Sections 319 to 338 deal with hurt in various forms. Section 319 defines 'simple hurt' as causing bodily pain, disease or infirmity, and section 321 makes voluntary causing of hurt an offence punishable under section 323, I.P.C.
Section 319, I.P.C. reads:
Whoever causes bodily pain, disease or infirmity to any person is said to cause hurt.
To constitute hurt (battery under English Law) it is necessary to cause:
(i) Bodily plain,
(ii) Disease, or
(iii) Infirmity to another.
(i) Bodily pain.--
Bodily pain, except so slight a harm of which, no person of ordinary sense or temper would complain of, is covered by the definition of hurt. To cause hurt there need not be any direct physical contact; Jashanmal Jhamatmal, AIR1944 Sind 19. Where the direct result of an act is the causing of bodily pain it is hurt whatever be the means employed to cause it.
(ii) Disease.--
A person communicating a particular disease to another would be guilty of hurt. However, there appears to be conflicting judicial decisions with respect to cases of communication of sexual diseases by one to another.
In Raka v. Emperor, 1887 ILR11 Bom 59 the Bombay High Court held a prostitute who had sexual connection with the complainant and thereby communicated syphilis, liable under section 269, I.P.C., for spreading of infection and not of causing hurt, because the interval between the act and disease was too remote to attract sections 319 and 321, I.P.C.
(iii) Infirmity.--
Infirmity means inability of an organ to perform its normal function which may either be temporary or permanent. It denotes an unsound or unhealthy state of the body or mind; such as a state of temporary impairment or hysteria or terror; jashanmal Jhamatmal v. Brahmanand Sarupananda, AIR 1944 Sind 19.
The Code on the basis of the gravity of the physical assault has classified hurt into simple and grievous so that the accused might be awarded punishment commensurate to his guilt. Though it is very difficult and absolutely impossible to draw a thin line of distinction between the two forms of hurts - simple and grievous - with perfect accuracy, the Code has attempted to classify certain kinds of hurt as grievous.
According to section 320, I.P.C., eight kinds of hurts are designated as grievous, and this section reads:
The following kinds of hurt only are designated as "grievous":--
|
Firstly.-- |
Emasculation. |
|
Secondly.-- |
Permanent privation of the sight of either eye. |
|
Thirdly.-- |
Permanent privation of the hearing of either ear, |
|
Fourthly.-- |
Privation of any member or joint. |
|
Fifthly.-- |
Destruction or permanent impairing of the powers of any member or joint. |
|
Sixthly.-- |
Permanent disfiguration of the head or face. |
|
Seventhly.-- |
Fracture or dislocation of a bone or tooth. |
|
Eighthly.-- |
Any hurt which endangers life or which causes the sufferer to be during the space of twenty days in severe bodily pain, or unable to follow his ordinary pursuits. |
Dangerous Hurt:
The provisions contained in clause 8 of section 320, I.P.C., are of a general nature. This clause is borrowed from French Penal Code. It refers to three classes of injuries which are not covered under any one of the above clauses 1 to 7 of the section 320. It labels the following hurts as grievous, viz., those:
(i) which endangers life; or
(ii) which causes the sufferer to be, during the space of 20 days, in severe bodily pain; or
(iii) which causes the sufferer to be, during the space of twenty days, unable to follow his ordinary pursuits; State of Gujarat v. Samaj, MANU/GJ/0064/1969 : AIR 1969 Guj 337.
From the above discussions, it is clear that grievous hurt is more serious kind of hurt. It must be a hurt of any of the kinds stated in section 320, I.P.C. and must be caused voluntarily. Sections 321 and 322, I.P.C. define, what is meant by expression "voluntarily causing hurt" and "voluntarily causing grievous hurt" respectively.
Whoever does any act with the intention of thereby causing hurt to any person, or with the knowledge that he is likely thereby to cause hurt to any person, and does thereby cause hurt to any person, is said "voluntarily to cause 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 himself to be likely to cause grievous hurt of one kind, he actually causes grievous hurt of another kind.
Illustration
A, intending or knowing himself to be likely permanently to disfigure Z's face, gives Z a blow which does not permanently disfigure Z's face, but which cause Z to suffer severe bodily pain for the space of twenty days. A has voluntarily caused grievous hurt.
Section 323, I.P.C. is a general section prescribing punishment for voluntarily causing simple hurt1. It reads:
Whoever, 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 year, or with fine which may extend to one thousand rupees, or with both.
