PROJECT

Criminal Law
Griveous Hurt

SUBMITTED TO

Professor Sanjay Pandey

United World School of Law (UWSL),
Karnavati University
(Faculty-Criminal Law)

SUBMITTED BY

Name: - Fatin Tirmizi

Roll No: -16
Semester: -4
Section: -B

United World School of Law,

Karnavati University.
 CERTIFICATE OF DECLARATION
I hereby declare that the project work entitled “Griveous Hurt” submitted to united world school of
law, Gandhinagar, is record of an original work done by me under the able guidance of Prof.Sanjay
Pandey sir, Faculty Member, United world school of law.

Fatin Tirmizi
Roll No-16
Semester-2
Section-3
Batch-2018-2023
Date – 10/10/2019
 Acknowledgements

I would like to express my special thanks of gratitude to my teacher Prof.Sanjay Pandey sir who
gave me the golden opportunity to do this wonderful project on the topic “Griveous Hurt” , which
also helped me in doing a lot Research and I came to know about so many new things I am really
thankful to them.

Secondly I would also like to thank my parents, friends and seniors who helped me a lot and have
given me valuable suggestion pertaining to the topic and in completing this project within the
limited time frame.

Thanking Everyone
 Research Methodology

OBJECTIVE:
To know what is grievous hurt the statues and provision regardging it and difference between hurt
and grvieous hurt with the instruments

Hypothesis:
The provisions regarding grevious hurt and cases and instruments of grevious hurt

Research Question
What is grevious hurt?
Difference between hurt and grevious hurt?
Rational behind the sections?

Scope:
Research in the library with books and weblinks etc
Table of Contents
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS..................................................................................................................................... 3
INTRODUCTION................................................................................................................................................... 5
GRIEVOUS HURT................................................................................................................................................. 7
RATIONAL BEHIND THE SECTION................................................................................................................. 10
DIFFERENCE BETWEEN HURT AND GRIEVOUS HURT..............................................................................11
DIFFERENCE BETWEEN PUNISHMENTS FOR “HURT” AND “GRIEVOUS HURT”..................................12
ACID ATTACK..................................................................................................................................................... 14
LATEST DEVELOPMENT.................................................................................................................................. 16
REFERENCES:..................................................................................................................................................... 18
 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, more in particular, in the Courts of Judicial
Magistrate of First Class in India, 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 wards, 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”.

A reference to Vedas and Upanishads disclose that such indications are in abundance. They are in
the form of positive and negative injunctions, i.e Vidhis and Nishedhas. To quote a few:Tell the
truth; Never tell untruth; Never hurt anyone; Follow Dharma; Treat your mother and father as God;
and Perform only such acts which are not forbidden. There are several such Vidhis and Nishedhas.
All they formed the foundation of the Smriti Laws. Out of eighteen topics of law laid in Manu and
Yajnavalkya, the five topics which constituted the law of crime are 1. Vakaparushya (defamation),
2.Dandaparushya (assault), 3.Steya (theft), 4.Strisangrahana (Adultery and rape) and 5. Sahasa (all
the offences with violance including murder). To whom punishment in necessary in a hurt case?
Mit. on Yaj.II Ch.XIX referring to a few provisions of Narada lay down certain guiding principles
for award of punishment in the case of Dandaparushya. When an altercation has committed and the
both parties ae excited, he who restrains himself is respected and the one who proceeds to assault is
punished.

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.

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, inability to understand the language of law, difficulty in interpretation and
also when there are different opinions given about the same matter by different courts. So, it is
required that every medical officer should have sound knowledge about the concept of hurt and
grievous hurt. He should make necessary investigations and consult another expert in the field, if
required, before giving his final opinion.

