed by their respective punishments.
Table of Contents
Introduction
It is noticeable that people engaging in quarrels turn into serious brawls and eventually end up inflicting serious injuries to one another which are considered as grievous hurt in law. The idea of grievous hurt has been derived from the French Penal Code.
The infliction of injury to someone’s body is known as battery in English law. As per the dictionary, “hurt” refers to causing bodily or mental injuries to someone. Hurt as per the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (hereinafter referred to as IPC) is very similar to battery in English law.
In the recent case of Durga Prasad vs State of Uttar Pradesh, (2024), the Allahabad High Court stated that the most fundamental formula to ascertain the malicious intention or knowledge of the accused is to check whether he was aware of the consequences of his act or not. Where the accused lacks such awareness then the offence may not fall under Section 302 (punishment for murder)or Section 304(punishment for culpable homicide not amounting to murder) of IPC. Such cases shall rather be covered under Sections 323(punishment for voluntarily causing hurt), 324(voluntarily causing hurt by dangerous weapons or means), and 325 (punishment for voluntarily causing grievous hurt) of IPC as per the facts of the case.
Chapter XVI of IPC Section 319-338 covers offences related to hurt and grievous hurt, which is the aggravated form of hurt.
According to IPC, the offence of grievous hurt as mentioned under Section 320 IPC, provides a list of eight different actus reus which shall fall under the category of grievous hurt. In India acts that fall under this list only will be considered grievous hurt, i.e., the list is considered to be exhaustive. However, the act may ensue more than one of the consequences given in Section 320.
Furthermore, it is pertinent to note that the pigeonhole theory states that if the act falls under one of the several pigeon holes it will be considered a tort, similarly if an act falls under one of the eight well-defined hurts then it will be considered grievous hurt. The concerned provision is strictly interpreted to prevent other injuries from falling under this provision.
Meaning of hurt : Section 319 IPC
Hurt as per the IPC is an act of a person that inflicts injury, anguish, or discomfort to someone this may include pain, disarray or even a temporary health issue. Section 319 IPC, defines hurt. Intention and knowledge of the person inflicting injury play a big role in deciding the offence of hurt. It is pertinent to note that Section 321 IPC talks about voluntarily causing hurt to someone in which the person has knowledge and intention to cause hurt to someone, similarly Section 322 IPC talks about voluntarily causing grievous hurt to someone in which the person committing the offence has knowledge and intention to cause grievous hurt to someone.
For example, A hits B on his stomach knowing that hitting him on his stomach will cause him bodily pain. A will be accused of voluntarily causing hurt.
The Section does not cover emotional or mental hurt.
Hurt can be divided into two categories, simple hurt under Section 319 and grievous hurt under Section 320.
Direct physical contact of the person inflicting injury is not necessary to cause hurt, it can be caused without any direct physical contact as well by some method.
Essentials to constitute an offence of hurt
Bodily pain
For the purpose of this section, any injury that causes external pain to someone is not emotional or mental.
Disease
For the purpose of this section, it means losing health or soundness. Any disease that weakens the person or which turns out to spread from one another would constitute simple hurt.
Infirmity
It refers to physical or mental weakness.
Hurting someone else
Hurting one’s own is not covered under the ambit of this section.
Actus reus
It refers to the guilty act.
Mens rea
It refers to the guilty mind to commit any offence.
Mens rea and Actus reus
The actus reus is a consequence of an act, thus in this case the consequence will be one or more than one of the 8 consequences given in Section 320.
Mens Rea is the mental element of a crime which, in this case, the hurt when caused as per Section 322 voluntarily is the mens rea required, voluntarily has been explained in Section 39 of IPC and also under Section 322. It refers to an act done with the intention to cause a specific consequence and knowledge or reason to believe that a specific consequence will occur.
Both mens rea and actus reus together ensure a crime of voluntarily causing grievous hurt punishable under Section 325.
Meaning of grievous hurt : Section 320 IPC
Grievous hurt refers to inflicting serious injury to someone which leads to pain and suffering. Grievous hurt may be life-threatening or may not be life-threatening. Grievous hurt are injuries that may cause a threat to the life of someone but not death, neither is the intention of the person inflicting such injuries of causing death. The exact meaning of grievous hurt under the law can be understood as injuries such as breaking of bones, severe burns, disfigurement, loss of an organ, or injury leading to non-function of the organ.
Grievous hurt can also be considered in terms of the impact it has made on the person to carry out his or her daily chore activities and the time period the victim took to recover from the injury. Such injuries are more severe than minor injuries and less severe than major injuries. Grievous hurt under IPC is covered under Section 320 IPC. This provision can be considered as an aggravated form of the injuries covered under Section 319, i.e., the injuries covered under grievous hurt are of a more severe nature than the injuries covered under simple hurt.
