Voluntarily causing hurt
Section 115 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 deals with 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”. The Act came into force on 01 Jul 2024.
(1) 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”.
(2) Whoever, except in the case provided for by sub-section (1) of section 122 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 ten thousand rupees, or with both.
Section 115, The Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 (Act 45 of 2023).
Replaces a provision of the Indian Penal Code
IPC 321 Voluntarily causing hurt Text carried over almost unchanged 90%
Measured by comparing the text of the two provisions, not taken from an official correspondence table — there is no machine-readable one. See both texts side by side before relying on it.
Both regimes are live. The repealed enactment still governs what happened while it was in force. We never redirect one to the other.
Cross-references
Extracted from the operative text of the enactments themselves. Every destination below exists in our corpus.
This section refers to
How this offence is classified
From the First Schedule to the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, which classifies every offence under the Sanhita. Cognizable means a police officer may arrest without warrant; bailable means bail is a matter of right rather than of the court's discretion.
| Offence | Punishment | Cognizable | Bailable | Triable by |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Voluntarily causing hurt. | Imprisonment for 1 year or fine of 10,000 rupees, or both. | Non-cognizable. | Bailable. | Any Magistrate. |
Related judgements & precedents
These are some judgments that construed this section, and hold precedence value. They hold authority on how to read, interpret and use this section.
-
Badrinarayana Jaganathan vs The State of Karnataka
Decided under Indian Penal Code 321, which this section replaces. The court did not have this Act before it.
Court's Decision & Legal Precedent
Criminal proceedings initiated on allegations that fail to disclose prima facie ingredients of the offences charged, where the underlying dispute is fundamentally civil in nature (employment termination), and where procedural irregularities and discrepancies suggest deliberate misclassification of the matter to transform a civil dispute into criminal proceedings for purposes of coercion or settlement, constitute an abuse of legal process and travesty of justice warranting quashing of the chargesheet and proceedings under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973. The essential ingredients of criminal offences must be strictly established: Section 323 requires voluntary act of causing actual hurt; Sections 504 and 509 require specific intentional insult with contextual details and intent to provoke or shock sense of decency; Section 506 requires threat with intent to cause alarm, not mere assertion of consequences of lawful termination. Mere allegations without substantiation of these ingredients do not justify continuation of criminal proceedings.
On this section: Definition of voluntarily causing hurt - read conjointly with Sections 319 and 323 to establish essential ingredients
-
Commissioner of Police vs Shiv Singh
Decided under Indian Penal Code 323, which this section replaces. The court did not have this Act before it.
Court's Decision & Legal Precedent
Acquittal or discharge in criminal proceedings does not per se entitle a candidate to consideration for public service appointment, particularly in police recruitment. The Screening Committee has discretion to assess suitability based on the nature of charges, circumstances of the case, and whether acquittal resulted from serious flaws in prosecution or hostile witnesses. Judicial review of such decisions is limited to grounds of mala fides, illegality, or mindlessness; courts cannot conduct intensive factual scrutiny or second-guess the suitability determination made by the designated public employer authority.
On this section: Voluntarily causing hurt; charged against multiple candidates; not listed as moral turpitude offence
-
Pravat Chandra Mohanty vs The State of Odisha
Decided under Indian Penal Code 323, which this section replaces. The court did not have this Act before it.
Court's Decision & Legal Precedent
When police officers abuse their position of authority and commit custodial violence resulting in death, such offense is a matter of grave public concern affecting entire society and cannot be compounded merely on agreement of parties. The Court must exercise discretion based on public interest and nature of offense. Even when refusing to compound non-compoundable offense, Court can consider settlement between parties for purpose of reducing sentence. Wooden lathi and batten are weapons capable of causing death depending on manner of use. Custodial violence by police requires proportionately stringent punishment to have effective deterrent effect and instill confidence in criminal justice system.
On this section: Voluntarily causing hurt. Applied to convict appellants for injuries caused to deceased.
