DAMODARAM SANJIVAYYA NATIONAL LAW UNIVERSITY

VISAKHAPATNAM

PROJECT ON

GRIEVOUS HURT

SUBJECT

Indian Penal Code- II

SUBMITTED TO

Prof. (Dr.) Bhavani Prasad Panda

Prof. Vijaya Lakshmi

PROJECT SUBMITTED WITH ROLL NO., SEMESTER AND SECTION

G.SAIDEEP

2018077

Fourth semester

Section B

1|Page
 ACKNOWLEDGMENT

I would sincerely like to put forward my heartfelt appreciati0n to 0ur respected Law 0f IPC
professor, Prof. (Dr.) Bhavani Prasad Panda sir & Prof. Vijaya Lakshmi mam for giving me a
golden 0pportunity to take up this pr0ject regarding ― section 4 Grievous hurt‖. I have tried
my best to collect information about the project in vari0us possible ways to depict a clear
picture 0f the given project topic.

2|Page
CERTIFICATE

This is to certify that G.SAIDEEP, a student of Semester 4, Damodaran Sanjaya

National Law University, has successfully completed the research on “GRIEVOUS
HURT” under the guidance of , Prof. (Dr.) Bhavani Prasad Panda sir & Prof. Vijaya
Lakshmi mam during the year 2019-2020.

Signature of the Student. Signature of the

Teacher.

3|Page
 TABLE OF CONTENTS

1) Introduction
2) Grievous Hurt
3) Voluntarily Causing Grievous Hurt
4) Causing Hurt or Grievous Hurt by "Dangerous Weapons"
5) Causing Hurt or Grievous Hurt on Provocation
6) Dangerous Weapons or Dangerous Means
7) Causing Grievous Hurt by use of Acid
8) Causing Hurt or Grievous Hurt to Extort Property
9) Causing Hurt by Means of Poison
10) Causing Hurt or Grievous Hurt to Deter Public Servants
11) Causing Hurt or Grievous Hurt by Endangering Life of Personal Safety c
12) Proposals for Reform
13) Conclusion

4|Page
INTRODUCTION

Presently, a large share of criminal cases, more specifically, in the Courts of Judicial
Magistrate First Class in India, is ‘Hurt’ cases. For example offences culpable under Section
323, 324, and 326 of Indian Penal Code, 1860. There is no criminal Court without these
cases. ‘Hurt’ is known as influence damage to, prompt torment to, harm, debilitate, harm,
wound, cripple, weaken, harm. In different words, it implies ‘be unfavourable to’. In the
event that a delineation utilizes “wounds” as an action word, it doesn’t separate between the
damage of “simple nature” or grievous nature”. The designers thought that it was hard to
draw a line between those substantial damages which are serious in nature and those which
are slight. They say that to draw such a line with great precision was totally impossible.
Therefore, specific sorts of hurt were assigned as grievous.

S. 320 define grievous hurt and lists eight types of hurt as "grievous." These terms are not
mutually exclusive because there may be injuries in more than one provision. However, the
framers of the code use the word "only", but they list the type of suffering that they refer to as
"grievous."

To commit a crime that causes voluntary serious injury, there must be a specific hurt,
voluntary infraction, and any of the eight types specified in this section. Unless the
dimensions or the nature of the injury or its effects are actually life-threatening, general
suffering cannot be termed as being in an important part of the body.

The following kinds of hurt only are designated as “grievous”

First: Emasculation.
Secondly: Permanent privation of the sight of either eye.
Thirdly: Permanent privation of the hearing of either 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

5|Page
 To make out the offence of causing grievous hurt, there must be a specific hurt,
coming within any of the eight kinds enumerated in this section. A simple hurt cannot be
designated as grievous simply because it was on a vital part of the body, unless the
dimensions or the nature of the injury or its effects are such that (in the opinion of the doctor)
it actually endangers life. Where injury was caused on the abdomen with a sharp edged
weapon and the doctor had stated that the injury had penetrated the abdominal cavity but had
not involved any vital organs/ important structures, but had just touched the stomach, it was
held that the accused had caused only simple hurt. Similarly, cutting of a tendon or a muscle
does not make the injury fall under purview of any clauses of S 320 IPC.
For the courts to determine whether the hurt caused is grievous, the extent of the hurt
and the intention of the offender have to be taken in to account. Further, it has to be proved
that the offender intended to cause or had the knowledge that his act was likely to cause
grievous hurt. Intention to cause grievous hurt is inferable from the circumstances of the case
and the nature of the injury caused. The medical person, however, must confine himself to
only opining whether a given hurt is grievous or otherwise, as per the 8 Clauses of S 320 IPC,
and leave the “intention/ knowledge” part to the courts to decide.
“Grievous bodily harm, which is defined in the book, is not necessarily either permanent or
dangerous, but harm that seriously interferes with health or comfort. That is sufficient”.

6|Page
GRIEVOUS HURT 

The draftsman of IPC found it tough to draw a line among those physical hurts, which can be
severe, and people who are moderate. However, they special certain types of hurts as
grievous hurt.

The following kinds of hurt only are termed as “grievous”:

1. Emasculation,
2. Permanent injury to eyesight or either of the eye,
3. Permanent deafness or injury to either of the eye,
4. Privation of any member or joint (loss of limb),
5. Impairing of Limb,
6. Permanent disfiguration of the head or face,
7. Fracture or dislocation of a bone or tooth,
8. Any hurt which risks life or which causes the victim to be during the time of twenty
days in severe bodily pain, or unable to follow his ordinary pursuits.

(a) Emasculation: The first type of grievous hurt is depriving a person of his virility. This
clause is confined to men and was inserted to counteract the practice commonplace in India
for women to squeeze men’s testicles at the slightest provocation. Emasculation can be
resulting from causing such harm to the scrotum of a person as has the effect of rendering
him impotent. The impotency prompted ought to be permanent, and no longer simply
temporary and curable. 

(b) Injuring eyesight: Some other injury of identical gravity is the permanent deprivation of
the sight of either eye or of both the eyesight. Such harm has to have the effect of
permanently depriving the injured of the usage of one or both of his eyes. The test of gravity
is the permanency of the harm because it deprives a person of the usage of his sight and
additionally disfigures him.

(c) Inflicting deafness: The everlasting deprivation of hearing of both ears is less serious
than the above-mentioned harm as it does no longer disfigure a person, however handiest
deprives him of using his ear. But, it’s serious damage depriving someone of his sense of
listening to. The deafness has to be permanent to attract this provision. Such harm may be

7|Page
resulting from blow given on head, ear or the one’s elements of the head which speak with
and injure the auditory nerves or with the aid of thrusting a stick into the ear or placing into
ear a substance which reasons deafness.