The following injuries can be covered under the category of grievous hurt under this provision:
- Emasculation refers to the removal or damage of testicles.
- Permanent damage to one of the eyes and loss of sight.
- Permanent damage to one of the ears and loss of hearing.
- Damage to any joint or member. Member means a muscle/limb for the purpose of this provision.
- Damage or impairing of the power of any member or joint.
- Permanent disfigurement to the head or face.
- Breaking of bone or dislocation.
- Breaking of the teeth.
- When a person is unable to follow his daily chores for more than twenty days due to injury then the injury is considered as grievous hurt.
Categories of injury to constitute grievous hurt
The categories of injury to constitute grievous hurt as per Section 320 can be divided into 8 categories, following are the categories of injury:
Emasculation
The dictionary meaning of this word is removing the male organ. In common parlance, it can be understood as depriving a male of his male role or identity. This clause is only applicable to males and not females. Emasculation can be done by castration which means cutting the male sexual organ or damaging the testis or damaging spinal cord to level 2nd to 4th lumbar vertebrae. This is responsible for erection and damaging the spinal cord may cause impotence, taking away penetrating power during intercourse. If the male retains the penetrating power then the accused will not be held liable for causing emasculation. Similarly, cutting off a permanently flaccid penis as in the case of lumbosacral injury is not emasculation. Permanent does not mean incurable.
As per the clause first, the injury must have resulted in the loss of masculine power which may or may not have been caused due to the impact on the aforementioned segments. Before holding the accused guilty of grievous hurt, if the victim is already impotent before sustaining such injuries then this fact should be ruled out except in the cases where such injuries are subject to physical verification. The word emasculation makes it difficult to determine the nature of injury. Many times injuries constituting simple hurt are determined as grievous hurt as per the injury report and vice versa.
In the case of Madho Singh(1878), it was held that who has emasculated himself has committed no offence under Section 309 IPC, since the act is not likely to cause death.
Permanent privation of the either eye or ear
The dictionary meaning of “privation” is a permanent or temporary loss of basic things that a person needs for living. This can be done through poking eyes, gouging out eyes or pouring chemicals into it, etc. Usually in medico-legal cases, the injury in the eyes is inflicted through hands or fists. In grievous hurt, only permanent privation of the eye or ear is labelled as grievous injury, temporary privation of the eye or ear will not be considered as grievous hurt. At least one of the eyes or one of the ears must be permanently damaged due to the infliction of injury to make the offender fall within the ambit of Section 320 IPC. For the purpose of this provision, permanent damage does not mean incurable privation. It is sufficient if the quality or attribute of the eye decreases. However, nothing has been mentioned in the provision regarding the extent to which quality or attribute has been decreased. For example, if the vision of the eye was 6/6 and due to infliction of injury the vision goes down till 6/12 then the injury would be considered grievous hurt under this provision. Determining the extent of damage that occurred to the eye is a difficult task for a medical expert since the quality reports of the eyes before the infliction of injury are not available in most cases.
The injury to the eye can be caused in three groups namely:
- Simple injury
- Grievous injury
- Injuries to the eye are dangerous to life for all medico-legal purposes.
The element of permanence is the most important factor to be considered in cases of grievous hurt. For example, dislocation of the lens, breaking of zonules, stripping away of the lid or any small part of it are considered to be the elements of permanence. Injuries that leave residual effects after healing are also considered grievous hurt, such as ptosis, entropion, squint, etc. The medical examiner should have sufficient history and must thoroughly examine the victim in order to ascertain an accurate estimation of injuries and prevent any erroneous report. The medical examiner must clearly state in the report if the victim has suffered permanent damage to the eye and must include the intraocular pressure and drawings of the wounds.
Permanent privation of ears
Permanent damage to ears is considered grievous hurt under this provision. Permanent injuries to the ears are caused by a blow on the head or ear or by blows that injure the tympanum or auditory nerves, by pouring any liquid in the ears or by blasts that lead to deafness. As per clause 3 of Section 320 IPC, the extent of loss of ears is necessary to determine the gravity of injury to be considered under grievous hurt or simple hurt. The report is based on the status of the hearing capacity of the victim before the injury.
Privation of any member or joint
For the purpose of this provision, “member” or “joint” refers to an organ, a limb or part of a man capable of performing a distinct function or any part of the body that has a separate morphological and functional identity. A Joint is an articulation where two adjacent bones form a connection. If a joint becomes stiff due to the injury caused it is considered as grievous hurt. As per clause 4 unlike the privation of an eye or ear, permanent privation of any member or join is not necessary to be considered as grievous hurt, temporary privation shall also be considered as grievous hurt.
