GRIEVOUS HURT ( S 322, S 320, S 325)

2 elements (AR and MR)

AR + MR = GRIEVOUS HURT
AR (1 element)

1) Act of causing grievous hurt

Grievous hurt- S 320:

a) Emasculation
Must be permanently impotent and not merely temporary impotent.

b) Permanent privation of the sight of either eye

Chandrasenan E K
Accused was held guilty under this section for distributing alcoholic drinks that
contained methanol, which caused permanent privation of the sight of 24 people
after consuming the drink.

c) Permanent privation of the hearing of either ear

d) Privation of any member of joint

“member” refers to organ or limb that perform a distinct function. Eyes, ears, nose,
mouth, hands, feet etc.
“joint” is a place where two or more bones or muscles join.

e) Destruction or permanent impairing of the powers of any member or

joint
Destruction or permanent impairment of power will suffice, need not necessarily be
major injury that substantially impair one’s power.
Rangapula Ramasamy
Victim’s injury on body, hand and thigh by parang was held to be a grievous hurt
though the facts were not clear on whether it did cause permanent impairment on
those parts of the body.

f) Permanent disfiguration of the head or face

MD Rashid Harun
Accused was held to cause grievous hurt onto the victim’s face by splashing acid
onto the victim’s face, causing permanent disfiguration of the face.

Lee Hor Sai

Accused’s act of slashing the victim’s face forming permanent scars constituted
permanent disfiguration.

g) Fracture or dislocation of bone

Horilal
“Fracture” can mean partial breaking/ cracking, need not necessary be cut or a
complete crack from the outer to inner surface.

Rambaran Mahton
Accused sat on the victim’s stomach while hitting the victim, causing the victim’s
ribs to fracture. – constitutes fracture of bone.
h) 3 circumstances

i) Any hurt which endangers life

Vasu Dev
The court considered whether it is a vital part of a human body to determine
whether it endangers life. In this case, the court held that it endangered life of the
victim as abdomen is a fragile part of a human body.

Ramla v State of Rajasthan

The court looked at the nature and dimensions of the injury, and its effect to
determine whether it endangers the life of the victim.
In this case, though the injury was at the neck of the victim near to the main blood
vessels, but it did not cut the main blood vessels, so it cannot be considered as
endangering the life of the victim.
OR

ii) Any hurt which causes the sufferer to be, during the space of 20 days, in
severe bodily pain
Not merely pain but in “severe” pain.
OR

iii) Any hurt which causes the sufferer to be, during the space of 20 days,
unable to follow his ordinary pursuits.

Sahat v Hajee Brahim

Hospitalization raises a presumption that the victim is unable to follow the
ordinary pursuits during the period of hospitalization.
However,

Queen- Empress v Vasta Chela

The mere fact of 20 days of hospitalization was insufficient, it must be proven that
the victim was unable to follow his ordinary pursuits. This is because as an injured
man might choose to be hospitalized as the standard of care in the hospital is
higher.

Likewise, in Sachidanand Pathak

Onus is on the prosecution to prove the inability to follow ordinary pursuits, proof
of 20 days of hospitalization is insufficient.
MR (1 element)

1) Intention/ knowledge of causing grievous hurt

Explanation of S 322: Intention or knowledge need not necessary be the same as
the actual grievous hurt caused.

PP v Dulamit (intention)
The fact the the accused used plastic chair to hit the lower part of the deceased and
that he continue to hit the deceased despite the fact the deceased was already
bodily injured showed that he intended to cause grievous bodily hurt to the
deceased.

Rambaran Mahton (knowledge)

Accused’s act of sitting on the victim while hitting him without being hurt by the
victim at all showed that he used an efficient technique in hurting people, which
then proved that he had the knowledge that his act of doing so can cause grievous
Hurt

HURT ( S 321, S 319, S 323)

2 Elements ( AR and MR)
AR + MR = HURT
AR ( 1 element)

1) Act of causing hurt

What is hurt?
S 319- Bodily pain / disease / infirmity (Inability of an organ to perform its normal
function, can be either temporary or permanent- Anis Beg).
Subbia Goundan
Act of beating the wife is an act of causing hurt as it causes bodily pain.

Manzoor Ahmad
Accused added copper sulphate into a glass of milk for the victim. The victim drank,
then collapsed and vomited. It was an act of causing hurt ( bodily pain and
infirmity).

An act of causing hurt does not necessarily need to be an act which has a direct
physical contact with the victim.

Jashanmal v Brahmanand
Accused shouted and pointed a gun at a woman, causing nervous shock. It was held
to be an act of causing hurt.
Nervous shock is a kind of hurt under mental infirmity. Doesn't matter whether it is
permanent or temporal.
MR (1 element)

1) Intention / knowledge of causing hurt

Manzoor Ahmad
Accused was presumed to have the knowledge that copper sulphate is poisonous
and yet he put it into the milk. This showed his intention of causing hurt.

Jashanmal v Brahmanand
Accused came out in the dark out of sudden, shouted and pointed a gun at the
woman showed that he had the intention to frighten the woman to vacate the
building.