(d) Loss of limb: Everlasting deprivation of any member or joint is some other grievous
hurt, whereby a person is rendered much less able to guard himself or to harass his adversary.
‘member’ method not anything extra than an organ or a limb. ‘Joint’ refers to an area
where two or more bones or muscle mass be a part of. Their permanent deprivation needs to
involve such damage to them as makes them permanently stiff, so that they are not able to
perform the everyday function assigned to the human body structure. 

(e) Impairing of a limb: The deprivation of a person to the use of member or joint includes
lifelong crippling and makes a person defenceless and depressing. The provision speaks of
destruction or permanent impairing of their powers, which might encompass no longer only
overall however additionally a particular use of the limb or joint. Any permanent decrease of
their utility would constitute grievous hurt. 

(f) Everlasting disfiguration of the pinnacle or face: ‘Disfigure’ means to do a person a

few outside hurts which detract from his private look, but does not weaken him. Branding a
ladies cheek with red warm iron, it leaves permanent scars, amounts to disfiguration. a cut at
the bridge of the nostrils of a woman due to a sharp weapon has been held to be everlasting
disfigurement despite the fact that the inner wall become intact. 

(g) Fracture or dislocation of a bone or teeth: It’s far every other species of grievous harm,
which may additionally or may not be attended with everlasting disability. A fractured or
dislocated bone may be set or rejoin, but on account of the extreme suffering to which it gives
upward thrust, the harm is named as grievous. The number one means of the word fracture is
‘breaking’, though it isn’t always essential in case of fracture of the cranium bone that it
should be divided into separate parts due to the fact it may consist simply of a crack; but if it
is a crack, it must be a crack which extends from the outer floor of the skull to the inner
surface. If there may be spoil with the aid of cutting or splintering of the bone or there is a
break or gap in it, would add up to a crack inside the importance of clause 7 of Section 320.
What must be seen is whether the cuts during the bones saw in the damage report are just
shallow or do they impact a break in them. ‘Dislocation’ implies dislodging, being applied to

8|Page
a bone expelled from its typical associations with a neighbouring bone. A bone moved out of
its attachment or put out of its joint is a disjoint bone. 

(h) Any hurt which risks life or which causes the victim to be during the time of days in
severe bodily pain, or unable to follow his ordinary pursuits.

 Dangerous hurt: Three distinct classes of hurt are assigned as risky or dangerous
hurt. These classes are autonomous of one another and hurt of any of the three
classes would be grievous hurt. Injury is said to endanger life in the event that it
might put the life of the harmed in danger. Basic injury can’t be called offensive or
grievous since it happens to be caused on an indispensable piece of the body except
if the nature and measurements of the damage, or its belongings, are with the end
goal that in the assessment of the specialist, it really endangers the life of the
victim. There is an exceptionally meagre line of distinction between ‘hurt which
endangers life’ and ‘injury as is probably going to cause death’. In Mohammad
Rafi v. Emperor, the accused caused damage on the neck of the perished from
behind, the Lahore High Court held the accused at risk for under Section 322
(intentionally causing grievous hurt) for causing demise by grievous hurt as against
guilty of culpable homicide not adding up to the murder. The articulation
‘endangers life’ is a lot more grounded than the articulation ‘risky or dangerous to
life’. With a perspective on the reality of the damage bringing about the weakening
of the person in question for a base time of twenty days, the Indian Penal Code has
assigned certain hurts as grievous however they probably won’t be fundamentally
risky or dangerous to life. A hurt may cause extreme substantial and severe bodily
pain, but not be dangerous to life. Such a hurt is grievous hurt. In any case, it must
be indicated that such hurt was adequate to cause serious bodily pain for twenty
days. Else, it might happen that such agony or pain was caused yet there might be
nothing to show that it was caused in outcomes of that damage. In conclusion, the
trial of terribleness is the sufferer’s failure to take care of his standard interests for
a time of twenty days. On the off chance that, where the impact of damage doesn’t
last for twenty days, such a hurt can’t be assigned as grievous.

9|Page
VOLUNTARILY CAUSING GRIEVOUS HURT

Section 322 of the IPC characterizes ‘deliberately causing grievous hurt’ as pursues:
Whoever deliberately causes hurt, if the hurt which he expects to cause or realizes that
himself will generally be prone to cause is grievous hurt, and if the hurt which he causes is
grievous hurt, is said “willfully to cause grievous hurt.” Explanation-An individual isn’t said
willfully to cause grievous hurt with the exception of when he, the two causes grievous hurt
and means or realizes that he generally will probably cause grievous hurt. Be that as it may,
he is said intentionally to cause offensive hurt, if proposing or realizing that himself generally
will probably cause grievous hurt of one kind, he actually causes grievous hurt of another
sort. The clarification is undeniable and self-evident.

In any case, there must be proof that what the accused had planned or known to be likely
wasn’t only hurt, yet grievous hurt. So as to attract this provision, Court needs to see that the
accused expected to cause hurt, or that he realized that grievous hurt is probably going to be
caused and that such grievous hurt is really caused. Regardless of whether the individual
knows himself prone to cause grievous hurt, he is said to be intentionally causing terrible
hurt. All together that an individual might be held liable for an offence of causing grievous
hurt, it must be demonstrated that he either expected to cause or realized that himself will
generally be liable to cause grievous hurt and not otherwise. The prerequisite in the
clarification will be fulfilled if the guilty party had the information that by his demonstration
he was probably going to cause grievous hurt. Clarification clarifies that either the element of
aim or on the other hand that of information must be available so as to establish the offence
of grievous hurt. So as to decide if the hurt is intolerable one, the degree of the hurt and the
expectation of the guilty party must be considered. 

Section 325 of the IPC recommends the discipline for intentionally causing hurt as pursues:
Whoever, aside from for the situation accommodated by Section 335, willfully causes
grievous hurt, will be rebuffed with the detainment of either portrayal for a term which may
stretch out to seven years, and will likewise be obligated to fine. An individual is said to
willfully cause grievous hurt when the hurt brought about by him, is of the idea of any sort of
hurts listed in Section 320 of the IPC, and he expects or realizes that himself will generally be
likely to cause grievous hurt. In Kalika Singh v. Province of Uttar Pradesh, a few wounds
caused to complainant by blamed by clench hands and lathi incorporated a break caused to

10 | P a g e
one side thumb by his fall on the ground during his beating by the accused. The Allahabad
High Court held that the accused was liable under Section 325, even though the fracture was
caused by the fall and not by the lathi. Sections 326, 329 331, 333, 335 and 338 prescribe
punishment for causing grievous hurt under various other circumstances. 