It is worth noting that eyes and ears are also considered members under section 320 IPC to be construed as members under this provision. Therefore, temporary privation can also be considered grievous hurt. This might seem to be a contradiction, but this temporary privation is considered grievous hurt because of the intense pain caused to the victim due to injury. Clause 5 also includes destruction/ permanent impairment of the power of member/joint.
Permanent disfiguration of the head or face
Under this, only permanent disfiguration of the head or face is considered to be grievous hurt. As per the black’s Law Dictionary, permanent disfiguration refers to the result of injury or accident that impairs beauty, symmetry and appearance. Even if the normal functioning of the organ is not affected but the victim has suffered through deformation then it will be considered grievous hurt under Section 320 IPC. The disfigurement caused must be permanent in nature. Examples of disfiguration, are cutting off any organ on the face, and incision wounds on the face are considered as grievous hurt.
In the case of Ganga Ram vs State of Rajasthan(1983), the High Court of Rajasthan held that when a person causes a cut on the bridge of the nose by some sharp object like a razor will be considered a permanent disfiguration of the face under this clause.
Fracture or dislocation of a bone or teeth
Fracture has not been defined in the IPC. As per the Black’s Law Dictionary, a fracture refers to the complete or incomplete breaking of a bone. Incomplete breaking of bone i.e., a mere crack caused due to the injury is also considered a fracture for the purpose of this provision.
A crack on the skull bone is also considered to be a grievous hurt under Section 320.
In the case of Po Yi Maung v Ma E Tin(1973), the High Court of Rangoon stated that the word ‘fracture’ means “breaking’ though it is not necessary in case of fracture of the skull bone that it be divided into two separate parts because it may consist merely of a crack but if it is a crack it must be a crack which extends from the outer surface of the skull to the inner surface.
Injury which endangers human life, severe bodily pain, and inability to follow normal pursuits
Clause 8 covers three different kinds of hurt:
- Any hurt that endangers human life
Where the hurt is such that it only endangers human life, it shall be considered grievous hurt whereas if the hurt is such that it would like to cause death it would amount to culpable homicide not amounting to murder.
For example – a wound on the neck with a sharp-edged weapon is considered ‘dangerous to life’.
- Hurt which causes the sufferer severe bodily pain:
It also includes bodily pain for 20 days and prevention of performance of daily chores for 20 days. it is to include those hurts which even though not covered under the preceding 7 clauses are of such a nature that these are to be differentiated from the offence of simple hurt.
For example: if a woman is suffering from grievous injuries, and remains in hospital only for 17 days, out of which she was in danger for just three days, it will be considered as grievous hurt.
- Any injury that prevents the victim from following his ordinary pursuits for a period of twenty days
The penal code has taken into account certain acts that are considered grievous injuries even if they do not pose a threat to the life of humans, but would result in a person’s incapacitation for at least 20 days. The phrase “ordinary pursuits” is very vague and includes daily chore activities such as eating, bathing, incapacity to work, etc.
For example, A inflicts blows to B with a sharp-edged object and B for his defence uses his hands which results in fractures and cuts. B was unable to eat on his own for 25 days and was admitted to the hospital. In this case, A has caused grievous injuries to B.
As in the case of Mithu Singh vs State of Punjab(1980), it was held that it must be proved within that period that the victim was unable to follow his ordinary pursuits. However, the hurt cannot be termed as grievous hurt if the injury does not last for 20 days. It is the nature of the injury and the chances of disability that are to be considered to label any hurt as grievous hurt.
All three clauses are independent of each other.
The injury cannot be labelled as grievous hurt unless the medical examiner is of the opinion that the injuries caused were such that they endangered human life. The injuries that are considered to endanger human life have not been defined in IPC. Any injury can be said to endanger life if the injury is sufficient in itself to endanger life. Any injury in order to endanger life should be imminent. If the injury is on some vital part of the body but no vital part has been damaged then it will not be considered grievous hurt under this clause. The weapon of injury, the part of the body where injury has been caused and the manner of causing injuries play a great role in identifying the nature of the injury. The medical examiner clearly states the nature of the injury in the medical certificate.
In the case of Government of Bombay vs Abdul Wahab(1946), the High Court of Bombay stated that there is a very thin line between culpable homicide not amounting to murder and grievous which endangers human life. In culpable homicide not amounting to murder, the injuries are such that they are likely to cause death whereas in the latter one, the injuries must be such that endanger human life.
Mens rea for causing grievous hurt
Mens rea refers to the guilty state of mind of the offender. Voluntarily causing grievous hurt is defined under Section 322 IPC, as an offence wherein a person voluntarily causes hurt to someone, having sufficient knowledge that the injury caused by him will amount to grievous hurt is known as voluntarily causing grievous hurt.
