HURT ( S.

319, 321, 323)

 Section 319 IPC defines Hurt as: “Whoever causes bodily pain, disease or infirmity to
any person is said to cause hurt”.
 The section does not define the offence of causing hurt. It defines only the term
hurt and does not describe the circumstances under which it may be caused.
 Bodily Pain: The pain must be physical as opposed to any mental pain. So,
emotionally hurting someone will not be hurt within the meaning of the section.
Where the direct result of an act is the causing of bodily pain it is hurt whatever
be the means employed to cause it. However, in order to come within this section,
it is not necessary that any visible injury should be caused to the victim. All that
the section contemplates is the causing of bodily pain.
 Disease: A communication of disease from one person to another by way of
contact would constitute hurt.
 Infirmity: Infirmity denotes unhealthy state of body or mind and a state of
temporary mental impairment or hysteria or terror. This infirmity may be as a
result of consumption of some poisonous, deleterious drug or alcohol. Infirmity
has been interpreted by courts to mean inability of an organ to perform its normal
function.

 Section 321, IPC defines voluntarily causing hurt as: “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".
 What constitutes a particular offence depends not only upon the nature of the act
done (actus reus) but also upon the nature of intention (mens rea) or knowledge
with which it is done. Section 319 described the nature of the actus reus, which
would constitute the offence of voluntarily causing hurt, punishable under section
323, and section 321 describes the mens rea necessary to constitute that offence.
 Thus, the essential component under this section is the intention to cause hurt or
the knowledge that the act is likely to cause hurt.

1
  Section 323, IPC prescribes punishment for voluntarily causing hurt as follows:
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.
 This section makes an exception only in cases of voluntarily causing hurt on
provocation under section 334 for which a much lighter punishment is provided
(imprisonment of one month and fine of five hundred rupees).
 Intention is the decisive factor under this section. For instance, if a person beats
another intending to do no more than cause him hurt and death ensues owing to an
undisclosed disease, the accused would be liable for hurt caused and not death
which was thereby occasioned.

HURT RESULTING IN DEATH

When there is no intention to cause death, or no knowledge that death is likely to be caused, and
death is caused, the accused would be guilty of ‘hurt’ only if the injuries are non serious in
nature.

1. In Beshor Bewa,
 The accused with a view to chastising her daughter aged about 8-10 years for
impertinence gave her a kick on the back and 2 slaps on the face, as a result of which she
died.
 Held that the accused was guilty of causing hurt.

2. In Randhir Singh,
 The accused caused the death of the person by throwing a piece of brick at him which
struck him in the region of spleen and ruptured it. The spleen was already diseased
(unknown to the accused).
 Since the accused did not have any intention to cause death or such bodily injury as was
likely to cause death, he was liable for causing hurt only.

2
3. In Marana Goudan,
 The accused demanded one anna from the deceased which the latter owed him. The
deceased promised to pay later. Thereafter, the accused kicked him twice on the
abdomen and the deceased collapsed and died.
 The accused was held guilty of causing hurt as it could not be said that he intended or
knew that kicking in the abdomen was likely to endanger his life.

4. In D. Ram v. State of Rajasthan,

 Where the accused inflicted a single lathi blow on the head of the deceased causing
simple injury, and the deceased died due to haemorrhage, the Rajasthan High Court
altered the conviction from section 302 to section 323, holding that the accused did not
have knowledge that a single blow of lathi could cause such injury as to result in death.

GRIEVOUS HURT (S. 320, 322,325)

 Section 320, IPC only designates following kinds of hurt 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.

3
  Cl 1 to 7 of S. 320 states the specific nature of injuries.
 The eighth clause is a general clause which covers all kinds of injuries which
endanger life or caused bodily pain or disrupted a person’s routine activity for 20
days or more. The test of grievousness is the sufferer’s inability to attend to his
ordinary pursuits for a period of twenty days. In case, where the effect of injury
does not last for twenty days, such a hurt cannot be designated as grievous. The
regard must be given to the nature and severity of the injury along with the
probability of disability which is likely to arise there from. The mere fact that a
person remained in hospital for a statutory period of twenty days or did not attend
his normal duty for the said period is not in itself sufficient to convict the accused
for causing grievous hurt. It must be proved that during that period victim was
unable to follow his ordinary pursuits.