CAUSING HURT OR GRIEVOUS HURT BY “DANGEROUS WEAPONS”

As indicated by Section 320, grievous hurt means hurt which brings about a particular sort of
explicit wounds. These wounds incorporate deprivation of eyes or ears, harm to joints,
undermining, and so on. Section 326 fundamentally depicts an irritating type of unfortunate
hurt. Under this offence, the deplorable hurt must outcome from instruments of firing
(weapons), wounding or cutting (blades). It can likewise emerge from different weapons
which are probably going to cause demise or death. Indeed, even explosives, harms,
destructive substances or flames bringing about grievous hurt attract this provision. Since the
odds of offensive wounds are progressively under these conditions, the discipline is likewise
increasingly serious. An accused under Section 326 can be punished with life detainment or
detainment as long as 10 years.

CAUSING HURT OR GRIEVOUS HURT ON PROVOCATION

1. Willfully causing hurt on provocation (Sec. 334) 

11 | P a g e
“Whoever deliberately causes hurt on grave and sudden provocation, on the off chance that
he neither means nor realizes that himself will generally probably make hurt any individual
other than the individual who provoked, will be rebuffed with detainment of either
description for a term which may reach out to one month, or with fine which may stretch out
to 500 rupees, or with both.” 

2. Intentionally causing offensive hurt on incitement (Sec. 335) 

“Whoever intentionally causes grievous hurt on grave and unexpected incitement or

provocation, on the off chance that he neither expects nor realizes that himself will generally
probably make intolerable hurt any individual other than the individual who gave the
incitement or provoked him, will be rebuffed with detainment of either depiction for a term
which may reach out to four years, or with fine which may stretch out to 2,000 rupees, or
with both. 

Explanation:- 

The last two sections are dependent upon the same provision as Exception 1, Section 300.” 

The fundamental elements of Sections 334 and 335 are as per the following: 

1. The guilty party ought to intentionally cause hurt or shocking hurt; 

2. It ought to be caused by provocation; 
3. The incitement caused ought to be both grave and abrupt; 
4. He ought not wished or intended to cause hurt to any individual other than the
individual who incited; 
5. He ought not to have information that his demonstration is probably going to make
harmed or offensive hurt any individual other than the individual who incited. 

All together that Sections 334 and 335 ought to apply, it is critical to building up that there
was incitement and such incitement was grave and abrupt. On the off chance that the
incitement is just unexpected yet not grave, the offence won’t be one culpable under both of
these Sections. Thus, if the incitement is just grave and not unexpected, the demonstration
won’t add up to an offence under these sections. The trial or check of ‘grave and unexpected’
incitement is whether a sensible man having a place with a similar class of society as the

12 | P a g e
accused, put in the circumstance in which the accused was set, would be so incited as to lose
his control. In the event that the hurt caused is basic hurt, at that point the discipline endorsed
under Section 334 is detainment of either depiction, which may stretch out to one month or
with fine which may reach out to Rs. 500 or with both. On the off chance that the hurt is
grievous hurt, at that point the discipline endorsed under Section 335 is detainment of either
depiction for a term which may reach out to four years or with fine which may stretch out to
Rs. 2000 or with both. The offence under Sections 334 and 335 is cognizable however
summons will usually issue in the main example. It is bailable, compoundable and is triable
by a Magistrate.

DANGEROUS WEAPONS OR DANGEROUS MEANS

In criminal law, the expression, “dangerous weapon” alludes to a gun, or whatever another
article that is utilized or proposed to be utilized so that it could make demise or genuine
damage another individual. Legitimately, the term is a lot more extensive than what many
people think. For example, respondents who have been seen as liable of ambush with a
savage weapon have acted in an accompanying way:

 Assaulting somebody with a bat or other sports equipment 

 Employing a blade at somebody, expecting to harm her 
 Pointing a firearm at somebody’s head and taking steps to pull the trigger 
 Deliberately utilizing a vehicle to hit another driver or person on foot 
 Pursuing an individual with a hatchet

Notwithstanding firearms and blades, different things can be utilized as lethal or dangerous
weapons. A couple of models include broken jugs, hounds, control instruments, cultivating
devices, gruff items, pontoons, and any mechanized vehicles. There is a motivation behind
why the law is expansive, and that is to keep away from any escape clauses in figuring out
what comprises a dangerous weapon. Fundamentally, anything that can prompt incredible
substantial damage and additionally passing is culpable in an official courtroom. In certain
states, an individual’s hands, feet, and teeth may all be utilized as destructive weapons. In
spite of the fact that the human body itself is anything but a lethal weapon, it can positively
be utilized to cause someone else extraordinary real hurt or demise/death. Different states, for

13 | P a g e
example, California characterize a lethal weapon as an article that is outer to the human body.
Be that as it may, California additionally has a provision that expresses “any methods for
power liable to create extraordinary substantial damage,” which would warrant an attack with
a dangerous weapon charge. On the off chance that somebody assaults an individual by
stifling, kicking, or punching, he could confront attack with a fatal weapon. A vehicle is
viewed as a lethal and dangerous weapon in situations where the driver planned to hit another
driver or walker. Some driving impaired cases are additionally accused as an attack of a lethal
or dangerous weapon.

CAUSING GRIEVOUS HURT BY USE OF ACID

As per Section 326A of Indian Penal Code,” Whoever makes changeless or halfway harm or
distortion, or consumes or mutilates or distorts or cripples, any part or parts of the body of an
individual or causes offensive hurt by tossing corrosive on or by regulating corrosive to that
individual, or by utilizing some other methods with the expectation of causing or with the
information that he is probably going to cause such hurt, will be rebuffed with
detainment/imprisonment of either portrayal for a term which will not be under ten years
however which may stretch out to detainment forever(life imprisonment), and with fine.

“According to Section 326B of Indian Penal Code,” Whoever tosses or endeavors to toss
corrosive on any individual or endeavors to control corrosive to any individual, or endeavors
to utilize some other methods, with the aim of causing lasting or fractional harm or
deformation or distortion or inability or grievous hurt to that individual, will be rebuffed with
detainment of either depiction for a term which will not be under five years yet which may
reach out to seven years, and will likewise be subject to fine.” Section 357B of Code of
Criminal Procedure 1973 sets down, ” The remuneration payable by the State Government
under Section 357A will be notwithstanding the payment of fine to the unfortunate casualty
under Section 326A or Section 376D of IPC. Section 357C of Code of Criminal Procedure
1973 sets out, “All emergency clinics, public or private, regardless of whether run by the
Central Government, nearby bodies or some other individual, will quickly give the
emergency treatment or therapeutic treatment, free of cost, to the casualties of any offense
secured under Section 326A, 376, 376A, 376C, 376D or 376E of IPC and will promptly
educate the police about such an incident.

