National University of Study and Research in Law, Ranchi

Law of Crimes – Indian Penal Code

Hurt and Grievous Hurt

Submitted by: Submitted to:

Arnold Runda Julian Seal Pasari

IIIrd Semester, Sec-A Associate Professor

Roll No.- 858 NUSRL, Ranchi

1|Page
Title: Hurt and Grievous Hurt

Research Objective

Section 320 of IPC enumerates grievous hurt, medical officer dealing such cases found it
difficult in more than one occasion to conclude his/her opinion regarding the nature of injury.
The present paper is an attempt to minimize their dilemma.

Research Question

To differentiate between hurt and grievous hurt in Indian context.

Research Methodology

Only secondary data and no primary data are used while doing this research study. Relevant
books, reputed journals, Government reports, periodicals, etc. are referred in the course of this
research study. The study is based on some reports prepared by reputed National and
International Organizations. Published reports, news reports of news channels, articles in
journals and newspapers, websites, blogs are used.

Research Hypothesis

Sometimes, the injured person may feign serious disorder to make the simple injury to appear
as grievous one. This becomes more difficult when there is lack of knowledge about the concept
of hurt and grievous hurt. As there are many important differences between hurt and grievous
hurt because the degree of injury is higher in grievous hurt which is punishable by Section 325
IPC, the act is voluntary.

2|Page
Chapterization

Introduction.…………………………………………………………………………....…....4

To Determine Whether a person has Committed an Offence or Not………………….…….4

Assault………………………………………………………………………………….……5

Injury…………………………………………………………………………………………6

Hurt…………………………………………………...…………………………………....…6

Grievous Hurt………………………………………………………………………………...7

Voluntarily Causing Grievous Hurt……………………………………………..…………....9

Conclusion………………………………………………………………………...………….10

Bibliography……………………………………………………………………….…………11

3|Page
Chapter 1: Introduction

Let me start this article with the famous words of Mahatma Gandhi – “Nobody can hurt me
without my permission.” Now a days, majority of criminal cases, are ‘Hurt’ cases such as
offences punishable under section 323, 324, and 326 of Indian Penal Code,1860. There is no
criminal Court without these cases. ‘Hurt’ is known as cause injury to, cause pain to, injure,
maim, damage, wound, incapacitate, impair, mutilate, injure. In other words, it means ‘be
detrimental to’. If an illustration uses the word “wounds” as a verb, it does not differentiate
between an injury of “simple nature” or “grievous nature”.

Section 320 of the Indian Penal Code is derived from the French Penal Code (Article 309),
unlike most of the IPC, which has been derived from the English Law (Offences against the
person Act of 1861). The authors of the Code observed “We have found it very difficult to
draw a line between those bodily hurts which are serious and those which are slight. To draw
such a line with perfect accuracy is, indeed absolutely impossible; but it is far better that such
a line should be drawn, though rudely, than that offences some of which approach in
enormity to murder, while others are little more than frolics which a good-natured man would
hardly resent, would be classed together”.1

When a patient of assault is brought to the casualty, it is the duty of medical officer to guide
the investigating police officer about the type of hurt whether it is simple or grievous. However,
it is ultimately the Court who will decide about this matter after considering all the facts,
circumstances of the case and medical opinion. In casualty, it is sometimes difficult task for a
medical officer to opine about an injury.

Chapter 2: To Determine Whether a person has Committed an Offence or

The general rule of the common law is that crime cannot be imputed to a man without mens
rea. It is, of course, quite another question how the existence of that mens rea is to be
established. So far as the English Law is concerned, Section 8 of the Criminal Justice Act of

1
Note M. p 151. As quoted by Justice Chandarchud YV, Manohar VR, Singh A. Editors. Ratanlal & Dhirajlal’s
The Indian Penal Code. 30th ed. Wadhwa & Company. 2004:600

4|Page
1967 applies the necessary corrective to the grossness of the rule supposed to have been laid
down in 1961 AC 290. This section provides that “A Court or jury in determining whether a
person has committed an offence:

a) shall not be bound in law to infer that he intended or foresaw a result of his actions by
reason only of its being a natural and probable consequences of those actions; but
b) shall decide whether he did intend or foresee that result by reference to all the evidence,
drawing such inference from the evidence as appear, proper in the circumstances”.

The natural and probable consequences of a man’s act is only one of the factors from which
his intention as to the result may be gathered. The intention is to be gathered from all the
circumstances appearing in the evidence. Recently, in 2015, the Hon’ble Gujarat High Court,
in Criminal Misc. Application No. 3120 of 2014, observed that in Indian Law, the objective
test of the maxim would cover every degree of mens rea from negligence to intention,
depending on the degree of probability of the consequences.

Chapter 3: What is Assault?

According to Section 351 IPC, Whoever makes any gesture, or any preparation intending or
knowing it to be likely that such gesture or preparation will cause any person present to
apprehend that he who makes that gesture or preparation is about to use criminal force to that
person, is said to commit an assault.