Under the doctrine of stare decisis, a lower court must honor findings of law made by a higher court.
So it is always good for a medical professional to make their opinion on the basis of proper
knowledge, and judgments made by a higher court. Moreover, it is important that they should not
follow these judgments blindly, because these judgments are based on different facts and
circumstances.
 Grievous Hurt

Cases of severe hurt are classified under grievous hurt. The authors of the code observed that it would
be very difficult to draw a line between hurt and grievous hurt but it was important to draw a line even if
it is not perfect so as to punish the cases which are clearly more than hurt.
Section 320- Grievous Hurt- The following kinds of hurt 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 victim to be in severe bodily pain or
unable to follow his ordinary pursuits for a period of 20 days.
The section is explained in the following lines.
Firstly- ‘Emasculation’- the term ‘emasculation’ means the depriving a person of masculine vigor,
castration. Injury to the scrotum would render a man impotent. A person emasculating himself cannot be
convicted under this section. A person causing hurt to himself does not come within the purview of this
section.
Secondly- Losing eye sight-where as many as twenty four persons lost their eye-sight permanently in
consequence of arrack distributed by the accused after mixing methyl alcohol in it, the hurt has to be
regarded as grievous hurt because of what has been stated in the clause 2.
Thirdly- It deprives a man of his sense of hearing. Injury to the tympanum or auditory nerve or by
thrusting something into the ear which causes deafness.
Fourthly- The term ‘member’ means an organ or a limb being part of man capable of performing a
distinct function. It includes, nose, mouth, hands, feet, phalanges etc.
Fifthly- The use of limbs and joints of body are essential to the discharge of the normal functions of the
body. Their deprivation causes lifelong crippling and makes the person defenseless and miserable.
Sixthly- The word ‘disfigure’ means to cause some external injuries which detracts from his personal
appearance but does not weaken him. In Gangaram v. State of Rajasthan 1 the bridge of the nose was

1
1984 Cr LJ 180 NOC (Raj)
cut, as the injury was inflicted by a sharp – edged weapon, it was held that the act amounted to
permanent disfiguration within the meaning of this clause and hence the injury was grievous.
Seventhly- It is not necessary that a bone should be cut through and, the cut should be up to the medulla.
If there is a break by cutting or splintering of the bone or there is a rupture or fissure in it, it would
amount to a fracture but the doctor must document the dimensions of fracture and duration/age
correlation with age of injury. Dislocation means displacement. Mere looseness of teeth will not amount
to dislocation. It has to be proved that the tooth was originally not loose and that there was fracture or
dislocation by the injury. In Horilal2, the Supreme Court held that ordinary fracture means breaking of a
bone. A mere abrasion or cut that does not go across the bone cannot be called a fracture of the bone3
Eighthly- Any hurt which endangers life or which causes the victim to be in severe bodily pain or
unable to follow his ordinary pursuits for a period of 20 days. A wound may cause intense pain,
prolonged disease or long lasting body injury but does not fall under any of the seven clauses. A body
injury/beating may not mutilate the sufferer or fracture his bones but may be so harsh and painful may
cause even death. The eighth clause provides for such hurts. Under this, three different clauses of hurt
are included. These are:
 Any hurt which endangers life.
 Any hurt which causes the victim to be in severe bodily pain for a period of 20

days.
 Any hurt which prevents the victim from following his ordinary pursuits for a

period of 20 days.
In Muhammad Rafi’s4 case, the accused, a mocha (cobbler) aged about 20 years who inflicted an injury
on the neck of the deceased with a penknife from behind, was convicted by the Session’s Court under
section 304(2) IPC for culpable homicide to murder. The tragedy took place as a result of a quarrel
between the two boys over a loan of sum of fifteen paisa. The deceased was taken to the hospital and
died fifteen days later as a result of septic poisoning from the wound.
Allowing the appeal partially, the Lahore High Court held the accused liable under section 322, IPC for
causing death by grievous hurt as against culpable homicide not amounting to murder as the
circumstances did not justify a time a wound on the neck is dangerous to life within the meaning of
clause 8 of section 320, IPC.

2
Horilal v. State of Uttar Pradesh, A.I.R. 1970 SC 1969
3
Parma, A.I.R. 1956, Raj 39.
4
AIR 1930 Lah. 305
In Mohindar Singh v. Emperor5, the accused on 22nd August, 1922 inflicted a wound on Sarwan
singh’s leg with a gandasa (a sharp – edged weapon) and gave him blows with the back of the gandasa.
Tetanus set in on 31st August, 1922 which caused his death. Held, a wound in the leg was not in itself
sufficiently dangerous to bring the case within the meaning of grievous hurt when death due to tetanus
which supervened and resulted in the death of deceased.