14 | P a g e
Recently included seventh provision of Section 100 of the IPC sets out that the privilege of
private barrier of body stretches out to deliberately causing death or of some other damage to
the attacker in the event of a demonstration of tossing or managing corrosive or an endeavour
to toss or regulate corrosive which may sensibly cause the dread that terrible hurt will
generally be the result of such act. For the first time remuneration was given to corrosive
unfortunate casualty on account of Laxmi v UOI. In Morepally Venkatasree Nagesh v State
of AP, the accused was suspicious about the character for his significant other and emptied
mercuric chloride into her vagina, she later kicked the bucket because of renal
disappointment. The accused was charged under Section 302 and 307 of the IPC. In the State
of Karnataka by Jalahalli Police Station v Joseph Rodrigues, one of the most popular cases
including corrosive assault. The accused tossed corrosive on a young lady named Hasina for
declining his employment bid. Because of the corrosive assault, the shading and presence of
her face changed which left her visually impaired. The accused was convicted under Section
307 for IPC and condemned to detainment forever(life imprisonment). Remuneration of Rs
2,00,000 notwithstanding Trial Court fine of Rs 3,00,000 was to be paid by the accused to the
guardians for the victim. 

The previously mentioned cases are obvious of the brutal repercussions looked by the
unfortunate casualties because of the corrosive assaults. The administration is still in the
quest for stringent measures.

CAUSING HURT OR GRIEVOUS HURT TO EXTORT PROPERTY

15 | P a g e
Under Section 330, the guilty party causes hurt for coercing an admission or data identifying
with an offence or unfortunate behaviour. This, for the most part, applies to cops or police
officers who mischief accused people to compel them to admit. The coercion on the
unfortunate casualty can likewise happen to blackmail such admission or data from someone
else. This hurt can likewise occur to oblige the unfortunate casualty to reestablish some
property or significant security. For instance, an income official may torment an individual to
propel him to settle up back payments of land income. Discipline for Section 330
incorporates detainment/imprisonment as long as 7 years alongside a fine. Section 331 is like
Section 330 however it identifies grievous hurt rather than simply basic hurt. Since grievous
hurt is progressively extreme, the discipline can reach out to detainment for a long time rather
than 7 years.

CAUSING HURT BY MEANS OF POISON

Under this provision, the guilty party must manage toxic substance or some other stunning, or
unwholesome medication to the person in question. The guilty party must do as such with the
aim of causing hurt or for submitting or encouraging an offence. Such a goal is significant
and no offence emerges without it. Discipline for Section 328 incorporates detainment as
long as 10 years with fine. Whoever directs to or causes to be taken by any individual any
toxic substance or any stunning, or unwholesome medication like poison, or other thing with
plan to make hurt such individual, or with aim to submit or to encourage the commission of
an offence or realizing that it will generally be likely that he will in this manner cause hurt,
will be rebuffed with detainment of either portrayal for a term which may stretch out to ten
years, and will likewise be at risk to fine.” 

Coming up next are the basic elements of Section 328: 

1. The wrongdoer ought to manage a toxic stunning or unwholesome medication; or 

2. Such an individual ought to be with the goal to cause hurt; or 
3. With an aim to submit or encourage the commission of an offence; or 
4. Such an individual ought to be with the information that it is probably going to
cause hurt. 

The object of Section 328 is clearly to rebuff people who violate others by putting them out
of their faculties by methods for stunning medications, which encourages the commission of

16 | P a g e
wrongdoing as well as in an incredible measure counteracts its recognition. In any case, there
must be the regulating of any toxic substance, and so forth., making it be taken by another.
The words ‘any individual’ means any individual other than the guilty party. The words
‘manage’ and ’cause to be taken’ are planned to apply to two particular strategies for
conferring poison and so on. The principal refers to the giving of toxic substance legitimately
to the sufferer, while the expression ’cause to be taken’ refer to a taking by the sufferer under
conditions when he was not a free operator to do something else.

The models for regulating ‘unwholesome medication’ are:

1. the juice of certain leaves to certain residents by method for the experience; 
2. powder of dhatura to a lady to loot her adornments while she was silly; 
3. a spouse, not knowing the hazardous properties of aconite, managed it to her
significant other by blending it in with his nourishment and he kicked the bucket; 
4. where an accused directed a poisonous substance to an individual so as to
burglarize him when the individual was oblivious or stunned, it would be an
occurrence of overseeing inebriating substance for encouraging the commission of
an offence. The offence under Section 328 is finished regardless of whether no hurt
is caused to the individual to whom the toxic or some other stunning or
unwholesome medication is given. Under Section 324 genuine causing of hurt is
basic; under Section 328 unimportant organization of toxin is adequate to carry the
guilty party to equity. This offence is cognizable, non-bailable, non-compoundable
and is triable by the Court of Session. The most extreme discipline awardable under
Section 328 is thorough detainment stretching out as long as ten years.

CAUSING HURT OR GRIEVOUS HURT TO DETER PUBLIC SERVANTS

17 | P a g e
 1. Deliberately causing hurt to deter public servant from his obligation (Sec. 332) 

“Whoever willfully hurts any individual being a community worker/public servant in the
release of his obligation all things considered local official, or with aim to forestall or hinder
that individual or some other local official from releasing his obligation in that capacity local
official, or in result of anything done or endeavored to be finished by that individual in the
legitimate release of his obligation accordingly local official, will be rebuffed with
detainment of either portrayal for a term which may stretch out to three years, or with fine, or
with both.” 

2. Deliberately making grievous hurt to deter public servant from his obligation (Sec.
333) 

“Whoever intentionally makes grievous hurt any individual being a local official in the
release of his obligation all things considered community worker, or with goal to avoid or
deflect that individual or some other local official from releasing his obligation all things
considered local official, or in outcome of anything done or endeavoured to be finished by
that individual in the legitimate release of his obligation all things considered local official,
will be rebuffed with detainment of either portrayal for a term which may reach out to ten
years, and will likewise be at risk to fine.” 

Coming up next are the fundamental elements of Sections 332 and 333: 

1. The guilty party ought to willfully hurt or grievous hurt a local official or public
servant; 
2. It ought to be caused: 

a)When the community worker acted in the release of his obligations; 

b)To avoid or dissuade that local official or some other community worker from releasing his
obligation; or 

c) In the outcome of anything done or endeavoured to be finished by the local official in

the release of his obligation. 