-
Pratap Kumar Choudhury vs The State of Odisha
Decided under Indian Penal Code 323, which this section replaces. The court did not have this Act before it.
Court's Decision & Legal Precedent
When public servants, particularly police officers whose primary duty is to protect law and order, abuse their official position and commit acts of brutality resulting in death, such offences cannot be compounded even with the agreement of the victim's family and the settlement of compensation, as they constitute violations of fundamental rights under Article 21 of the Constitution and are matters of grave public concern affecting the entire society. The punishment for such violations must be proportionately stringent to have effective deterrent effect and instill confidence in the criminal justice system. However, the fact of settlement and compensation between parties can be considered as a relevant circumstance for determining the quantum of sentence even when compounding is refused.
On this section: Voluntarily causing hurt - applied as alternative conviction for causing simple injuries
-
Selvamani vs The State Rep. by the Inspector of Police
Decided under Indian Penal Code 323, which this section replaces. The court did not have this Act before it.
Court's Decision & Legal Precedent
When a victim of gang rape and her family members retract their testimony during cross-examination due to long trial delays and possible witness intimidation, their evidence cannot be rejected in toto. Instead, the court must carefully scrutinize the evidence and accept those parts which are dependable and consistent with corroborating evidence such as the FIR, medical examination findings, and statements recorded under Section 164 CrPC. If such corroborating evidence establishes that forcible sexual intercourse occurred, the conviction can be sustained despite the victim's retraction, provided the medical evidence clearly shows injuries consistent with gang rape.
On this section: Defines voluntarily causing hurt. Mentioned in the FIR as one of the offences but not the primary focus of the conviction.
-
Parshuram vs State Of M.P.
Decided under Indian Penal Code 323, which this section replaces. The court did not have this Act before it.
Court's Decision & Legal Precedent
When members of an unlawful assembly are convicted under Section 302 read with Section 149 IPC, the prosecution must prove beyond reasonable doubt that the common object of the unlawful assembly was to cause death. If the evidence does not clearly establish this common object, and if the prosecution fails to explain injuries sustained by the accused persons (which creates reasonable doubt about the prosecution's version), the conviction should be reduced to culpable homicide not amounting to murder under Section 304 Part-II IPC. The benefit of doubt must be given to the accused in such circumstances.
On this section: Punishment for voluntarily causing hurt - Applied to some of the accused for causing injuries
-
Sasikala Pushpa vs The State of Tamil Nadu Rep. by the Inspector of Police
Decided under Indian Penal Code 323, which this section replaces. The court did not have this Act before it.
Court's Decision & Legal Precedent
A clerical error or incorrect statement regarding date and place in a procedural document like a vakalatnama, where the party admits to the genuine signatures and provides a plausible explanation for the error, does not constitute forgery or fraud upon the court warranting criminal prosecution under Sections 193, 466, 468, and 471 IPC. Fraud requires mens rea (criminal intention) to deceive and cause wrongful gain or loss. Before exercising jurisdiction under Section 340 Cr.P.C. to direct a criminal complaint, the court must be satisfied that it is 'expedient in the interest of justice' by weighing the effect on administration of justice, not merely the injury to a person. A mere incorrect statement in a procedural document that has no bearing on the merits of the case and causes no demonstrable harm to the administration of justice does not justify criminal prosecution.
On this section: Voluntarily causing hurt; cited in original sexual harassment case
-
Brijendra Singh vs State of Rajasthan
Decided under Indian Penal Code 323, which this section replaces. The court did not have this Act before it.
Court's Decision & Legal Precedent
The power conferred by Section 319 Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 on courts to summon persons not arraigned as accused to face trial is discretionary and extraordinary in nature. This power must be exercised sparingly and only in those cases where circumstances warrant. A much stricter degree of satisfaction than the prima facie case standard (applicable at cognizance or charge-framing) is required. The court must be satisfied that strong and cogent evidence has occurred against the person from the evidence led before the court indicating that such person may be guilty of committing the offence for which such person could be tried together with already arraigned accused. Mere probability of complicity or weak oral testimony that has already been rejected during investigation is insufficient to invoke this extraordinary power. The trial court and High Court must carefully examine all material on record, including investigative findings, before invoking Section 319 powers, and the exercise of this power in casual or cavalier manner without such scrutiny cannot withstand judicial review.