5
AIR 1925 Lah. 297.
 Rational behind the section

The authors of the code observe: “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 between with perfect accuracy is
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 natures man would hardly recent, should be classed together.
Some hurts which are not, like those kinds of hurt which are mentioned in condition 1 to 7,
distinguished by a broad and obvious line from slight hurts, may nevertheless be most serious. A
wound, for example, which neither emasculates the sufferer, nor blinds him, nor destroys his hearing,
nor deprives him of a member or a joint, nor breaks his bones, nor dislocate them, may yet cause intense
pain, prolonged disease, lasting injury to constitution. It is evidently desirable that law should make a
distinction between such a wound, mad scratch which he headed by just sticking plaster. A beating,
again, which does not maim the sufferer or break his bones may be so cruel as to bring him to point of
death. Such a beating, it is clear, ought not to be confounded with a bruise, which requires only to be
bathed with vinegar, and of which the traces disappear in a day.”
Scope- Like in Section 319, this section is also in the nature of definite clause. Section 319 defines hurt,
whereas section 320 defines ‘grievous hurt’.
To make out the offence of voluntarily causing grievous hurt, there must be some specific hurt,
voluntarily inflicted, and coming within the eight kinds enumerated in this section. When a person
forcibly thrust lathi into the rectum of another person and causes serious injuries, he was held guilty of
causing grievous hurt. Injuries inflicted with the help of burning firewood cannot be considered as
grievous hurt as they do not come within the specific items of the injuries mentioned in the definition of
grievous hurt; nor do they endanger life.
 Difference between hurt and grievous hurt

Section 321- Voluntarily causing hurt – 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".
Section 322- Voluntarily causing grievous hurt – Whoever voluntarily causes hurt, if the hurt which
he intends to cause or knows himself to be likely to cause is grievous hurt, and if the hurt which he
causes is grievous hurt, is said "voluntarily to cause grievous hurt".
Explanation-A person is not said voluntarily to cause grievous hurt except when he both causes
grievous hurt and intends or knows himself to be likely to cause grievous hurt. But he is said
voluntarily to cause grievous hurt, if intending or knowing himself to be likely to cause grievous
hurt of one kind, he actually causes grievous hurt of another kind.
Illustration- A, intending or knowing himself to be likely permanently to disfigure Z’s face, gives Z
a below which does not permanently disfigure Z’s face, but which cause Z to suffer severe bodily
pain for the space of twenty days. A has voluntarily caused grievous hurt.
The provisions of this section are very precise and incapable of misconstruction. A magistrate
dealing with charges of voluntarily causing grievous hurt must consider and decide not only whether
grievous hurt has been caused but if it has been caused voluntarily or himself knew to be likely to
cause grievous hurt. If he intended or knew himself to be likely to cause only simple hurt, he cannot
be convicted under section 325. Section 321 and the explanation to section 322 make it clear that
either the ingredient of intention or that of knowledge, must be essentially present in order to
constitute the offence of hurt. Such a knowledge cab be inferred from the part of body chosen for
inflicting violence and the severity of that violence as shown by the injuries on the body of the
victim. The means by which the injury was cause is not the true criterion. The answer really depends
on the nature of the injury caused and the manner in which the blows were administered, whether by
fists and slaps or by a weapon
 Difference between punishments for “hurt” and “grievous hurt”

Section 323- Punishment for voluntarily causing hurt –

“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.”When the injury is not serious and there was no
intention to cause death or grievous hurt, nor did the accused have knowledge that it was likely to cause
grievous hurt or death, he is guilty of causing hurt and not death, even though death is caused. Where
the accused was one of the persons who assaulted the deceased with a stick but there was no proof that
the fatal blow or grievous injury was caused by him, it was held, that the accused could only be
convicted under section 323.6 Where evidence gave no clue as to on which part of the body of deceased
the accused has struck and prosecution also could not establish that the death of deceased was caused by
striking on some vital body, the accused could only be convicted under section 323.
Section 324- Voluntarily causing hurt by dangerous weapons or means- Whoever, except in the case
provided by section 334, voluntarily causes 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
poison or any corrosive substance, or by means of any explosive substance which it is deleterious to the
human body to inhale, to swallow, or to receive into the blood, or by means of any animal, shall be
punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to three years, or with
fine, or with both. Section 325- Punishment for voluntarily causing grievous hurt – 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. The prosecution may prove: That the accused caused of any kind described in section 320. That
the accused intended, or knew that he was likely, to cause grievous hurt of any kind described; That the
accused did so voluntarily. Where there is no evidence to indicate as to which of the accused persons
actually caused grievous hurt none of them could be convicted under section 325. It may be presumed
that each of them intended to cause grievous hurt but such a presumption alone is not sufficient to
establish the offence of causing grievous hurt unless it is further shown that the accused actually caused
grievous hurt. The prosecution does not have to prove hurt under s.319 in order to prove grievous hurt