18 | P a g e
The term ‘public servant’ is characterized under Section 21 of the Code. Section 332 and 333
apply just if the local official was acting in the release of his obligation as a community
worker or it ought to be demonstrated that it was the expectation of the blamed to avoid or
stop the public servant from releasing his obligation. The articulation ‘in the release of his
obligation all things considered local official’ signifies in the release of an obligation forced
by law on such community worker in the specific case, and doesn’t cover a demonstration
done by him in accordance with some basic honesty under the shade of his office. The
obligation need not be to do a particular demonstration. ‘Counteractive action’ alludes or
refers to a phase when the execution of the obligation is entered upon; ‘hinder’ refers to a
phase when it has not been at this point entered upon. “Or on the other hand in result of
anything done” where case the attack would be submitted by method for the counter. These
words show that the offence under the section can be submitted not just when an individual is
attacked while he is releasing an open obligation yet in addition when he is attacked in the
outcome of the release of his obligation. 

Section 353 of the Code also manages criminal attack on community worker to discourage
him from the release of his obligation. People other than community workers who may go
with them for help and direction are not qualified to guarantee unique security under Sections
332 and 333. The offence under Section 332 is cognizable and warrant ought to customarily
issue in the principal occurrence. It is non-bailable and not compoundable and is triable by a
Magistrate of the top of the line. The offence under Section 333 is cognizable, however,
warrant ought to commonly issue in the primary occurrence. It is both non-bailable and non-
compoundable and solely triable by the Court of Sessions. Discipline under Section 332 is
detainment/imprisonment of either depiction for a term which may stretch out to three years,
or with fine or with both. Discipline under Section 333 is detainment of either portrayal for a
term which may reach out to ten years, and will likewise be subject to fine.

19 | P a g e
CAUSING HURT OR GRIEVOUS HURT BY ENDANGERING LIFE OF PERSONAL
SAFETY OF OTHERS

1. Act endangering life or individual wellbeing of others (Sec. 336) 

“Whoever does any demonstration so impulsively or carelessly as to imperil human life or the
individual security of others, will be rebuffed with the detainment of either portrayal for a
term which may stretch out to a quarter of a year, or with fine which may reach out to 200
and fifty rupees or with both.” 

2. Causing hurt by act endangering life or individual wellbeing of others (Sec. 337) 

“Whoever hurts any individual by doing any demonstration so impulsively or carelessly as to

imperil human life, or the individual wellbeing of others, will be rebuffed with detainment of
either depiction for a term which may stretch out to a half year, or with fine which may reach
out to 500 rupees, or with both”. 

3. Causing grievous hurt by act endangering life or individual wellbeing of

others (Sec. 338) 

“Whoever makes shocking hurt any individual by doing any demonstration so imprudently or
carelessly as to jeopardize human life, or the individual wellbeing of others, will be rebuffed
with detainment of either depiction for a term which may reach out to two years, or with fine
which may stretch out to one thousand rupees, or with both”. 

The fundamental elements of these sections are as per the following: 

 The act of the charged probably brought about simple or grievous hurt;
 The act must be done in a rash and careless way; 
 The impulsiveness or carelessness must be to the degree of imperilling human life
or individual wellbeing of others. 

These areas will be pertinent in situations where hurt caused is an immediate consequence of
the carelessness or rash act. Unimportant carelessness or imprudence isn’t sufficient to bring
a case inside the ambit of Section 337 or Section 338. Carelessness or imprudence
demonstrated by proof must be, for example, ought to essentially convey with it a criminal

20 | P a g e
obligation. Regardless of whether such risk is available may rely upon the level of culpability
having respect for each situation to the specific time, spot and conditions. On the off chance
that it is only an instance of remuneration or reparation for damage or harm caused to an
individual or property, it is plainly not culpable under both of the areas. The culpability to be
criminal ought to be, for example, concerns not just the individual harmed or property
harmed however the security of people in general out and about. In any case, the nature and
degree of the hurt or harm will be excess in fixing criminal obligation for carelessness under
these areas.

An offence under Section 336 is punishable with the detainment of either depiction for a term
which may stretch out to a quarter of a year or with fine which may reach out to Rs. 250 or
with both. An offence under Section 337 is punishable with detainment/imprisonment of
either depiction for a term which may reach out to a half year, or with fine which may stretch
out to 500 rupees or with both. An offence under Section 338 is punishable with the
detainment of either depiction for a term which may stretch out to two years, with fine which
may reach out to one thousand rupees or both. Offences under Sections 336, 337 and 338 are
cognizable and subject: Offense under Section 336 is non-compoundable, though under
Sections 337 and 338 are compoundable.

CASES ON GRIEVOUS HURT

Omanakuttan vs. The State of Kerala1

Facts :

The prosecution case has been that, the Accused-Appellant and the injured victim Sunil
Kumar (PW-1) were neighbours. Allegedly, the Appellant and the victim had previous
enmity due to which, the Appellant poured acid, causing serious injuries over the head, neck,
shoulder and other parts of the body of the victim. The Accused persons were charge-sheeted
for the offence under Section 326 read with Section 34 of IPC. After scrutinizing the relevant
evidence, the Judicial Magistrate First Class, convicted the Appellant for the offence under
Section 326 of IPC and sentenced him. However, the Accused No. 2, wife of the Appellant,
was acquitted for absence of evidence against her. Further, the revision petition preferred by

1
Omanakuttan vs. The State of Kerala, (2019)6SCC262.

21 | P a g e
the Accused-Appellant was dismissed by the High Court after finding no ground to interfere
in the concurrent findings of the subordinate Courts.

Held, while dismissing the appeal

1. Appellant has rightly been convicted for the offence under Section 326 of IPC; and though
the punishment awarded to him, being of simple imprisonment for a term of one year and fine
of Rs. 5,000 with default stipulation, is rather towards the side of inadequacy.

2. Fact,that the Appellant poured acid on the body of the victim stands proved beyond any
doubt by the evidence on record, including the testimony of the victim PW-1 as also his
mother PW-2. The fact that, the victim sustained extensive acid burns on the left side of his
body also stands duly proved in his testimony read with the testimony of the doctor PW-8.
The subordinate Courts as also the High Court have thoroughly examined the material on
record and have returned concurrent findings against the Appellant.

3. In the present case, the extensive injuries suffered by the victim, being of acid burns
involving forehead, scalp, neck, back of chest, left buttock and front of left thigh are
distinctly stated in the wound certificate Ex. P/5.