Punishment for grievous hurt : Section 325 IPC
Grievous hurt is considered a serious crime in India due to the bodily pain which is suffered by the victim of the offence. The definition of the offence of grievous hurt is given under Section 320 IPC and the punishment is defined under Section 325 IPC.
It prescribes a punishment of imprisonment which may extend to seven years and the offender shall also be liable for a fine.
The exception to the provision is Section 335 which talks about voluntarily causing grievous hurt on provocation.
Nature of offence under Section 325 IPC
The offence under this provision is a cognisable offence. As per Section 2(c) of the Criminal Procedure Code,1973 cognisable offence refers to the offence under which the police can directly arrest the accused without any warrant by the Magistrate.
As per Section 320(2) of CrPC, the offence is compoundable on the part of the person to whom the hurt is caused by the permission of the court. Compoundable offences are those offences under which the victim party and the accused party can compromise while the case is under trial in court. The trial comes to an end as the accused gets acquitted as per section 320.
The offence is bailable i.e. as per Section 2(a) of CrPC. The offences in which the bail is granted as a matter of right are known as bailable offences.
Punishment for different types of grievous hurt under IPC
Voluntarily causing grievous hurt:
Voluntarily causing grievous hurt is defined under Section 322 IPC, as an offence wherein a person voluntarily causes hurt to someone, knowing that the injury is caused by him will amount to grievous hurt is known as Voluntarily causing grievous hurt.
Essentials
- The person causing the hurt must have the intention and knowledge to grievously hurt another person.
- The injuries caused by him must be of grievous nature.
For example, A, intending or knowing himself to be likely permanently to disfigure Z’s face, gives a blow that does not permanently disfigure Z’s face, but causes Z to suffer severe bodily pain for the space of twenty days. A has voluntarily caused grievous hurt.
Punishment
The punishment for voluntarily causing grievous hurt is given under Section 325 IPC, a person voluntarily causing grievous hurt is punished with imprisonment of a maximum of seven years and shall also be liable for a fine. It is triable by any magistrate.
Causing Grievous hurt with dangerous weapons
This is defined under Section 326 IPC which states that whoever causes injury to someone through the following means is considered to be grievous hurt. For the purpose of this provision, the following instruments are means which are categorised as “dangerous weapons”:
- Any instrument for shooting, stabbing or cutting.
- Any instrument that is used as a weapon of offence.
- Any element which is explosive in nature, poisonous or corrosive substance.
- Fires resulting in grievous hurt.
- Any substance that is deleterious for the human body to inhale, to swallow or to receive into the blood.
- Grievous hurt caused by means of any animal.
The offence under this provision is of a severe nature hence the punishment is more severe.
Essentials
- The hurt caused must be grievous hurt.
- The hurt caused must be caused by some dangerous weapon and shall fall under the categories mentioned in the provision.
- The offender shall not fall under the ambit of Section 335 IPC.
For example, A caused eight injuries to B with a sharp-edged knife. There was an incised wound cutting the trachea in the middle with air coming out. As per medical experts, a victim ordinarily dies in such a situation but B survived. Hence, A is guilty of causing offence under this section with a sharp cutting instrument.
Punishment
An offence under this provision is punishable by life imprisonment or imprisonment up to 10 years and shall also be liable to a fine.
Voluntarily causing grievous hurt by use of acid
Section 326A was inserted by Section 5 of the Criminal Law (Amendment) Act, 2013. According to this provision whoever causes damage, deformity, burns, maims, disfigures, or disables any part of the body or administers acid to that person with due intention and knowledge commits the offence under this provision.
The offence of acid attack was made a distinct offence in IPC because of a huge rise in the number of attacks in India. It was a heinous offence that left a deep impact on the victims leaving them to survive with deep misery.
The offence is cognisable in nature, non-bailable and triable by the Court of Session.
As per the author’s own opinion, the punishment should be increased for such crimes and there should be specific arrangements for victim compensation as well.
Essentials
- The offender must have caused damage, deformity, burns, maims, disfigures, or disabled any part of the body or administered acid to the victim.
- He must had the guilty intention and knowledge to commit the crime.
- The fine must be enough to meet the medical expenses for the treatment of the victim and shall be paid to the victim himself.
For example, Arman was a lab technician who proposed to Beena for marriage. She rejected his proposal. Arman in order to take revenge on Beena, attacked her with acid which caused severe burns to Beena. Arman is guilty of the offence under this provision.
Punishment
The punishment under this provision is imprisonment which shall not be less than 10 years and may extend up to life imprisonment and with fine.
Such a fine must be enough to meet the medical expenses for the treatment of the victim and shall be paid to the victim himself.