Essential ingredients of Section 351 IPC are:

a) That the accused should make a gesture or preparation to use criminal force;
b) Such gesture or preparation should be made in the presence of the person in respect of
whom it is made;
c) There should be intention or knowledge on the part of the accused that such gesture or
preparation would cause apprehension in the mind of the victim that criminal force
would be used against him;
d) Such gesture or preparation has actually caused apprehension in the mind of the victim,
of use of criminal force against him.

5|Page
Chapter 4: What is Injury?

Such gesture or preparation has actually caused apprehension in the mind of the victim, of use
of criminal force against him.2 Legally the term „injury‟ includes body, mind, reputation and
property. So, it is a wider meaning than the term „Hurt‟, as it also includes illegal damage to
reputation or property of other. In other words, all hurts are injuries, but all injuries are not
hurt.

Chapter 5: What is Hurt?

According to Section 319 IPC whoever causes bodily pain, disease or infirmity to any person
is said to cause hurt. Many of the offences which fall under the head of hurt will also fall under
the head of assault. But bodily hurt may be caused by many acts which are not assaults. A
person, for example, who mixes a deleterious potion and places it on the table of another, may
Cause serious hurt; but cannot be said to have committed assault. ‘Bodily pain’ covers all harm,
except those which no person of ordinary sense or temper would complain of. ‘Infirmity’ is
inability of an organ to perform its normal function which may either be temporary or
permanent. There is no requirement of direct contact between the accused and victim in Section
319 IPC, and so nervous shock and mental derangements are also included. Where there is no
intention to cause death or knowledge that death is likely to be caused from the harm inflicted,
and the death is caused, the accused would be guilty of hurt only if the injury caused was not
serious. Hurt can be simple or grievous. Simple hurt is those which are simple in nature and do
not fall under the domain of grievous hurt. Grievous hurt is hurt of a more serious nature. It is
sometime difficult to draw a line between those bodily hurt which are serious and those which
are slight.

2
Indian Penal Code, Act No. 45 of Year 1860

6|Page
Chapter 6: Grievous Hurt

The following kinds of hurt only are designated as "Grievous":

a) Emasculation,
b) Permanent privation of the sight of either eye,
c) Permanent privation of the hearing of either ear,
d) Privation of any member or joint,
e) Destruction or permanent impairing of the powers of any member or joint,
f) Permanent disfiguration of the head or face,
g) Fracture or dislocation of a bone or tooth,
h) 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.

“Emasculation” means depriving a male of masculine vigor. So, this clause is not applicable to
female victims. This could be done by castration, by cutting the male organ, or by causing
injury to testis or to the spinal cord at the level of 2nd to 4th lumbar vertebrae to result in
impotence.

“Permanent” does not mean that it should be incurable. For instance, loss of sight occurring
due to corneal opacity resulting from injury to the cornea may be curable by corneoplasty but
being permanent by itself constitutes a grievous hurt and chances of treating by corneoplasty
do not lower its gravity. The gravity of injury lies in its permanency because it deprives a
person of the use of the organ of sight and also disfigures him. Permanent privation of sight
can be caused by gouging out of eyes, poking eyes, chemicals, etc.

Permanent privation of hearing may be caused by a blow on the head or the ear, or by blows
which injure the tympanum or auditory nerves or by trusting something or pouring hot liquid
into the ear which causes deafness. Even, permanent partial loss of hearing is considered as
grievous. The term “member” means any organ or limb of a subject responsible for
performance of a distinct function. It includes eyes, ears, nostrils, mouth, hands, feet, etc.

Disfiguration means doing a man some external injury which cause change in configuration
and personal appearance of the subject, but does not weaken him.

Age, sex, occupation of the subject is immaterial. However, there are judgments of different
courts considering these factors. Moreover, medical officer should not consider these factors
while opining about the nature of injury and it is only court who can take these factors into

7|Page
consideration. Fracture or dislocation of a bone or tooth causes great pain and suffering to the
injured person and hence it is considered grievous hurt. For application of this clause it is not
necessary that a bone should be fractured through and through or that there should be a
displacement of any fragment of bone. Any break or splintering of the bone, rupture or fissure
in it would amount to fracture.

Although fracture has not been defined in sec 320 IPC, but as per Supreme Court judgment in
the case of Hori lal and Anr vs. State of U.P.3 (1969), incised wound to the bone is to be
consider as fracture, hence, grievous hurt. Before giving opinion, it has to be proved that, the
tooth was not originally loose and injury caused fracture or dislocation of tooth. An injury can
be said to endanger life if it is in itself that it put the life of the injured in danger. There is thin
line between degree of body injury “dangerous to life” and “likely to cause death”. So, the line
separating Grievous Hurt and Culpable Homicide is very thin. In Grievous Hurt, the life is
endangered due to injury while in Culpable Homicide; death is likely to be caused. However,
acts neither intended nor likely to cause death may amount to grievous hurt even though death
is caused. Moreover, in Niranjan Singh V State of Madhya Pradesh4, the Court observed that
the term “endangers life” is much stronger than the expression “dangerous to life”.