4. The victim sustained the aforesaid injuries due to the effect of the acid poured upon him by
the Appellant. The acid is undoubtedly a corrosive substance within the meaning of Section
326 of IPC. The victim remained hospitalised for more than 50 days. Trial Court specifically
noticed the fact that, the victim had suffered permanent disfigurement on the head, when he
was examined in the Court. In the given set of circumstances and the facts available on
record, the statement of the doctor PW-8 to the effect that the patient could carry on his daily
affairs without any aid while being treated in the hospital, does not take away the substance
of the matter that the case was clearly covered under clauses 'Sixthly' and 'Eighthly' of
Section 320 of IPC. In fact, even the doctor PW-8 stated that, there was no immediate

22 | P a g e
disfigurement during the time the skin was healing; and that the scars would develop only
later.

5. Act of causing grievous hurt by use of acid, by its very nature, is a gruesome and
horrendous one, which, apart from causing severe bodily pain, leaves the scars and untold
permanent miseries for the victim. The legislature having taken note of the gravity of such an
offence has, by way of Act No. 13 of 2013, inserted Sections 326A and 326B of IPC,
providing higher punishment with minimum imprisonment for the offences of voluntarily
causing grievous hurt by use of acid and voluntarily throwing or attempting to throw acid.

6. However, in facts and circumstances of the case, the offence was committed in the year
1997 and the Accused-Appellant is now said to be 63 years of age, present Court is not
enhancing punishment.

7. Appeal dismissed.

MaqboolVs.The State of Uttar Pradesh and Ors.2

Maqbool vs. The State of Uttar Pradesh and Ors. (07.09.2018 - SC) : MANU/SC/1132/2018

Criminal - Nature of injury - Applicability of provision - Section 326A of Indian Penal Code,
1860 - Appellant sought discharge for offence of voluntary causing grievous hurt buy use of
acid, etc under Section 326A of Code on ground that injury caused was simple as per medical
report - Trial court rejected application and same had been upheld by High Court - Hence,
present appeal - Whether in acid attack, if injury was simple, whether offence under Section
326A of Code was attracted. Facts: Appellant sought discharge under Section 326A of Indian
Penal Code on the ground that the injury caused was simple as per the medical report. The
trial court rejected the application and the same has been upheld by the High Court. The
Appellant had submitted that even if the entire prosecution story was accepted to be true and

2
AIR2018SC5101

23 | P a g e
correct, no grievous hurt had been caused to the victim since the injuries are reported to be
simple, and hence, he could not be charged under Section 326A of Act. Held, while
dismissing the appeal: (i) The basic difference between Sections 326A and 326B of Indian
Penal Code is the presence of actual injury under Section 326A of Act. The resultant injury
had made the offence more serious with a mandatory minimum punishment of ten years
which may extend to imprisonment for life and, in either case, with a fine. The fine is
mandatory and the quantum should be just and reasonable in the sense that it should be, in
any case, sufficient to meet the medical expenses for the treatment of the victim. Therefore,
the second proviso under Section 326A of At requires that the fine imposed should be paid to
the litigant. Under Section 326B of Act, the mere act of throwing or attempt to throw or
attempt to administer or attempt to use any other means with the intention of causing any of
the injuries referred to in the Section, is to be visited with a mandatory minimum
imprisonment of five years, which may extend to seven years and fine. [8]

(ii) Thus, merely because the title to Section 326A of Indian Penal Code speaks about
grievous hurt by use of acid, it was not a requirement under the Section that the injuries
caused should be invariably grievous. Even if the seven injuries were simple, Section 326A
of Act and Section 326B of Act the mere act of throwing or attempt, as indicated in the
Section, would attract the offence. [9]

(iii) It was not the percentage or gravity of injury, which makes the difference. Be it simple or
grievous, if the injury falls under the specified types under Section 326A of Act on account of
use of acid, the offence under Section 326A of Act was attracted. Section 326B of Act would
be attracted in case the requirements specified were met on an attempted acid attack.

Arjun vs. State of Maharashtra3

3
(2012)5SCC530.

24 | P a g e
Criminal - Nature of Offence - Sections 96, 97, 98, 99, 300, 302 and 304 Part 1 of Indian
Penal Code, 1860 - Appellant/first Accused, was convicted by Additional Sessions Judge for
murder of deceased and for causing grievous hurt to wife of deceased - On Appeal, High
Court confirmed conviction passed by trial Court against Appellant - Hence, present Appeal -
Whether Appellant proved that he acted in right of private defence - Held, mere fact that
other seven Accused were acquitted or that some of prosecution witnesses were also
convicted would not be sufficient to hold that Appellant was not aggressor - There were some
minor injuries on Accused - Deceased was unarmed so also his wife and son - Accused was
armed with a knife - There was no evidence to show that deceased, his wife or his son, had
ever attacked Accused - Right of private defence was available only when there was a
reasonable apprehension of receiving injury - It was for Accused claiming right of private
defence, to place necessary material on record either by himself adducing positive evidence
or by eliciting necessary facts from witnesses examined for prosecution, if a plea of private
defence was raised - A plea of right of private defence could not be based on surmises and
speculation - In order to find whether right of private defence was available to an Accused,
entire incident must be examined with care and viewed in its proper setting - Section 97 of
IPC, dealt with subject matter of right of private defence - Plea of right comprised body or
property of person exercising right or of any other person, and right might be exercised in
case of any offence against body, and in case of offences of theft, robbery, mischief or
criminal trespass, and attempts at such offences in relation to property - Sections 96 and 98 of
IPC, gave a right of private defence against certain offences and acts - Section 99 of IPC, laid
down limits of right of private defence - To plea a right of private defence extending to
voluntary causing of death, Accused must show that there were circumstances giving rise to
reasonable grounds for apprehending that either death or grievous hurt would be caused to
him - There was nothing to show that deceased, his wife, his son or others had attacked
Appellant, nor surrounding circumstances would indicate that there was a reasonable
apprehension that death or grievous hurt was likely to be caused to Appellant by them or
others - Therefore, plea of private defence was, had no basis - There was no premeditation
and act was committed in a heat of passion - Appellant had not taken any undue advantage or
acted in a cruel manner - There was a fight between parties - Therefore, this case fell under
fourth exception to Section 300 of IPC - Hence, it was just and proper to alter conviction
from Section 302 of IPC to Section 304 Part 1 of IPC - A

25 | P a g e
The State of Rajasthan vs. Mohan Lal and Ors.4

The Trial Court convicted Respondents accused persons for offence of hurt and voluntarily
causing grievous hurt under Sections 323 and 325 of Indian Penal Code, 1860. The High
Court had confirmed the judgment and order of conviction passed by the Sessions Court, but
had reduced the sentence.