6
Babu Bika Jadhav 1996 Cri LJ 3952 (Bom)
under s.320 as they have to prove homicide under s.299 and then move on to s.300 in order to prove
murder. Section 320 has very clearly laid down hurt to be classified as grievous hurt and the eighthly
clause is the only one in which some interpretation and misuse is possible. The only catch in this section
is the intention part. Although intention can be inferred from the way in which the injury was caused,
but it takes a little more for the prosecution to prove grievous hurt because the defense would always
like to bring the injury from s.320 to s.319 because the punishment and fine imposed is much less. An
illustration in this respect can be that if a person slaps another person and he falls down, hitting his head
on the ground which results in his death. This is only a case of simple hurt as the person had only
slapped and in ordinary course of things it would not lead to death. Now let us consider another case, a
boxer ‘punches’ a person in his stomach twice. The person falls down, head hits the ground and he dies.
In this case it is very clearly evident from the circumstances that the intention was to cause to grievous
hurt as he was a ‘boxer’ and he ‘punched’ twice. It can safely inferred that the boxer ‘knew’ if not
‘intended’ that if he ‘punches’ a person twice in his stomach, it will cause grievous hurt if not death.
Although there is a huge fundamental difference between the offence of hurt and grievous hurt, but in
practice, they are not that minutely followed in practical application. Going by the language of the
section 319, there is no clear cut definition of hurt whereas on the contrary section 320 has defined
which categories of hurt fall under grievous hurt. The 'Grievous Hurt' is also the ground for divorce
under the Act, however, nowhere, it states what it means. Whereas, the term cruelty, as understood, as
of now, means physical injury, however, the Parsi Act, separately and independently enumerates this
ground in the list of ground of divorce. The term 'Grievous Hurt' is peculiar to Criminal Law. The
Indian Penal Code in Section 320 lies down thus: For matrimonial purpose, the eighth clause would be
more in use than the other clauses. It only means that life is in immediate danger and doctors describe it
danger to life. Although the medical evidence may be more reliable but is not legally necessary. The
apex Court has held that cutting or splintering of the bone or a rupture or Fissure in it, would amount to
"fracture" within the meaning of Clause 7 of Section 320 of IPC.
The Parsi Act prescribes the period of limitation of two years. The period of limitation begins under the
Act:
1. After infliction of the grievous hurt.
2. After the knowledge of suffering of the venereal disease of the other spouse.
 Acid Attack