Voluntarily throwing or attempting to throw acid
It deals with the offences of voluntarily throwing or attempting to throw acid.
In the recent case of Suresh Chandra Jana vs the State of West Bengal and Ors (2017), the Supreme Court observed that acid attacks have transformed into gender-based violence. Such offences not only cause immense psychological trauma but also become a hurdle in the victim’s overall development. Although the seriousness of such offences was acknowledged when laws were amended in 2013, yet number of acid-attack cases is on the rise. It must be recognised that merely having stringent laws and enforcement agencies to administer them, may not be sufficient unless deep-rooted gender bias is removed from society. In the instant case, the appellant caused the death of the victim deceased by acid attack due to the burn injuries caused by acid, the motive behind the murder was that she filed an alleging commission of rape on her. The trial court had found the appellant guilty of the offence under Section 302/306 and sentenced him to death. On appeal, the High Court allowed itself to be swayed by the fact that there was 23 days delay in filing FIR but had failed to have taken note of the fact that the helpless woman who was admitted by neighbours in the hospital had moron husband and two little kids at home and none of them were able to go to the police station to lodge an FIR. The Supreme Court held that the death due to an acid attack was corroborated by medical evidence and the motive for the acid attack was to teach a lesson to the deceased victim for lodging FIR against him for committing rape upon her, a few months back, which led to his prosecution under Section 376 IPC. Hence conviction under Section 302 was restored and the accused was sentenced to life imprisonment with a fine of Rs 10000/-.
Essentials
- Throwing or attempting to throw acid on any person.
- Attempting to administer acid to any person.
- The person throwing acid should have knowledge and intention of throwing or attempting to throw acid.
- Attempting to use any other means with the intention of.
- Causing permanent damage.
- Causing partial damage.
- Causing deformity.
- Causing burns.
- Maiming.
- Causing disfigurement or disability or grievous hurt.
For example, A intentionally throws acid on the face of B to permanently damage her face. A will be accused of the offence under this provision.
Punishment
Any person causing any of the above injuries shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which shall not be less than five years but which may extend to seven years.
Voluntarily causing grievous hurt to extort property or to constrain an illegal act
Section 329 IPC covers the aforesaid offence. As per the provision, any person voluntarily causing grievous injuries to someone with the purpose of extortion of property, or valuables or compels them to commit an illegal act.
Essentials
- The offence must be caused voluntarily i.e. the offender must have the intention and knowledge to commit the offence.
- The purpose of the offence must be fulfilled as per the provision.
- To constrain the sufferer or any such person interested in the sufferer to do anything that is illegal or which may facilitate the commission of an offence.
For example, A inflicts blows on B with a thick lathi with the purpose of extorting the jewellery possessed by B. B suffers severe injuries on the head and face which were of grievous nature. A is guilty of the offence under this provision.
Punishment
The offence is punishable with imprisonment of 10 years which may extend to life imprisonment and fine.
Voluntarily causing grievous hurt to extort confession or to compel restoration of property
As per Section 331 IPC, whoever causes grievous injuries to someone with the following purposes:
- Extorting confession or information relating to an offence or misconduct.
- Compelling to restore some property or valuable security.
- Satisfy any claim.
- Demand or give information that may lead to restoration of any property or valuable security.
The court in the case of Shri D.K. Basu, Ashok K. Johri vs State Of West Bengal, State Of U.P (1996), reprimanded the use of third-degree torture that is causing physical and mental harm to a person in police custody to fish out confession out of him. Using any form of torture for extracting any kind of information would neither be ‘right nor just nor fair’ and, therefore, would be impermissible, being offensive to Article 21.
Essentials
- The purpose of the offence must be extortion of confession or information from the sufferer that may lead to the detection of an offence or misconduct or to constrain the sufferer or to restore any property or valuable security etc.
- The offence must be done voluntarily i.e., he must have intention and knowledge of the consequences.
For example, A, a police officer, gives third-degree torture to Z in order to induce Z to confess that he committed a crime. The third-degree torture given to Z by A caused him injuries on his face and head. A is guilty of the offence under this section.
Punishment
The offender shall be liable for a punishment of imprisonment which may extend to 10 years and shall also be liable to fine.
Voluntarily causing grievous hurt to deter a public servant from his duty
Section 333 IPC covers the offences against public servants. It prevents the person from grievously hurting the public servant from the lawful discharge of his duties.
Essentials
- The victim shall be a public servant for discharging his duties.
- The offence must be done voluntarily i.e., he must have intention and knowledge of the consequences.
For example, A is a wanted criminal. He went on a pilgrim parikrama when he was arrested, he took out his knife and inflicted a blow on the police constable who arrested him. The accused is guilty of the offence under this provision.