The mere fact that a man has been in hospital for twenty days is not sufficient; it must be proved
that during that time he was unable to follow his ordinary pursuits.

A disability for twenty days constitutes grievous hurt; if it constitutes for a smaller period, then
the offence is hurt.

“Ordinary pursuits” means acts which are a daily routine in every human being’s day to day
life like eating food, taking bath, going to toilet, etc. Where there is no intention to cause neither
death nor knowledge that death is likely to be caused from the harm inflicted, and the death is
caused, the accused would be guilty of grievous hurt if the injury caused was of serious nature,
but not of culpable homicide.

A person is responsible for voluntarily causing grievous hurt only when he both causes
grievous hurt and intends or having knowledge of causing grievous hurt (Explanation of section
322). It is immaterial while causing one type of grievous hurt he actually causes grievous hurt
of another type.

3
1970 AIR 1969, 1970 SCR (2) 237
4
1972 AIR 2215, 1973 SCR (1) 691

8|Page
Chapter 7: Voluntarily Causing Grievous Hurt by Dangerous Weapons or
Means

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 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 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.

The essential ingredients to attract Section 326 are:

a) voluntarily causing a hurt;

Medical personnel / Forensic Specialist can opine whether the alleged weapon of offence is
“dangerous weapon or mean” or not. However, Court will finally decide whether the assailant
was armed with dangerous weapon or not, depending upon the circumstances of the case and
expert medical opinion.

In Prabhu V State of Madhya Pradesh5, the Court held that the expression "any instrument
which, used as a weapon of offence, is likely to cause death" has to be gauged taking note of
the heading of the Section. What would constitute a `dangerous weapon' would depend upon
the facts of each case and no generalization can be made. The intention of the accused is
gathered from the nature of the weapon used, the part of the body chosen for assault and other
attending circumstances. Sections 324 and 326 expression "dangerous weapon" is used. In
some other more serious offences, the expression used is "deadly weapon" (e.g. Sections 397
and 398). The facts involved in a particular case, depending upon various factors like size,
sharpness, would throw light on the question whether the weapon was a dangerous or deadly
weapon or not.

5
AIR 1991 SC 1069, 1991 CriLJ 1373, 1991 Supp (2) SCC 725

9|Page
In Aniyan Kunju and Others vs. State of Kerala 6, the Court held that Medical evidence is a
factor which has to be weighed along with other materials to see whether the prosecution
version is reliable, cogent and trustworthy. When the case of the prosecution is supported by
an eyewitness who is found to be truthful as well, mere non-explanation of the injuries on the
accused persons cannot be a foundation for discarding the prosecution version.

Conclusion

After observing and understanding the meaning and essentials of Hurt and Grievous Hurt these
are the difference which can be stated:

a) According to Section 319 of the Code, whoever causes bodily pain, disease or infirmity
to any person is said to cause hurt. As per Section 320 of the code, grievous hurt is
caused through specific nature of injuries, such as emasculation, loss of sight, loss of
hearing, loss of limb or joint, loss of use of any limb or joint, disfiguration of the head
or face, fracture or dislocation of a bone or tooth and dangerous to life etc.
b) Simple hurt does not endanger life while grievous hurt may cause danger to life.
c) Simple hurt is not serious while grievous hurt is serious in its nature.
d) Hurt is punishable when it is accompanied with other offences, such as voluntarily
causing hurt etc., whereas grievous hurt itself is a punishable offence.
e) Simple hurt is little more than frolic which a good-natured man would hardly resent but
the grievous hurt is that offence which approaches in enormity to murder.
f) Simple hurt gives bodily pain for short period but grievous hurt is a hurt which causes
to be in pain, disease or unable to pursue his ordinary avocations, during the space of
twenty days.
g) The punishment for voluntarily causing hurt prescribed by Section 323 is one-year
imprisonment or with fine of Rs. 1000/- or both whereas the punishment for voluntarily
causing grievous hurt prescribed in Section 325 is the imprisonment which may be
extended to seven years and also fine.

6
(2004)12 SCC 269

10 | P a g e
Bibliography

• G P Singh, editor. Ratanlal & Dhirajlal, 22nd Ed (2002)

• Kannan K, Mathiharan K, editors. Modi A textbook of Medical Jurisprudence and Toxicology.

• Pillay VV. Textbook of Forensic Medicine. 14th edition. Paras Medical Publisher: India; 2004.

• Pillai P.S.A. Criminal Law (13th Edition), Lexis Nexis, K. I. Vibhute, 2017.

11 | P a g e