It is most shocking and distressing to see that in-spite of incidents of acid attacks mounting very high in
our country, adequate punishment is not meted out to the offenders and in most cases they escape
unpunished or with very minor punishment. This is just not done. Section 326 of IPC which covers
grievous hurt caused by throwing of corrosive substance etc. is just not adequate to deal with cases of
acid throwing. It contains glaring infirmities and time is ripe now to remove such infirmities and make it
more stringent.
226th report of Law Commission titled “The Inclusion of Acid Attacks as Specific Offences in the IPC
and a law for Compensation for Victims of Crime” very categorically points out that Section 326 of IPC
is just insufficient/inadequate to deal with it.
Firstly, the definition of grievous hurt is not broad enough to cover the various kinds of injuries which
are inflicted during acid attacks. Secondly, the section does not cover the act of administering acid.
Thirdly, the section gives a wide discretion to the courts as far as punishment is concerned. The cases on
acid attacks in India show that normally inadequate punishment is awarded in these cases.
Fourthly, the section in the IPC does not punish the intentional act of throwing of acid if no injuries
occur. Lastly, the section also does not specify who the fine should be awarded to. All these glaring
anomalies and infirmities must be addressed properly so that no offender is able to escape unpunished
by taking undue advantage of them.
I also very strongly feel that 226th report of Law Commission very rightly recommends that a new
section 326A be added to the IPC. The proposed Section 326A will read as follows: “Whoever 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 administering acid to that person, with the intention of causing or with the
knowledge that he is likely to cause such injury or hurt shall be punishable with imprisonment of either
description which shall not be less than 10 years but which may extend to life and with fine which may
extend to Rs 10 Lakhs.
Provided that any fine levied under this section shall be given to the person on whom acid has been
thrown or administered. Also, it is a cognizable , non–bailable and non–compoundable and triable by
court of session.
Further, Section 326 A (ii) provides that, “Whoever throws acid on or administers acid to, any person
with the intention of causing burns or maiming or disfiguring or disabling or causing grievous hurt to
that person shall be liable to imprisonment of either description for a term not less than 5 years but
which may extend to 10 years and with fine which may extend to Rs 5 Lakh.
The classification of offence is same as mentioned in Section 326 (i). Apart from all this, it was also
proposed that in cases of acid attacks a presumption be incorporated in the Indian Evidence Act as
Section 114B. Section 114B dealing with presumption as to acid attack reads: “If a person has thrown
acid on, or administered acid to, another person the court shall presume that such an act has been done
with the intention of causing, or with the knowledge that such an act is likely to cause such hurt or
injury as is mentioned in Section 326A of the IPC.”
Acid when thrown on face can severely damage the eyes, ears, mouth and nose apart from lips and
eyelids. Also, when the acid splashes or drips over any organ of the body, it burns everything which
comes in its ambit. Breathing problems or failure in extreme cases is another potential hazards which
the victims of acid attacks have to grapple with.
It can cause permanent or temporary disfigurements with either chin becoming welded to the chest or
mouth no longer opening or eyelids no longer closing which itself speaks volumes of the serious gravity
of the crime and must never go unpunished or even lightly punished because it spoils the entire life of
the person on whom it is thrown and who prior to the attack was leading a normal life. No provocation,
no matter how strong it may be, can ever even remotely be allowed to be justified under any
circumstances, come what may!
The victims die daily and suffer from not only psychological symptoms like weakness, insomnia,
depression, fear of another similar attack but also face discrimination as no one wants to employ them
nor their own relatives are happy to be at their constant services. Of course, exceptions are there but
they are few and far between.
There goes a well known old adage: “Prevention is better than cure.’’ This resoundingly applies to acid
attacks also which even the Law Commission realized and therefore in its 226th report recommended
that the distribution and sale of acid be strictly regulated and the sale of acid across shop counters be
banned which most unfortunately has not been the case till now.
Infact, it is a child’s play to obtain acid from across the counter in medical and other stores and
therefore it has become a relatively cheap and effective way of committing acts of violence against
women.
This is exactly what is most concerning and it would not be proper to downplay it because acid attack
incidents on especially innocent, hapless women or girls have witnessed an astronomical increase in the
last few years.
 Latest Development

Insertion of new section 326A- throwing or using of acid in any form on the body of another person-
notwithstanding contained in s.324 or 326 of the code, whoever does any act of throwing acid or using
acid in any form on the other person with the intention of or with the knowledge that he is likely to
cause such person permanent or partial damage or deformity disfiguration or disability to any part of the
body of such person shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which shall
not be less than 10 years but which may extend to life and shall also be liable to fine which shall be
minimum of Rs. 2 lakhs and may extend to Rs. 5 lakhs.
The offence shall be cognizable, non-bailable and non-compoundable.
Justification: Although the offences relating to acid throwing is covered under s.320 and 326 of the IPC
but keeping in view the extreme heinous nature of the act and the fact that under s. 326 the offence can
be punished with imprisonment for life or with imprisonment of either description for a term which may
extend to 10 years, it is proposed in the bill that atleast the minimum punishment be not less than 10
years and extend to life imprisonment.
References:

Basu’s INDIAN PENAL CODE, 10th ed., Ashok Law House, New Delhi.
Dr. Hari Singh Gour, PENAL LAW OF INDIA, 11th ed., Vol. 3, Law Publishers India Pvt. Ltd.
K.D. Gaur, CRIMINAL LAW: CASES AND MATERIALS, 6th ed., Lexis Nexis Butterworths.
K.I. Vibhute, P.S.A. Pillai’s CRIMINAL LAW, 10th ed., Lexis Nexis Butterworths.