In Kailas v. State of Maharashtra, MANU/SC/0011/2011 : AIR 2011 SC 598, in this case where victim belonging to Bhil Community (ST) had illicit relationship with higher caste person. Four accused went to her house, best her with fists and kicks and stripped her naked and then got her paraded in naked condition on road of village. Police seized clothes produced by victim in torn condition. Parade of Tribal woman on village road in broad day light is shameful, shocking outrageous. There is no reason to disbelieve prosecution witness and dishonour of victim. There was proper evidence for harsher punishment. Accused convicted by Trial Court under section 452, 354, 232, 506(2) read with 34. Also sentenced under section 323/34 IPC and further convicted under section 3 of SC/ST Act, 1989. But High Court acquitted appellants of the offence under section 3 of the SC/ST Act. but the provisions of IPC were confirmed. Supreme Court surprised that the Sate Govt. did not file any appeal for enhancement of the punishment awarded by the Trial Court. Supreme Court feel that sentence was too light considering the gravity of offence.
Sections 324 to 338, I.P.C. prescribe severe penalties when hurt or grievous hurt is caused under aggravating circumstance.
Section 324, I.P.C. reads:
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 weapon of offence, is likely to cause death, or by means of fire or any heated
__________________________
1. Ratanlal Dhirajlal Law of Crimes, 24th Edn., Vol. II, (1998), pp. 1593-1599.
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, 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.
This section punishes causing hurt by means of an instrument which, when used as a weapon of offence, may cause death. For instance, a stick becomes a dangerous weapon by reason of an iron knob at its top, and when that part of a stick is used as a weapon of offence it is likely to cause death, and thus the offence committed with such an instrument would fall under section 324, I.P.C.; Koli Gator Sura v. State of Gujarat, MANU/GJ/0054/1966 : AIR 1966 Guj 221.
In Anwarul Haq v. State of Uttar Pradesh, MANU/SC/0332/2005 : AIR 2005 SC 2382 (2383), paras. 13, 14 it was observed by the Supreme Court that, section 324 provides that "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 weapon of offence, is likely to cause death, or by means of fire 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 is deleterious to the human body to inhale, to swallow or to receive into the blood, or by means of any animal" can be convicted in terms of section 324. The expression "an instrument, which used as a weapon of offence, is likely to cause death" should be construed with reference to the nature of the instrument and not the manner of its use. What has to be established by the prosecution is that the accused voluntarily caused hurt and that such hurt was caused by means of an instrument referred to in this section.
The section prescribes a severer punishment where an offender voluntarily causes hurt by a dangerous weapon or other means stated in the section. The expression "any instrument which used as a weapon of offence is likely to cause death" when read in the light of marginal note to section 324 means dangerous weapon which if used by the offender is likely to cause death.
In Gopal v. State of M.P., MANU/SC/0648/2011 : AIR 2011 SC 2325, this case where free fight between accused and complainant. Accused abused and inflicked knife blow on the Chest of complainant, complainant fell on the ground and died instantaneously. Accused was pelting stones on the injured person. Hurt caused by dangerous weapon proved. Post-mortem report showed death of deceased caused due to syncope on account of stock and hemorrhage caused by stab injury. Homicidal death of deceased due to injuries sustained by accused not explained by the complainant party. Reasons regarding commission of offence were cogent and valid. Five accused were charged and prosecuted for commission of offences punishable under sections 147, 148, 302/149, 323/149 IPC by the Trial Court. High Court disposed two criminal appeals by the common impugned judgment. Judgment upheld but reduced sentenced by the Supreme Court.
Section 325, I.P.C. prescribes the punishment for grievous hurt. It reads:
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.
According to section 325, I.P.C., the main ingredient of the offence is that grievous hurt should be intended to be caused or the offender should have knowledge that the hurt caused was likely to be grievous. The offence under this section is intermediate between hurt and homicide.
In Jagga Singh v. State of Punjab, MANU/SC/0097/2011 : AIR 2011 SC 960,the deceased was taken away by accused and after 15-20 minutes gun shots were heard. Post-mortem examination on dead body of deceased found that there were only lacerated wounds. There was no gun wound and accused entitled to get benefit of doubt. It was alleged that accused persons fired at victim and a gun shot fired hit him in leg. Trial court convicted 7 years regorious Imprisonment and fine. The appeals of the accused dismissed by the High Court but appeal of the State regarding acquittal of the accused under section 302 read with section 34 was allowed. Supreme court observed that accused cannot be held guilty under section 302 but under section 325 read with 34 IPC sentenced to period already undergone. Accused acquitted.
Section 326, I.P.C. provides that:
Whoever, except in the case provided for by section 335, voluntarily causes grievous hurt by means of any instrument for shooting, stabbing or cutting, or any instrument which, used as a weapon of offence, is iikely to cause death, or by means of fire 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, or to receive into the blood, or by means of any animal, 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.
