This Article is written by Srimallya Samaddar, A student of Brainware university, Barasat, West Bengal and the article explains about the provisions of Grievous hurt under Bhartiya Nyay Sanhita (BNS).
Introduction
The Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS) of 2023, which replaced the Indian penal code, of 1860. It provides legal framework including causing grievous hurt it is defined under section 116 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita refers to severe bodily injuries that result in permanent damage, disfigurement, or pose a threat to life.
What is grievous hurt?
Grievous Hurt is certain serious injuries that cause long-term or permanent harm to the body.
Types of Injuries
- Emasculation – Permanent loss of male reproductive capability
- Permanent deprivation of hearing – Loss of hearing in either ear
- Permanent deprivation of sight – Loss of vision in either eye
- Fracture or dislocation of a bone or tooth – Breaking or misalignment of bones or teeth
- Permanent disfigurement of the head or face- Injuries causing lasting facial or cranial scars or deformities
- Destruction or permanent impairment of limb or joint functions – Severe damage leading to lasting dysfunction
- Loss of limb or joint- Removal or incapacitation of any body part or joint
- Life-endangering injuries – Harm that poses a threat to life or causes the victim to endure severe bodily pain or inability to perform regular activities for a period of fifteen days
Essentials of grievous hurt
- Injury- Grievous hurt can include broken bones, severe burns, disfigurement, loss of an organ, or permanent impairment of a joint or limb
- Pain- Grievous hurt can include pain that prevents the victim from doing their normal activities for at least 20 days
- Intent- Grievous hurt can be caused voluntarily, meaning the person intentionally caused the hurt
- Weapon- Grievous hurt can be caused by weapons like guns, knives, or other instruments that are likely to cause death
Exceptions to grievous hurt
The primary exception to causing grievous hurt is when the act is done to prevent death or grievous hurt to oneself or another, meaning if someone inflicts grievous hurt to defend themselves or someone else from imminent serious harm, it may not be considered a criminal offense under the “voluntary causing grievous hurt” section (Section 117) of the BNS this is considered a defense based on the principle of self-defense or defense of others.
- Intention and knowledge – A person is only considered to have “voluntarily caused grievous hurt” if they intended to cause grievous hurt or knew that their actions were likely to cause grievous hurt.
- Provocation – Section 122 of the BNS deals with causing hurt or grievous hurt on provocation, which can be a mitigating factor in certain situations where the accused was provoked by another person’s actions.
- Medical treatment – Acts done in good faith to prevent death or cure a grievous disease or infirmity are also considered exceptions to causing grievous hurt.
Provisions and penalties of grievous hurt under BNS
Section 117 – The penalties for voluntarily causing grievous hurt for offenders may face imprisonment of either description rigorous or simple for a term extending upto seven years, along with a fine. The exact duration of imprisonment and the amount of fine are determined based on the specifies of offence and judicial discretion.
Section 117(4) – The BNS addresses grievous hurt caused by groups stipulates that if a group of five or more persons acting in concern causes grievous hurt to an individual based on factors race, caste, community, sex, place of birth, language, personal belief, or any similar grounds. Each of the group is considered guilty of the offence. The punishment for this offence includes imprisonment of either description for a term that may extend to seven years, along with a fine.
Section 122 – If an individual acting under such provocation, voluntarily causes grievous hurt without intending or knowing it to be likely to harm anyone other than the person who provoked then, the punishment may extend to imprisonment of either description for upto five years or fine upto ten thousand rupees or both.
Section 124 – It specifically addresses offences related to acid attacks. Prepetrators who cause permanent damage or attempt to do so through acid attacks may face imprisonment for a term that can extend to life. In less severe cases, the imprisonment term may range five to seven years, accompanied by a fine.
