Hurt (Section 319): This section does not define the offence of causing hurt. It defines only the term ‘hurt’. Whoever causes bodily pain, disease or infirmity to any person is said to cause hurt.

When is a Person said to have Caused Hurt Voluntarily?

In according to section 323 of the Indian Penal Code, anyone who engages in conduct knowing that it may result in injury to another person is guilty of voluntarily causing harm, with the exception of situations covered by section 334 (voluntarily causing harm on provocation). Let’s use an illustration to better recognize this.

In one instance, the man fatally struck his wife with an iron rod weighing around 200 grams while they were having a heated fight. According to the medical data, the victim had a straightforward injury that was not capable of ending his or her life. Due to the fact that the accused did not intend to kill the victim but rather to intentionally harm him or her, the accused was only held accountable in this case for intentionally inflicting bodily harm.

In a case where the accused pushed a person’s chest, causing them to fall to the ground and die, the court determined that the accused did not intend to kill the victim and only found him liable under section 323 of the IPC for intentionally inflicting harm.

Thus, “intention to cause harm” and “knowledge that the act is likely to cause harm” are the two prerequisites for section 321 of the IPC. According to the Indian Penal Code, a person cannot be charged with intentionally inflicting harm if they did not have the necessary information and/or intent when they committed the conduct.

To constitute hurt (battery under English Law) any of the
following essentials needs to be caused:-

1. Bodily pain, or
2. Disease, or
3. Infirmity to another.

1. Bodily Pain
   There need not be any direct physical touch in order to damage someone. Whatever the means used to generate it, it hurts when an act’s immediate effect is the infliction of bodily pain. It is physical pain, not mental suffering, that defines hurt. 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 AIR 1941 Mad 560 Dragging a person by hair or fisting him falls under this section.

In the State vs Ramesh Dass on 22 May 2015 in a hospital, passing through the corridor, in the new surgical block location, an unknown public individual came from the front and attacked the woman. That individual pulled her hair and threw her to the ground. He hit her on her head together with his hand. Accused was convicted for the offences under Section 341 and 323 of the IPC and acquitted for the offence under Section 354 of the IPC.

2. Disease
A person would be guilty of injury if they spread a specific ailment to another. The Bombay High Court held in Raka v. Emperor 1887 ILR 11 Bom 59 that a prostitute who had a sexual relationship with the complainant and thus transmitted syphilis was liable under section 269 of the IPC for spreading infection and not for causing harm because the time between the act and the disease was too long to be covered by sections 319 and 321 of the IPC. In Raka vs. Emperor, the accused was a prostitute and she inflicted syphilis to her customers. It was held that accused, the prostitute was liable under Section 269 of IPC- negligent act likely to spread infection of any disease dangerous to the life of another person.

3. Infirmity denotes an unsound or unhealthy state of the body.

It refers to an organ’s temporary or permanent incapacity to carry out its typical function. It indicates frenzy, fright, or a momentary mental impairment.Brahmanand Sarupananda v. Jashanmal Jhamatmal (AIR 1944 Sind 19)
harm resulting in Death: The accused will only be found guilty of “hurt” if the injuries were not significant in nature and there was no intent to cause death or knowledge that death was likely to be caused.AIR 1941 Mad 560, In re Marana Goundan

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.

Is IPC 323 bailable or not?

Hence, IPC 323 states the prescribed punishment which leads to imprisonment for 1 year or with the fine depending upon nature and gravity of the offence committed. The act also states that offence committed is a Non-cognizable and bailable offence, which is triable by any Magistrate.

When Hurt is Caused Voluntarily using Dangerous Weapons or Means

Unless specifically exempted by Section 334, anyone who intentionally injures another person by using a weapon that can be used to shoot, cut, or otherwise cause death, by using fire or a heated substance, by using a poison or corrosive substance, by using an explosive substance, by inhaling, ingesting, or otherwise exposing themselves to a substance that is harmful to human health, is guilty of a misdemeanor..

Punishment: 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.

Voluntarily Causing Hurt using Acid

According to Indian Penal Code Section 326A, “Whoever makes changeless or halfway harm or distortion, or consumes, or mutilates, or distorts, or cripples, any part or parts of the body of an individual, or causes offensive hurt by tossing corrosive on or by regulating corrosive to that individual, or by using some other methods with the expectation of causing or with the knowledge that he is probably going to cause such hurt, will be reb.

“According to Section 326B of Indian Penal Code,” Whoever tosses or endeavors to toss corrosive on any individual or endeavors to control corrosive to any individual, or endeavors to utilize some other methods, with the aim of causing lasting or fractional harm or deformation or distortion or inability or grievous hurt to that individual, will be rebuffed with detainment of either depiction for a term which will not be under five years yet which may reach out to seven years, and will likewise be subject to fine.”