Punishment
The punishment under this provision is imprisonment for a term which may extend to ten years and shall also be liable with a fine.
For example, if A causes severe injuries to B, a public servant for arresting his friend then he will be liable for the punishment under this provision.
Causing grievous hurt by an act endangering the life or personal safety of others
Section 338 IPC, deals with the act of any person who causes grievous injuries to someone by doing any act so rashly or negligently which endangers human life or their personal safety.
The provision is distinctive from Section 304A IPC, since in it the rash and negligent act of the offender results in the death not amounting to culpable homicide. It is worthy to note that in Sections 304A and 338 the rash and negligent acts of a person are being punished. However, the latter provision is invoked where harm other than death is ensued and the former is invoked where death as a consequence is ensued.
Essentials
- The act done must be rash and negligent.
- The act so done must endanger human life or the personal safety of others.
For example, A is a truck driver. While driving on a crowded road, he was driving at a speed of 60 km/hr knowing that the speed limit of the road is 40 km/hr. A rammed the vehicle into B who was standing at the roadside. A is guilty of the offence under this provision.
Punishment
The offence under this provision is punishable by imprisonment which may extend to two years or with a fine which may extend to one thousand rupees or both.
Exception to Section 325 IPC
Voluntarily causing grievous hurt on provocation
This provision serves as an exception to Section 325 IPC, as per Section 335 IPC, If a person causes grievous injuries to someone on the grave and sudden provocation caused by someone else without any intention and knowledge to cause such injuries.
Essentials
- The offender must not have the knowledge and intention to cause such an act.
- The act must be the result of grave and sudden provocation.
Punishment
The offender shall be punished with imprisonment which may extend up to 4 years or with a fine which may extend to two thousand rupees or both. Interestingly, the proviso to exception 1 of section 300 IPC states the same for the offence of murder
Difference between grievous hurt and hurt
It becomes a crucial task when it comes to determining the act committed as grievous hurt or simple hurt hence it becomes important to distinguish between the two.
| Basis | Simple hurt | Grievous hurt |
| Provision in IPC | The provision for simple hurt under IPC is Section 319. | Grievous hurt is defined under Section 320. |
| Punishment | The punishment for simple hurt is defined under Section 323 IPC which states that the offender under this provision shall be punished with imprisonment which may extend to one year or with a fine which may extend to one thousand rupees or both. | The punishment for grievous hurt is given under Section 325 IPC, which states that the offender under this provision is to be punished with imprisonment which may extend to seven years and shall also be liable to a fine. |
| Nature of offence | The offence of hurt is simple in nature and is not a serious offence. | The grievous hurt is an aggravated form of the injuries inflicted in the simple hurt. |
| Impact of Injuries | The victim does not suffer a threat of life in simple hurt. | The injuries inflicted under grievous hurt may result in a threat to the life of the victim. |
| Classification based on cognizance | The offence of simple hurt is non-cognisable in nature. | The offence of grievous hurt is cognisable in nature |
Identification of the injuries is the most difficult task i.e., the injuries which are not grievous hurt as per the medical examiner may fall under the category of grievous hurt as per the IPC, making the report erroneous.
Important case laws
Abdul Ansar vs. State of Kerala (2023)
Facts of the case
In the instant case, appellant 2 was a bus conductor, accused No. 1 was the driver of a stage carriage bus and Accused No. 3 was the cleaner.
The victim and her younger sister were waiting for a bus at the Karithambu bus stop. Younger sister boarded the bus along with two other girls. As per the victim, he tried to board the bus but was pushed by the accused No. 3 who was standing on the footboard of the bus, resulting in the victim coming into the rear wheel of the bus which caused him serious injuries and fracture in his pelvis. The allegation against the appellant was that without waiting for the PW1 to board the bus, he rang the bell as a result of which accused no.1 started the bus.
The driver was acquitted by the Session Court but the appellant was convicted along with accused no. 3 for the offence punishable under Section 308 read with Section 34 of IPC. They were punished with rigorous imprisonment for 4 years with a fine of Rs 5000 each out of which 7500 was to be paid to the victim.
The appellant and accused No. 2 made an appeal before the Kerala High Court. The High Court acquitted accused No. 3. And while confirming the conviction of the appellant under Section 308 of IPC, the sentence was brought down to one year by directing him to pay a fine of Rs.50,000/.
Issues of the case
Whether the accused was rightly convicted under Section 308 IPC?
Judgment
The Supreme Court noted that the appellant didn’t have any intention of causing death or to cause her such grievous injuries. He acted rashly and negligently while performing his duties. At the time of the incident, the bus stop was crowded. A good number of the crowd was waiting for the bus at the bus stop. It was the obligation of the conductor to take care of the passengers. He did not verify whether all the passengers had safely boarded the bus before ringing the bell and hence giving a signal to the driver to start the bus. He could have verified this from the accused number 3 cleaner who was standing near the door of the bus. Hence he acted in a rash and negligent way.