This section applies to a person who dues a substantive act causing grievous hurt by use of dangerous weapons and means. The act of the offender must have been done voluntarily. Where the accused in the course of a fight left the place of incident, brought an axe and inflicted a blow on the head of the injured, he was held liable under section 326, I.P.C. since the injury was grievous in nature; State of Punjab v. Surjan Singh, 1976 Cr LJ 845.
Section 327 punishes voluntarily causing hurt to extort property, or to facilitate the commission of an offence, or to constrain another to do an illegal act.
Section 327, I.P.C. reads:
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 328, I.P.C., punishes causing of hurt by means of poison or any stupefying, intoxicating, or unwholesome drug etc. This section is intended to punish persons who rob or ravish people by putting them out of their senses by means of substances mentioned hereinbefore. It reads:
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.
Whoever voluntarily causes grievous 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 that 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.
Section 330, I.P.C. punishes causing of hurt for the purpose of extorting a confession; Pakala Narayan Swami v. Emperor, MANU/PR/0001/1939 : AIR 1939 PC 47. The principal object of this section is to prevent torture by the police. This section reads:
Whoever voluntarily causes hurt for 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 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.
Whoever voluntarily causes grievous hurt for 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 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 ten years, and shall also be liable to fine.
Whoever voluntarily causes hurt 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 or any other public servant from discharging his duty as such public servant, or 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 either description for a term which may extend to three years, or with fine, or with both.
Whoever voluntarily causes grievous hurt 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 or any other public servant from discharging his duty as such public servant, or 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 either description for a term which may extend to ten years, and shall also be liable to fine.
Section 334, I.P.C. punishes voluntarily causing hurt to a person on provocation. This section reads:
Whoever voluntarily causes hurt on grave and sudden provocation, if he neither intends nor knows himself to be likely to cause hurt to any person other than the person who gave the provocation, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to one month, or with fine which may extend to five hundred rupees, or with both.
Whoever voluntarily causes grievous hurt on grave and sudden provocation, if he neither intends norknows himself to be likely to cause grievous hurt to any person other than the person who gave the provocation, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to four years, or with fine which may extend to two thousand rupees, or with both.
Explanation.--
The last two sections are subject to the same provisos as Explanation 1, section 300.
Whoever does 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 three months, or with fine which may extend to two hundred and fifty rupees, or with both.
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.
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 to two years, or with fine which may extend to one thousand rupees, or with both.
In Naib Singh v. State of Punjab, MANU/SC/0192/1986 : (1986) 4 SCC 401 the fact of the case was, Naib Singh, after an altercation and exchange of abuses, struck Darshan Singh with a danda on the middle of his head. Fortunately, Darshan Singh was wearing a turban which cushioned off the force of blow leaving only a bleeding injury. Medical report suggested that, Darshan Singh had an incised wound 4½ cm bone deep on the top of the middle of his head.
Issue:
Whether the offence of the appellant would fall under clause 7 of section 320?
Decision:
The apex Court observed that, 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 cutting or splintering of the bone or there is a rupture or fissure in it, it would amount to a fracture within the meaning of clause 7 of section 320. What required to be seen is whether the cuts in the bones noticed in the injury report are only superficial or do they effect a break in them.
There can be no doubt from the X-ray report of Dr. Goyal, that there was a partial cut of the skull vault. In the report, Dr. Goyal did not mention the depth of the cut but stated in the witness box on the basis of his experience that it was a deep cut involving the whole of the outer table reaching up to the inner table. When Darshan Singh was discharged from Civil Hospital, Mukstar the external head injury must have healed. It appears from the evidence of Dr. Goyal that there was some callus formation at the seat of the injury. The opinion of Dr. Goyal that there was a deep cut involving the whole of the outer table and reaching up to the inner table is borne out by the white line appearing in the X-ray plate. There is no basis for the inference drawn by the learned magistrate that there was the possibility of a mischief being played during the time that elapsed between the discharge of Darshan Singh from Civil Hospital, Muktsar and his X-ray examination by Dr. Goyal at Faridkot, and that in all probability some wise had been placed before exposing the film to the X-ray equipment, nor can we subscribe to the view that a partial cut of the skull vault is seldom so prominent except when excessive force is used in inflicting the injury. It appears from the evidence that Darshan Singh was putting on a turban when assaulted with the gandasa. What saved him was the turban and it took away the force of the impact leaving a head injury. In this circumstances there can be no doubt that there was a fracture within the meaning of clause seventhly of section 320.
© Universal law Publishing Co.