 Section 322, IPC defines ‘voluntarily causing grievous hurt’ as : 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.

 In order to attract this provision, Court has to see that the accused intended to cause
hurt, or that he knew that grievous hurt is likely to be caused and that such grievous
hurt is actually caused.
 Even if a person intended to cause grievous hurt of one kind but ended up causing
grievous hurt of another kind, he would be guilty of voluntarily causing grievous hurt.
For instance, A, intending or knowing himself to be likely to permanently disfigure
Z’s face, gives Z a blow which does not permanently disfigures his face, but which
causes Z to suffer severe bodily pain for 20 days. A has voluntarily caused grievous
hurt.

4
  Section 325, IPC prescribes the punishment for voluntarily causing hurt as: 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.
 In Pandurang v. State of Hyderabad,
 The SC held that giving a blow on the head with an axe, which penetrates half an inch
into the head, is an act which is likely to endanger life and will be covered under cl (8) of
S.320.
 The accused was thus convicted under S.326 (voluntarily causing grievous hurt by
dangerous weapons or means).

GRIEVOUS HURT RESULTING IN DEATH

1. Government of Bombay v. Abdul Wahab,

 The court observed that the line between culpable homicide not amounting to murder and
grievous hurt is very thin. In one case the injuries must be such as are likely to cause
death and in other they endanger life.
 Thus hurt which ‘endangers life’ is lesser in degree than ‘injuries which are likely to
cause death’.

2. In re Guruvulu,
 It was held that where there is no intention to cause death or no knowledge that death is
likely to be caused, and death is caused, the accused would be guilty of grievous hurt
only if the injuries are serious in nature.
 In this case, the accused cut both the nostrils of the deceased, and took certain jewels. It
was held that accused did not have intention to cause death, his intention could only have
been to cause those injuries and there is no evidence to show that they were likely to
cause death or were so imminently dangerous that they must in all probability cause
death.
 The accused were convicted under S.325, IPC.

5
3. In Kure v. State,
 In the course of fight between two parties, in a public place, severe injuries were
inflicted and suffered by both sides. A girl of tender age, sitting by the side of her father,
received a severe blow on the head resulting in her death.
 The accused were held guilty of causing grievous hurt.

4. In E.K Chandrasenan v. State of Kerala,

 The accused supplied ‘arrak’ after mixing dangerous substance methyl alcohol in it.
Many deaths resulted and 24 persons lost their eye-sight permanently.
 It was held that considering the nature of substance mixed, it has to be concluded that
person responsible had knowledge that consumption of liquor distributed was likely to
cause very serious adverse effects. Thus, hurt was voluntarily caused. Further, the hurt in
question has to be regarded as grievous as it was covered under secondly of S. 320.
 The accused was sentenced under S. 326 to imprisonment for life.

ACID ATTACK(S. 326A & 326B)

 Sections 326A and 326B were inserted by the Criminal Law (Amendment) Act, 2013
keeping in mind the increasing number of cases related to acid attacks.
 Section 326A provides for Voluntarily causing grievous hurt by use of acid, etc.:
Whoever causes permanent or partial damage or deformity to, or burns or maims or
disfigures or disables, any part or parts of the body of a person or causes grievous hurt
by throwing acid on or by administering acid to that person, or by using any other means
with the intention of causing or with the knowledge that he is likely to cause such injury
or hurt, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which shall
not be less than ten years but which may extend to imprisonment for life, and with fine:
Provided that such fine shall be just and reasonable to meet the medical expenses of the
treatment of the victim; Provided further that any fine imposed under this section shall be
paid to the victim.

