सं Samvidhan

Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023

Section 117

Voluntarily causing grievous hurt

Why this exists

This provision continues the long-standing distinction in Indian criminal law between simple hurt and 'grievous' hurt, which involves more serious consequences like fractures, loss of a limb, or disfigurement. Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita retained and updated the older Indian Penal Code approach (Section 322 and related provisions) while adding modern concerns: harsher punishment for injuries causing permanent disability or vegetative states (reflecting medical realities and disability rights), and a new provision targeting group/mob violence motivated by identity, responding to real-world incidents of communal or caste-based mob attacks where establishing individual blows is often difficult.

How courts read it

Under the predecessor provision in the Indian Penal Code, courts consistently held that the accused's intention or knowledge must specifically relate to causing grievous hurt, not merely any hurt — simple assault causing minor injury did not qualify even if a serious injury coincidentally resulted, unless the mental element matched the seriousness of the harm. Courts also clarified that if the accused intended one kind of grievous hurt (e.g., disfigurement) but caused another kind (e.g., prolonged severe pain), the offence was still made out, as reflected in the Explanation and illustration retained in this section. As this section is new, its provisions on permanent disability and group-based mob violence have not yet been tested extensively by higher courts.

Common misconceptions
  • Myth: Any injury that happens to be serious counts as 'grievous hurt' under this section, even if the attacker only meant to scare or push someone.
    Fact: The law requires that the attacker specifically intended or knew their act was likely to cause serious injury — not just any hurt. Accidental seriousness without that mental state doesn't meet this definition (though other provisions may apply).
  • Myth: If someone intended a different type of serious injury than what actually happened, they escape liability under this section.
    Fact: The Explanation makes clear that intending one kind of grievous hurt but causing another kind still counts as voluntarily causing grievous hurt.
  • Myth: Only the person who physically struck the victim can be punished in a mob attack.
    Fact: Under sub-section (4), every member of a group of five or more acting together on discriminatory grounds can be individually punished, regardless of who delivered the actual blow.