Further, the court was of the opinion that the appellant had knowledge that a large number of students were waiting for the bus at the relevant bus stop. Since he did not verify he is guilty of negligence and recklessness as he failed to perform his duty. It was due to his negligence that human life was endangered. The case falls under section 338 of IPC and not under 308 of IPC as the victim has suffered a fracture of the pelvis which is a grievous hurt by an act endangering the life or personal safety of others.
The appellant was punished with a simple imprisonment for 6 months and a fine of rs. 50000 which was imposed by the High Court. The Court directed the appellant to pay an additional amount of rupees 25000 to the victim.
Laxmi vs. Union of India and Ors. (2015)
Facts of the case
The facts of the case are that Laxmi was working as a salesman in a bookshop. Two acquaintances of Laxmi visited her in the shop and attacked her with acid. Laxmi screamed and the crowd gathered but no one attempted to help her. Later, she was brought to Ram Manohar Lohiya Hospital for treatment. As per the medical experts and reports Laxmi’s 25% face was damaged due to acid blisters. Once she gained consciousness, she identified the accused to be Naeem Khan and Rakhi, her sister-in-law. Naeem Khan was her family friend and he approached Laxmi to marry him which Laxmi rejected.
The session court convicted the accused under Section 307 and 120B IPC.
The victim appealed in the High Court of Delhi which affirmed the charges led by the trial court and additionally ordered the accused to compensate the victim with the amount of 3 Lakh rupees.
Laxmi then filed a public interest litigation to draw the attention of the courts to the miseries faced by the victims of acid attacks. It was observed that majorly the reasons for the acid attacks were rejections for marriages, sexual favours or dowry.
Issues of the case
The Following issues were discussed in the case:
- Amendments must be made to the criminal laws and acid attacks should be recognized as a distinct crime, the punishment should be increased for the same.
- Proper regulation on the sale and purchase of acid-like substances.
- Provisioning of adequate compensation along with rehabilitation for the acid attack victims.
Judgment
The Supreme Court directed the Home Secretary, Ministry of Home Affairs, Government of India to convene a meeting of the Chief Secretaries/ Secretaries of the state governments concerned and the Administrators of the Union Territories to discuss enactment of effective provisions for the proper regulation of the sale of acid in the states/ union territories.
The Supreme Court issued the following guidelines to regulate the sale and use of acid and other corrosive substances:
- A register is to be maintained by the seller regarding the sale of the acid containing the details of the customer i.e., name, address etc. The counter sales would be prohibited without this register.
- The sellers can sell acid only if the person has shown a valid ID card issued by the government of India containing the name and address of the same. The reason is to be specified by the buyer for procuring acid.
- The stock of acid is to be disclosed to the Sub Divisional Magistrate within 15 days.
- If not disclosed, the SDM can confiscate the illegal stock and fine up to Rs 50,000
- No acid is to be sold to a person under 18 years of age.
- The SDM may fine anyone who breaches any of the guidelines above.
Aftermath of the case
Section 326 A and 326 B were added to Section 326 IPC which particularly addressed the offence of acid attack.
Section 357A was introduced in the Criminal Procedure Code,1973 to address the victim compensation programmes. Section 357B CrPC was introduced to address the issue of reimbursement that will be given to the victim along with the penalties faced by the accused for their offences as per the provisions in IPC.
Section 114 of the Indian Evidence Act was added to address the issue of knowledge and purpose that the accused had while committing the crime.
The victims will be entitled to a compensation of at least 3 Lakh rupees which were to be given from the government’s victim compensation scheme.
No hospital could refuse the victim free medical aid, irrespective of the fact that it is a private hospital or a government hospital.
The sale and the purchase of the acid and acid-like substances were restricted. A separate legal service authority was established to help the victims to seek justice.
Ahmed Ali and Ors. vs. State of Tripura (2009)
Facts of the case
The facts of the case are such, that an FIR was lodged under Section 325/326 IPC read with Section 34 IPC against Ahmed Ali, Suraj Ali, Mustafa Miah and Mahmud Ali for committing an offence against Nural Islam. Nural later died and Section 302 IPC was added to the charges.
The trial court convicted Mustafa Miah and Mahmud Ali for committing an offence under Section 304 part ii read with Section 34 IPC and were sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for five years. Ahmed Ali and Suraj Ali were convicted under Section 324 read with Section 34 IPC and were sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for two years. Ahmed Ali, Suraj Ali and Mustafa Miah presented an appeal before the Supreme Court against the order of the High Court of Gauhati.