Held, while allowing the appeal:

(i) It was proved that the victim had sustained a grievous injury on a vital portion of the body,
i.e. the head, which was fractured. The doctor had opined that the injury was life threatening.
Hence, in our considered opinion, the High Court was too lenient in imposing the sentence of
six days only which was the period already undergone by the Accused in confinement. [14]

(ii) It was brought to notice that the parties had forgotten their differences and were living
peacefully, thus impose a sentence of six months' rigorous imprisonment and a fine against
the Accused. [15]

CASE ANALYSIS

Ravada Sasikala V. State Of Andhra Pradesh

4
AIR2018SC3564.

26 | P a g e
Bench:

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE DIPAK MISRA

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE R. BANUMATHI

Citation:
AIR 2017 SC 1166

FACTS:

The necessary facts. On the basis of the statement of the injured, an FIR under Sections 448
and 307 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) was registered at police station Vallampudi. The
injuries sustained by the victim-informant required long treatment and eventually after
recording the statements of the witnesses, collecting various materials from the spot and
taking other aspects into consideration of the crime, the investigating agency filed the charge
sheet for the offences that were originally registered under the FIR before the competent
court which, in turn, committed the matter to the Court of Session, Vizianagaram. The
accused abjured his guilt and expressed his desire to face the trial.The prosecution, in order to
establish the charges against the accused, examined 12 witnesses and got marked Ex. P1 to
P14 besides bringing 11 material objects on record. The defence chose not to examine any
witness. It may be noted that on behalf of the defence, one document Ex. D-1, was marked.

The learned Assistant Sessions Judge, Vizianagaram did not find the accused guilty under
Section 307 IPC but held him guilty under Section 326 and 448 IPC. At the time of hearing
of the sentence under Section 235(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC), the convict
pleaded for mercy on the foundation of his support to the old parents, the economic status,
social strata to which he belongs and certain other factors. The learned trial judge, upon
hearing him, sentenced him to suffer rigorous imprisonment for one year and directed to pay
a fine of Rs. 5,000/- with a default clause under Section 326 IPC and sentenced him to pay a
fine of Rs. 1000/- for the offence under Section 448 IPC with a default clause.

The State preferred Criminal Appeal No. 1731 of 2007 under Section 377(1) CrPC before

27 | P a g e
the High Court of Judicature at Hyderabad for the State of Telangana and the State of Andhra
Pradesh for enhancement of sentence. Being grieved by the judgment of conviction and order
of sentence, the accused-respondent had preferred Criminal Appeal No. 15 of 2006 before the
Sessions Judge, Vizianagaram which was later on transferred to the High Court and
registered as Transferred Criminal Appeal No. 1052 of 2013.

Both the appeals were heard together by the learned Single Judge who concurred with the
view taken by the learned trial judge as regards the conviction. While dealing with the
quantum of sentence, the learned Judge opined thus:-

"However, the sentence of imprisonment imposed by the trial Court for the offence under
Section 326 I.P.C. is modified to the period which the accused has already undergone, while
maintaining the sentence of fine for both the offences.

ISSUE:

The High Court has kept itself alive to the precedents pertaining to sentencing or has been
guided by some kind of unfathomable and incomprehensible sense of individual mercy
absolutely ignoring the plight and the pain of the victim; a young girl who had sustained an
acid attack, a horrendous assault on the physical autonomy of an individual that gets more
accentuated when the victim is a young woman.

ARGUMENTS OF PETITIONER:

Ms. Aparna Bhat, learned counsel appearing for the appellant submits that by no stretch of
imagination, the period undergone, that is, 30 days, can be regarded as appropriate for the
offence under Section 326 IPC and definitely not when there is acid attack. She would further
urge that in such a situation, the concept of justice feels embarrassed and a dent is created in
the criminal justice system. Learned counsel would further submit that mercy "whose quality
is not unstrained", may be considered as a virtue in the realm of justice but misplaced
sympathy and exhibition of unwarranted mercy is likely to pave the path of complete
injustice. She has commended us to certain authorities which we shall, in due course, refer to.

ARGUMENTS OF RESPONDENTS:

28 | P a g e
 Mr. Y. Raja Gopala Rao, learned counsel for the respondent that the occurrence had taken
place long back and with efflux of time, the appellant as well as the respondent have been
leading their individual separate married lives and, therefore, it would not be appropriate to
interfere with the sentence reduced by the High Court. It is canvassed by him that the
respondent has not challenged the conviction before the High Court but he has been leading a
reformed life and after a long lapse of time, to send him to custody would tantamount to
injustice itself.

RESONING:

As the factual matrix gets unfolded from the judgment of the learned trial Judge, the appellant
after completion of her intermediate course had accompanied her brother to Amalapuram of
East Godavari District where he was working as an Assistant Professor in B.V.C.
Engineering College, Vodalacheruvu and stayed with him about a week prior to the
occurrence. Thereafter, she along with her brother went to his native place Sompuram. At
that time, the elder brother of the accused proposed a marriage alliance between the accused
and the appellant for which her family expressed unwillingness. The reason for expressing
the unwillingness is not borne out on record but the said aspect, needless to say, is absolutely
irrelevant. What matters to be stated is that the proposal for marriage was not accepted. It is
evincible from the material brought on record that the morning of 24.05.2003 became the
darkest and blackest one in her life as the appellant having a head bath had put a towel on her
head to dry, the accused trespassed into her house and poured a bottle of acid over her head.
It has been established beyond a trace of doubt by the ocular testimony and the medical
evidence that some part of her body was disfigured and the disfiguration is due to the acid
attack. In view of what we have stated, the approach of the High Court shocks us and we
have no hesitation in saying so. When there is medical evidence that there was an acid attack
on the young girl and the circumstances having brought home by cogent evidence and the
conviction is given the stamp of approval, there was no justification to reduce the sentence to
the period already undergone. We are at a loss to understand whether the learned Judge has
been guided by some unknown notion of mercy or remaining oblivious of the precedents
relating to sentence or for that matter, not careful about the expectation of the collective from
the court, for the society at large eagerly waits for justice to be done in accordance with law,
has reduced the sentence. When a substantive sentence of thirty days is imposed, in the crime
of present nature, that is, acid attack on a young girl, the sense of justice, if we allow

29 | P a g e
ourselves to say so, is not only ostracized, but also is unceremoniously sent to "Vanaprastha".
It is wholly impermissible.