6
 Section 326B provides for Voluntarily throwing or attempting to throw acid:
Whoever throws or attempts to throw acid on any person or attempts to administer acid
to any person, or attempts to use any other means, with the intention of causing
permanent or partial damage or deformity or burns or maiming or disfigurement or
disability or grievous hurt to that person, shall be punished with imprisonment of either
description for a term which shall not be less than five years but which may extend to
seven years, and shall also be liable to fine.
Explanation 1 provides that for the purposes of section 326A and this section, "acid"
includes any substance which has acidic or corrosive character or burning nature, that is
capable of causing bodily injury leading to scars or disfigurement or temporary or
permanent disability.
Explanation 2 states that for the purposes of section 326A and this section, permanent or
partial damage or deformity shall not be required to be irreversible.
 The 226th Report of Law Commission of India recommended the Inclusion of Acid
Attacks as Specific Offences in the Indian Penal Code and a law for Compensation
for Victims of Crime.
 Earlier the acid attack cases have been registered under different sections of the
Indian Penal Code (IPC) particularly the sections relating to hurt, grievous hurt,
grievous hurt by corrosive substances and attempt to murder and murder.
 For instance, in Ram Charittar and Anr. etc. vs. State of Uttar Pradesh etc,
o The accused was the husband of the deceased, Sushila and wanted to kill
her and their daughters, to grab property as he was the immediate
beneficiary to her estate.
o He poured acid over her to kill her. She received extensive burn injuries
on large parts of their bodies including the face, chest, neck, etc. due to
which she died.
o According to the Doctor, the death was due to the corrosive acid burns and
shock.
o The High Court convicted the appellants under Section 302/34 IPC, and
sentenced them to life imprisonment. The appeal for their acquittal was

7
 dismissed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court and no compensation was
awarded to the victims.
 In most of the cases no compensation has been awarded. In those cases in which
compensation has been awarded the sum is minimal and is totally inadequate to meet
even the medical expenses. Normally courts just levy fines without even giving these
to the victims.

CASES:

1. Laxmi  v.  Union of India,

 In this landmark case, the SC directed all states to pay acid attack victims Rs. 3
lakh towards medical treatment and after care rehabilitation- Rs 1 lakh within 15
days of an incident and the balance within 2 months thereafter.
 The court noted that the amount of compensation paid in the form of fine is not
enough to ensure victim’s treatment and rehabilitation victims of acid attack need
to undergo a series of plastic surgeries and other corrective treatments.

2. Parivartan Kendra  Vs. Union of India, 

 In this case the PIL was filed for the plight of acid attack victims like free medical
care, rehabilitative service or adequate compensation under Survivor
Compensation Schemes.
 The court also took a consideration that despite orders and directions of the same
court in the Laxmi case, acid is still readily available to most of the population in
India.
 In this landmark judgment, Supreme Court issued a direction that the State
Governments/ UT should seriously discuss and take up the matter with all the
private hospitals in their respective State/ UT to the effect that the private
hospitals should not refuse treatment to victims of acid attack and that full
treatment should be provided to such victims including medicines, food, bedding
and reconstructive surgeries.

8
  The Apex Court said that there is no need to set up a separate Criminal Injuries
Compensation Board and the Court also clarified that the State Government/UT
concerned can give even more amount of compensation than Rs. 3Lakh.
 The Court also said that the State Government/ UT should take a stringent action
against those erring persons supplying acid without proper authorization and also
the concerned authorities be made responsible for failure to keep a check on the
distribution of the acid.
3. State  of Maharashtra v. Ankur Panwar (Preeti Rathi Case) 
 In the first such order in an acid attack in Maharashtra a special women’s Court
sentenced the accused to death.
 The accused was convicted of the charge of throwing acid on Preeti Rathi at
Bandra station in 2013 after she chose to pursue her nursing career, declining his
proposal for marriage.
 Special Court judge A.S. Shende, while sentencing him to death, held that acid
attack is more brutal than rape and remarked that ‘rape destroys the soul of the
victim. But she can be kept in isolation, without disclosing her identity, and be
rehabilitated. But for an acid attack victim, she has to move around with her
destroyed body’. The case was categorized as a ‘rarest of the rare’.
 Bangladesh is the only other country to award death sentence to acid attackers under the
Bangladesh’s Acid Crime Suppression Act.