Hurt, grievous

wrongful restraint,
wrongful confinement
Only 4 Months
Remaining!
Law Entrance Exam 2021
 Kriti Bhatnagar

● B.A LLB, NLIU Bhopal (2019)

● LLM, GNLU Gujarat (2020)
● Cleared UGC NET (2020)
● CLAT - All India Rank 339
Vast Syllabus vs Limited Time
5+ Subjects
Board Exams
20+ Books
Limited Time
New Pattern
Exclusive CLAT Batches
The Unacademy Advantage
 Subscribe Now
and Get 10%
Extra Off!
Apply Code:
KRITIB

KRITIB
Hurt – section 319

Hurt as: “whoever reasons bodily pain, disorder

or disease to any man or woman is said to have
caused harm.”

To constitute any one or more of essentials of

simple hurt must be present:
• Bodily Pain
• Infirmity to another
• Disease
BODILY PAIN

● The expression ‘physical pain’ means that the pain must

be physical instead of any mental pain. So mentally or
emotionally hurting anyone will no longer be ‘harm’ inside
the meaning of Section 319.
● In the absence of an intention to cause death, or grievous
bodily hurt, where a person died as a result of two kicks
on the abdomen, the accused was held guilty of causing
hurt only. [In re Marana Goundan]
● Dragging a person by hair or fisting him falls under this
section.
Disease

● A person communicating a particular disease to

another would be guilty of hurt. In Raka v.
Emperor, the Bombay High Court held a prostitute
who had sexual connection with the complainant
and thereby communicated syphilis, liable under
section 269, IPC, for spreading of infection and not
of causing hurt, because the interval between the act
and disease was too remote to attract sections 319
and 321, IPC.
Infirmity

It means the inability of an organ to perform its normal

function which may either be temporary or permanent. It
denotes a temporary mental impairment, hysteria or terror.

Hurt resulting in Death: Where there is no intention to cause

death, or no knowledge that death is likely to be caused, and
death is caused, the accused will be guilty of ‘hurt’ only if the
injuries are not serious in nature.
Grievous Hurt (Section 320)

● The code on the basis of the gravity of the physical

assault has classified hurt into simple and grievous so that
the accused might be awarded punishment commensurate
to his guilt.
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.
Grievous Hurt

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.
Emasculation and eyesight and deafness
● The first type of grievous hurt is depriving a person of his
virility. This clause is confined to men. 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.
● The test of gravity is the permanency of the injury caused to
one eye or both eyes.
● It may be with respect to one ear or both ears. To attract this
clause the deafness caused must be permanent.
● Loss of Limb or Joint
The expression used in is section is deprivation of any member, section or join,
crippling a man with life-long misery. The term member is used to mean
nothing more than an organ or a limb.
● Impairing of Limb
Disabling is distinguishable from disfiguring as discussed in the sixth clause.
To disfigure means to cause some external injury which detracts from a
person’s personal experience. It may not weaken him. On the other hand, to
disable means to do something creating a permanent disability and not a mere
temporary injury.
● Permanent disfiguring of Head or Face
● In Gangaram v. State of Rajasthan[5], where the bridge of the nose was 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.
Grievous Hurt
Fracture or dislocation of a bone or a teeth - 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 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.

Dangerous hurt - The hurt which causes severe bodily pain for
the period of twenty days means that a person must be unable to
follow his ordinary pursuits.
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 blow which does not
permanently disfigure Z’s face, but which causes Z to
suffer severe bodily pain for the space of twenty days. A
has voluntarily caused grievous hurt.
Questions

● The complainant filed a complaint against the opponent,

alleging that the latter confronted the complainant’s wife at
about 10.30 pm by uttering a piercing shout and pointing a
pistol towards her. The complainant’s wife collapsed from
nervous shock and was seriously ill for some time after
the episode. Meanwhile, the opponent had run off after
frightening her. The first class magistrate, Karachi, came
to the conclusion that no offence had been committed and
no hurt had been caused to her as defined in section 319
of IPC, 1860.
Questions
On 15 April 1969 at about 10 am, PW 9 purchased from Venkatesh
a gold ring for Rs 25 and showed it to the second appellant to
ascertain whether it was genuine gold. On examination it was found
that the ring was a fake one, and so it was returned. The appellants
decided to punish Venkatesh for selling a fake ring. They got hold
of him when he was returning from his shop at about 3.30 pm and
they beat and kicked him. The first appellant beat Venkatesh on the
back of the neck with a broken tile. Due to the injuries caused, he
fell down on the ground and began to vomit blood and he ultimately
died. On medical examination, it was found that the deceased had
died due to traumatic shock due to head injuries, which could be
caused either due to fall or the beating.
Question

● The victim, who was the ex-partner of the defendant,

went to visit him at his home. She went up to his
bedroom where he was asleep. He woke up pushed
her down on the bed and cut some of her hair,
without her consent, with a pair of kitchen scissors.
Wrongful Restraint
339. Wrongful restraint.—Whoever voluntarily obstructs
any person so as to prevent that person from proceeding
in any direction in which that person has a right to
proceed, is said wrongfully to restrain that person.

Exception.—The obstruction of a private way over land

or water which a person in good faith believes himself to
have a lawful right to obstruct, is not an offence within
the meaning of this section. Illustration A obstructs a path
along which Z has a right to pass, A not believing in good
faith that he has a right to stop the path. Z is thereby
prevented from passing. A wrongfully restrains Z.
Wrongful Restraint

● To establish the offence of wrongful restraint the

complainant must prove all the following
essential:
1. That there was an obstruction;
2. That the obstruction prevented the complainant
from proceeding in any direction;
3. That the person/complainant so proceeding
must have a right to proceed in the direction
concerned.
Madala Perayya vs. Varugunti Chendrayya

The facts were that, the accused and the

complainant jointly owner a well and so
both of them were entitled to use the
water for agricultural purposes. The
accused stopped the complainant from
using the water and also stopped the
bullocks of the complainant from moving.
Shoba Rani vs The king

● The landlord was accused of

preventing his tenant who was the
tenant from using the bathroom.
Souri vs State of Orissa

The accused was a veterinary surgeon who did not

receive payments for several months. When his
superior officer visited the office and started back
to go, the accused stood in front of the jeep and
raised protest for non-payment of his salary.
However, after his protest, he had given the way
to jeep.
Wrongful Confinement

● According to Section 340 of the Indian Penal

Code;
● “Whoever wrongfully restrains any person in
such a manner as to prevent that person from
proceeding beyond certain circumscribing limits
is said to have committed the offence of
wrongful confinement.”
Wrongful Confinement

1. Radhika causes Anamika to go within a walled

space and locks Anamika in. Anamika is thus
prevented from proceeding in any direction
beyond the circumscribing line of the walls and
so Radhika has wrongfully confined Anamika.
2. Rahul places men with firearms at the outlets
of a building and tells Veer that they will fire at
him if he attempts to leave the building. Here,
Rahul has wrongfully confined Veer.
Wrongful Confinement
It was discussed by the court that “For a charge of
wrongful confinement, proof of actual physical
restriction is not essential. It is sufficient if the
evidence shows that such an impression was
produced in the mind of the victim, a reasonable
apprehension in his mind that he was not free to
depart. If the impression creates that the
complainant would be forthwith seized or restrained
if he attempts to escape, a reasonable apprehension
of the use of the force rather than its actual use is
sufficient and important.”
Wrongful Confinement

The complainant was detained in the police

station when this was brought to court, the
accused claimed that complainant was at liberty
to go away from the police station at any time.
SAMEERLIVE
KRITIB