N Laxmi v. Union of India and others, 2015(2) R.C.R.(Criminal) 583 : 2015(2) Recent Apex
Judgments (R.A.J.) 649 : (2014) 4 SCC 427 this Court observed thus:-

Section 357-A came to be inserted in the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 by Act 5 of 2009
w.e.f. 31-12-2009. Inter alia, this section provides for preparation of a scheme for providing
funds for the purpose of compensation to the victim or his dependants who have suffered loss
or injury as a result of the crime and who require rehabilitation.
We are informed that pursuant to this provision, 17 States and 7 Union Territories have
prepared "Victim Compensation scheme" (for short "the scheme"). As regards the victims of
acid attacks, the compensation mentioned in the scheme framed by these States and Union
Territories is un-uniform. While the State of Bihar has provided for compensation of Rs.
25,000 in such scheme, the State of Rajasthan has provided for Rs. 2 lakhs of compensation.
In our view, the compensation provided in the scheme by most of the States/Union Territories
is inadequate. It cannot be overlooked that acid attack victims need to undergo a series of
plastic surgeries and other corrective treatments. Having regard to this problem, the learned
Solicitor General suggested to us that the compensation by the States/Union Territories for
acid attack victims must be enhanced to at least Rs. 3 lakhs as the aftercare and rehabilitation
cost. The suggestion of the learned Solicitor General is very fair. "The Court further directed
that the acid attack victims shall be paid compensation of at least Rs. 3 lakhs by the State
Government/Union Territory concerned as the aftercare and rehabilitation cost. Of this
amount, a sum of Rs. 1 lakh was directed to be paid to such victim within 15 days of
occurrence of such incident (or being brought to the notice of the State Government/Union
Territory) to facilitate immediate medical attention and expenses in this regard. The balance
sum of Rs. 2 lakhs was directed to be paid as expeditiously as possible and positively within
two months thereafter and compliance thereof was directed to be ensured by the Chief
Secretaries of the States and the Administrators of the Union Territories.

In State of M.P. v. Mehtaab, 2015(1) R.C.R.(Criminal) 1008 : 2015(1) Recent Apex

Judgments (R.A.J.) 663 : (2015) 5 SCC 197 the Court directed compensation of Rs. 2 lakhs to
be fixed regard being had to the limited final resources of the accused despite the fact that the
occurrence took place in 1997. It observed that the said compensation was not adequate and

30 | P a g e
accordingly, in addition to the said compensation to be paid by the accused, held that the
State was required to pay compensation under Section 357-A CrPC. For the said purpose,
reliance was placed on the decision in Suresh v. State of Haryana, 2015(1) R.C.R.(Criminal)
148. :

DECISION:

In view of our analysis, we are compelled to set aside the sentence imposed by the High
Court and restore that of the trial court. In addition to the aforesaid, we are disposed to
address on victim compensation. We are of the considered opinion that the appellant is
entitled to compensation that is awardable to a victim under the CrPC.Regard being had to
the aforesaid decisions, we direct the accused-respondent No. 2 to pay a compensation of Rs.
50,000/- and the State to pay a compensation of Rs. 3 lakhs. If the accused does not pay the
compensation amount within six months, he shall suffer further rigorous imprisonment of six
months, in addition to what has been imposed by the trial court. The State shall deposit the
amount before the trial court within three months and the learned trial Judge on proper
identification of the victim, shall disburse it in her favour.

PROPOSALS FOR REFORM

It is suggested that a changed rule on offences against the individual ought to not contain the
meaning of goal and that the significance of expectation ought to keep on being chosen by
general standards of criminal law. 

It is suggested that a changed rule on offences of brutality ought to give for the
accompanying two offences: 

1. physical attack, where an individual deliberately or carelessly applies power to or

causes an effect on the body of another, without the assent of that other; or 
2. the undermined attack, where an individual deliberately or carelessly causes
another to feel that any such power or effect is or might be fast approaching and
that different doesn’t agree to the lead-in question.

It is suggested that a transformed rule on offences of viciousness ought to give for an offence
of bothered attack, characterized as pursues: 

31 | P a g e
 1. the lead component would be equivalent to that for physical or compromised attack
(that is, it would be one offence that can be submitted in two different ways); 
2. the attack must have the aftereffect of causing some damage; 
3. the flaw component ought to be equivalent to that for the physical or compromised
attack, without the requirement for aim or foolishness in connection to the damage
caused; 
4. the offence ought to be triable just in a judges’ court; and 
5. the most extreme sentence ought to be 12 months.

It is prescribed that a transformed resolution on offences of brutality ought to contain

offences of: 

1. causing genuine damage aiming to oppose, avoid or end the legal capture or
confinement of himself or a third individual;
2. attack aiming to oppose, counteract or end the legal capture or confinement of
himself or a third individual. The greatest punishment for the offence
understatement 6 ought to be set at over 7 years yet under life.

It isn’t prescribed that offences of presenting people to the peril of ailment, or of neglecting
to uncover infection. 

The offence under condition 3, of deliberately or foolishly causing damage, ought to avoid
situations where the hazard taken is, for example, to be commonly adequate in the
conventional lead of everyday life, however, we think about this is adequately guaranteed by
the foolishness necessity of the offence.

It is prescribed that a changed rule overseeing offences of savagery ought to incorporate an

offence of taking steps to slaughter, influence genuine damage to or assault any individual,
including situations where the risk is restrictive on the direction of the individual to whom the
danger is made or some other actuality or event.

It is suggested that a changed rule overseeing offences of brutality ought to incorporate an

offence of support to kill, and this ought to incorporate situations where the support is
contingent.

32 | P a g e
 CONCLUSION

As observed above, ‘Hurt’ is mischief, injuring, torment, irritation, throbbing, inconvenience,

hurting, stinging, throbbing, aches. In every single criminal court, the greater part of the cases
is ‘deliberately causing hurt’ cases. When there is a neighbourly settlement between the
gatherings in non-compoundable hurt cases like 324 and 326 IPC, it is apparent from the
decisions of our legal executive and judiciary that tolerant view is being taken. The Law
Commission in its 237th report prescribes that Section 324 IPC ought to be inducted into the
ambit of Section 320 CrPC and it ought to hold its unique situation in Table 2 attached to
sub-section(2) thereof. Medicinal narrative confirmations like medico-legal reports on harms
arranged by the restorative specialists are significant for the courts in making their lawful
decisions. The kind of wounds and weapons, lawful classes of damages and their ages must
be explicitly noted in the damage reports: Medicolegal preparing and encounters fortify the
capacities of the restorative master observers.

In my view, to diminish pendency of these cases, it is the obligation of the Government of

India to find a way to revise Section 320 of Cr.P.C to compound Section 324 of IPC cases.
The injured individual is set up to support the hostile direct of the blamed who became
reprimanded and apologetic. Criminal law should be receptive to observe such circumstances
and shall give solution to end the criminal procedures in regard to specific sorts of offences.
That is the justification behind the exacerbating of offences. Unexpectedly, the aggravating
plan assuages the courts of the weight of aggregated cases. Make certain to taste your words
before you let them out.

33 | P a g e