Issues of the case
The following issues were dealt with in this case:
- The maximum sentence permissible for an offence under Section 334, IPC is one month and, therefore, the High Court could not have imposed a sentence of one year so far as the accused Ahmed Ali and Suraj Ali are concerned.
- Accused Mustafa Miah was of tender age at the time of occurrence and the maximum sentence permissible relatable to Section 335, IPC is four years.
- Whether the accused were adequately sentenced by the High Court?
Judgment
The appeal was allowed by the Supreme Court reducing the sentence of Ahmed Ali and Suraj Ali to one month and The sentence of Mustafa Miah was reduced to three months. The amount of fine with default stipulations was unaltered.
Mathai vs. State of Kerala (2005)
Facts of the case
The facts of the case are that Krishna Kutty was walking on a public road near Pulinchode Cruz Junction. The accused inflicted injuries on his head and face with a stone, he was taken to the hospital. An FIR was lodged against the accused. The investigation was completed and the charges were laid before the court. The trial court convicted the accused under Section 326 IPC and the High Court upheld the same.
Issues of the case
After considering the shape and size of the stone, whether the stone used for inflicting injuries can be considered a dangerous weapon.
Judgment
In the instant case, after considering the size of the stone that was used by the accused to inflict injuries on the victim, it cannot be considered a dangerous weapon. Hence the conviction was altered to Section 325 IPC. No hard and fast rule can be applied for assessing a proper sentence and a long passage of time cannot always be a determinative factor so far as sentence is concerned. It was not in dispute that a major portion of the sentence awarded had been suffered by the appellant. On the peculiar facts of the case, we restrict it to the period already undergone. The appellant was released and the appeal was disposed of.
Grievous hurt under Bhartiya nyay Sanhita, 2023
IPC is the penal law of India which covers offences of different categories covering offences against property, body, public order, etc. The IPC has been amended several times to add new offences, changing the quantum of punishment and amending the existing provisions. Several law commissions have suggested to amend the old IPC on various subjects. The criminal laws were finally changed in 2023 replacing IPC with the Bhartiya Nyay Sanhita 2023, the CrPC of 1973 will be replaced by the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha (Second) Sanhita, 2023 whereas the Indian Evidence Act of 1872 will be replaced by the Bharatiya Sakshya (Second) Bill, 2023.
The provision regarding grievous hurt is made from Section 114-123 under the Bhartiya Nyay Sanhita, 2023. There are no major changes regarding the punishment. Though the offences of hurt and grievous hurt are combined.
Conclusion
Grievous hurt is an aggravated form of the injuries that are covered under the offence of hurt. These injuries are not limited to the skin and bones but extend to the organs of the body such as the brain and nervous system as well. Grievous hurt being an aggravated form of injury requires special treatment in IPC. The provisions of grievous hurt under IPC cover several kinds of injuries that should be treated as of a grievous nature. It causes severe pain to the victim and may also lose his ability to carry on daily chores. The seriousness of the injury depends on its nature and its impact on the victim. The opinions of the medical practitioners are often inconclusive because of the misidentification of the injury as hurt or grievous hurt, this is where courts play a huge role in interpreting and altering the charges. However, the reports prepared by them must be non-erroneous to prevent any miscarriage of justice.
However, the injuries caused to constitute an offence under grievous hurt are life-threatening in nature so the punishment must be harsher to prevent such offences.
Frequently Asked Questions (FAQs)
Is the offence punishable under Section 325 IPC bailable?
Yes, the offence punishable under Section 325 IPC is bailable in nature i.e., the bail is a matter of right for the accused in the cases. It can be compounded by the permission of the court.
The offence under Section 325 is triable by which magistrate?
The offence under this provision is triable by a magistrate of any class.
If a person commits grievous hurt by weapons or dangerous means, is he still punishable under Section 325?
If a person commits grievous hurt by weapons or dangerous means he is punishable under Section 326, not Section 325.
References
- https://ili.ac.in/pdf/pmv.pdf
- https://supremetoday.ai/issue/meaning-of–grievous-hurt
- https://blog.ipleaders.in/hurt-and-grievous-hurt-everything-you-need-to-know-about-it/
- https://www.lawtendo.com/indian-kanoon/ipc/section-326
- https://www.lawtendo.com/indian-kanoon/ipc/section-325
- https://blog.ipleaders.in/section-325-ipc-meaning-punishment-and-exception/
Students of Lawsikho courses regularly produce writing assignments and work on practical exercises as a part of their coursework and develop themselves in real-life practical skills.
LawSikho has created a telegram group for exchanging legal knowledge, referrals, and various opportunities. You can click on this link and join:
Follow us on Instagram and subscribe to our YouTube channel for more amazing legal content.