Section 357B of Code of Criminal Procedure 1973 sets down, ” The remuneration payable by the State Government under Section 357A will be notwithstanding the payment of fine to the unfortunate casualty under Section 326A or Section 376D of IPC. Section 357C of Code of Criminal Procedure 1973 sets out, “All emergency clinics, public or private, regardless of whether run by the Central Government, nearby bodies or some other individual, will quickly give the emergency treatment or therapeutic treatment, free of cost, to the casualties of any offense secured under Section 326A, 376, 376A, 376C, 376D or 376E of IPC and will promptly educate the police about such an incident.

Recently included seventh provision of Section 100 of the IPC sets out that the privilege of private barrier of body stretches out to deliberately causing death or of some other damage to the attacker in the event of a demonstration of tossing or managing corrosive or an endeavour to toss or regulate corrosive which may sensibly cause the dread that terrible hurt will generally be the result of such act. For the first time remuneration was given to corrosive unfortunate casualty on account of Laxmi v UOI. In Morepally Venkatasree Nagesh v State of AP, the accused was suspicious about the character for his significant other and emptied mercuric chloride into her vagina, she later kicked the bucket because of renal disappointment. The accused was charged under Section 302 and 307 of the IPC. In the State of Karnataka by Jalahalli Police Station v Joseph Rodrigues, one of the most popular cases including corrosive assault. The accused tossed corrosive on a young lady named Hasina for declining his employment bid. Because of the corrosive assault, the shading and presence of her face changed which left her visually impaired. The accused was convicted under Section 307 for IPC and condemned to detainment forever (life imprisonment). Remuneration of Rs 2,00,000 notwithstanding Trial Court fine of Rs 3,00,000 was to be paid by the accused to the guardians for the victim. The above-mentioned cases are obvious of the brutal repercussions looked by the unfortunate casualties because of the corrosive assaults. The administration is still in the quest for stringent measures.

When Hurt is Caused Voluntarily due to Sudden Provocation

As stated above, voluntarily causing hurt is a punishable crime under section 323 of the Indian Penal Code. However, if hurt is voluntarily caused due to grave and sudden provocation as provided for under section 334 of the Indian Penal Code, the offender will be legally responsible under section 334 and not under section 323 of the Indian Penal Code and will be liable to be punished with imprisonment of one month along with fine of Rs. 500.

What is the Punishment under Section 323?

When a person commits an offence of voluntarily causing hurt as mentioned under section 321 of IPC, he will be liable to be punished for a term up to 1 year and fine which may extend up to Rs. 1000. The extent of punishment under this section will depend upon the seriousness of the offence.

What is the Trial Procedure in a Section 323 case?

The trial procedure for a case instituted under Section 323 of IPC is similar to that of any other criminal case. The procedure is as follows:

1. First Information Report: A FIR, or First Information Report, is filed in accordance with Section 154 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. The case is started with a FIR. A FIR is information about an offense that has been committed that has been provided to the police by someone who is upset.

2. Investigation: The investigating officer’s probe comes after the FIR has been filed. The investigating officer draws a conclusion after carefully examining the relevant facts and circumstances, gathering relevant evidence, questioning witnesses, obtaining written statements from them, and taking all other steps required to wrap up the investigation. This conclusion is then submitted as a police report to the magistrate.

3. Charges: If the offender is not exonerated after taking into account the police report and other crucial documents, the court sets the charges to be used in his trial. The charges in a warrant case ought to be put in writing.

4. Plea of guilty: Following the formulation of the charges, the accused is given the chance to enter a plea of guilty, and it is the judge’s job to ensure that the plea of guilt was entered voluntarily. This is covered in Section 241 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973. The judge has the discretion to find the accused guilty..

5. Prosecution evidence: The court orders the prosecution to present evidence to support the accused’s guilt after the charges are filed and the defendant enters a not guilty plea. The prosecution must provide statements from its witnesses to back up its evidence. “Examination in chief” is the name of this procedure. Any person may be summoned as a witness or required to present any document by the magistrate.

6. Statement of the accused: Section 313 of the Criminal Procedure Code gives an opportunity to the accused to be heard and explain the facts and circumstances of the case. The statements of accused are not recorded under oath and can be used against him in the trial.

7. Defence evidence: The accused is given the chance to appear in court if he is not being exonerated in order to provide evidence in support of his defense. Both oral and written evidence may be offered by the defense. Since the burden of proof in India rests with the prosecution, the defense is typically not required to provide any defense evidence..

8. Judgment: Judgment is the final ruling of the court that includes the grounds for the accused’s acquittal or conviction. The prosecution is granted time to file an appeal against the court’s decision in the event that the accused is exonerated. After the defendant has been found guilty, both parties are invited to present their cases regarding the appropriate sentence. This typically occurs after a conviction for a crime carrying a life sentence or the death penalty..