Provocation as a mitigating factor
BNS addresses situations where grievous hurt is inflicted due to grave and sudden provocation:
Voluntarily Causing Hurt on Provocation: Section 122(1) states that if an individual causes hurt on receiving grave and sudden provocation, without intending or knowing it to be likely to cause hurt to anyone other than the person who provoked, the punishment may extend to one month of imprisonment, a fine up to five thousand rupees, or both.
Voluntarily Causing Grievous Hurt on Provocation: Section 122(2) indicates that if grievous hurt is caused under similar circumstances, the offender may face imprisonment for up to five years, a fine up to ten thousand rupees, or both.
Types of punishments –
1. Imprisonment ( rigorous or simple ) :- According to the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 (BNS), imprisonment refers to the confinement of a person as a punishment for an offense. The BNS provides for two types of imprisonment:
2. Rigorous Imprisonment – Where the offender is required to perform hard labor during the period of confinement.
3. Simple Imprisonment – Where the offender is confined without being subjected to hard labor.
4. Fine
A fine is a monetary penalty imposed as punishment for a legal or regulatory violation. It serves as a deterrent to prevent undesirable behavior, such as breaking the law or failing to follow specific rules. The amount of a fine varies depending on the severity of the offense and the applicable laws or regulations. Fines are commonly used in cases involving traffic violations, environmental infractions, or other minor offenses, and they are typically intended to encourage compliance without resorting to imprisonment.
What is the difference between grievous hurt and grievous injury-
The terms “grievous hurt” and “grievous injury” are often used specific distinctions in some legal systems, particularly in India. Grievous hurt generally refers to physical harm caused to a person that significantly impacts their health or well-being, and it is a broader term. It may include injuries such as loss of a limb, permanent disfigurement, or any injury that causes severe bodily harm.
Grievous injury, on the other hand, is a more specific term referring to particular types of severe physical injuries that are defined by law, such as fractures, deep wounds, or injuries that impair the functioning of any part of the body. Both terms denote serious harm, but “grievous injury” tends to be more specific to the extent and nature of the damage caused.
Landmark case laws for grievous hurt –
1. A.G Bhagwat v. U.T chandigarh ( 2014 )
The case involved the issue of whether the property owned by the appellant (A.G. Bhagwat) in Chandigarh was subject to the rules governing unauthorized occupation of land in Chandigarh under the provisions of the Chandigarh Leasehold Properties (Special Provisions) Act, 2000. The appellant was a lessee of land in Chandigarh, and the land was allotted to him for the purpose of constructing a house.
The appellant constructed a building on the land, but the building did not conform to the layout plan approved by the Chandigarh Administration. As a result, the authorities took action against the appellant, accusing him of violating the terms of the lease and the regulations. The appellant challenged the action of the authorities, stating that they were acting in violation of the rights under the lease agreement.
The Punjab and Haryana High Court examined the relevant legal provisions, including the Chandigarh Leasehold Properties (Special Provisions) Act, 2000. The court considered the nature of the lease agreement, the violations committed by the appellant, and the powers of the Chandigarh Administration to take corrective actions.
The court held that the appellant was in violation of the terms of the lease, particularly with respect to the construction not adhering to the approved layout plan. The court observed that the authorities had the right to take action under the provisions of the Chandigarh Leasehold Properties Act, including the right to evict unauthorized occupants.
The appellant’s argument that the actions of the authorities violated his constitutional rights was also rejected by the court. The court stated that the authorities were merely acting within the framework of the law to ensure the proper use of land and compliance with the lease agreements.The court ultimately upheld the actions of the Chandigarh Administration and dismissed the appeal filed by the appellant.
2. Maqbool v. State of U.P ( 2018 )
Maqbool, the accused, was involved in a fight with the deceased. During this fight, Maqbool, allegedly acting in self-defense, ended up killing the deceased. The incident occurred in the heat of the moment, with the accused claiming that he was provoked by the deceased, who had assaulted him earlier. The primary issue before the court was whether the act was done in self-defense or if it was a case of culpable homicide, which would lead to a conviction of murder under Section 302 of the IPC.
The Supreme Court held that the accused, Maqbool, was guilty of culpable homicide not amounting to murder under Section 304 of the IPC, rather than murder under Section 302. The court concluded that while the act was not premeditated or malicious, it involved excessive force, and the intent was not to cause death but to inflict harm.The punishment for culpable homicide not amounting to murder is less severe than for murder. Maqbool was sentenced accordingly.
3. Jagga Singh v. State of Punjab ( 2011 )
Jagga Singh was convicted for the murder of his wife, Harjit Kaur. The incident took place in the state of Punjab, and Jagga Singh allegedly killed his wife after a dispute.The prosecution’s case was based on the circumstantial evidence, which was established through testimonies of the witnesses and physical evidence found at the crime scene.According to the prosecution, Jagga Singh had an argument with his wife, and this led to her death.The body was found with signs of injury, leading the police to investigate and charge Jagga Singh.
The Punjab and Haryana High Court upheld the conviction of Jagga Singh under Section 302 IPC, and the death sentence was also confirmed. The court emphasized that the circumstantial evidence was strong and led to no other reasonable conclusion but the guilt of the accused.
4.Puran Singh and ors V. State of Punjab ( 1975 )
This case pertains to a criminal appeal heard by the Supreme Court of India. The appellants in the case were accused of committing the murder of a person named Puran Singh in a village in Punjab. The trial court had convicted the appellants under sections related to murder and sentenced them to life imprisonment, but they appealed the judgment before the Supreme Court.
The incident occurred in the year 1967 when Puran Singh was allegedly murdered by the accused. The prosecution’s case relied on eyewitness testimony and circumstantial evidence According to the prosecution, Puran Singh was attacked by the accused and was found dead after being inflicted with multiple injuries.
The case has been significant in shaping the legal approach to evaluating eyewitness testimony and circumstantial evidence in criminal law. It reinforced the principle that each case must be examined carefully, with full attention to both the evidence and the defense’s arguments. The case also contributed to the understanding of how courts should approach appeals against conviction based on the sufficiency and credibility of evidence.
5.Gopal v. State of M.P ( 2011 )
The accused, Gopal, was charged under Section 302 for the murder of his wife. The prosecution claimed that Gopal killed his wife by causing her to fall from the roof of their house. The incident occurred when a quarrel took place between the couple. The accused allegedly pushed his wife from the roof, resulting in her death.The prosecution’s case was based on the circumstantial evidence and the testimonies of witnesses. The defense, on the other hand, argued that the death was accidental and not the result of a homicidal act. They contended that there was no direct evidence proving Gopal’s guilt beyond a reasonable doubt.
The Supreme Court, In its judgment, observed that the case was primarily based on circumstantial evidence. The court noted that circumstantial evidence could be used to convict an accused, provided it is cogent, consistent, and points toward the guilt of the accused beyond a reasonable doubt.
The court held that the prosecution had failed to establish a clear motive for the crime and that the circumstantial evidence was not sufficient to convict the accused under Section 302 for murder. The evidence presented was deemed insufficient to prove that the death was caused by a deliberate act of the accused. Therefore, the Supreme Court acquitted Gopal of the charges under Section 302 and allowed the appeal.
Conclusion
The Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita aims to provide clarity and fairness in dealing with offenses like grievous hurt. By defining and imposing clear penalties, it seeks to ensure that victims are adequately protected, while also ensuring a balanced approach to justice. As the legislation moves through the legislative process, its provisions for grievous hurt may be fine-tuned, ensuring they meet the needs of justice in contemporary society.
References
- The Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 ( Bare act )
- https://blog.ipleaders.in
- https://devgan.in
- https://www.writinglaw.in
- https://www.advocatekhoj.com
- https://en.wikipedia.org
- https://www.legalguidancehub.com
- https://lawrato.com
- https://prsindia.org
- https://www.myjudix.com
One thought on “Grievous hurt under BNS – Easy Explanation”