On this section: Voluntarily causing hurt and criminal trespass; charges framed against appellants
-
Fazar Ali vs State of Assam
Decided under Indian Penal Code 323, which this section replaces. The court did not have this Act before it.
Court's Decision & Legal Precedent
In criminal cases involving group violence with multiple accused armed with different weapons causing injuries and death, (1) minor inconsistencies and contradictions between eyewitness statements recorded under Section 161 CrPC and their court testimony do not materially undermine the credibility of core identification and presence of the accused at the scene; (2) it is unreasonable to expect a 'picture-perfect' account of the manner in which each accused inflicted specific injuries; (3) all members of an unlawful assembly are liable for criminal acts committed in furtherance of the common object of the assembly; (4) the mention of 'And Others' in an FIR coupled with subsequent investigation constitutes valid procedure for charge-sheeting additional accused not specifically named; and (5) conviction can be sustained based on eyewitness testimony despite minor contradictions when the core facts of identification, presence, participation, and causation of injury remain consistent and credible.
On this section: Voluntarily Causing Hurt - Applied to convict certain accused (Sattar, Rafiqul, Akkash Ali, Fakaruddin, Nuruddin) for six months imprisonment for injuries caused to the victims.
-
Abdul Waheed vs State of U. P
Decided under Indian Penal Code 323, which this section replaces. The court did not have this Act before it.
Court's Decision & Legal Precedent
When a firearm is used to inflict an injury, the person using the gun must be presumed to have knowledge and intention that such an injury is sufficient to cause death in the ordinary course of nature, and therefore the offence constitutes murder under Section 302 IPC, regardless of the specific anatomical location of the gunshot wound (whether a vital organ or a limb). This is distinguishable from cases involving stabbing with knives or daggers where an ordinary person might not be presumed to know the precise location of arteries in human limbs.
On this section: Applied to convict all eight accused persons under Sections 323/149 IPC for causing hurt to members of the complainant party.
-
State of M. P vs Bablu
Decided under Indian Penal Code 323, which this section replaces. The court did not have this Act before it.
Court's Decision & Legal Precedent
In cases involving assault or criminal force with intent to outrage the modesty of women, sentencing must be proportionate to the gravity of the offense and calibrated to achieve the dual objectives of deterrence and proportionality. The mere fact that an accused is a first-time offender or has undergone prolonged legal proceedings does not justify reduction of a proportionate sentence to merely time already served, as such leniency would undermine public confidence in the justice system and create incentive for repetition of such crimes. Courts must balance individual circumstances with the paramount duty to protect society and reflect societal abhorrence of crimes against women.
On this section: Punishment for voluntarily causing hurt; accused was convicted under this section in addition to Section 354
-
State of Rajasthan vs Shvi Charan
Decided under Indian Penal Code 323, which this section replaces. The court did not have this Act before it.
Court's Decision & Legal Precedent
For conviction under Section 149 IPC (Constructive Liability), the prosecution must establish: (I) An assembly of five or more persons; (II) The assembly was unlawful with a common object; and (III) The common object consisted of one or more of the illegal objects specified in Section 141 IPC. Common object need not be formed prior to the incident but can be formed on the spur of the moment. Once such unlawful assembly with common object is proven, all members can be held vicariously liable for any offence committed by any member in prosecution of such common object, without requiring each member to commit an overt act. However, mere presence or association is insufficient; there must be evidence that each member intended to or knew of the likelihood of commission of the offence. Additionally, where injuries sustained by the accused are minor in nature, non-explanation of such injuries by the prosecution cannot be the sole basis to reject clear, cogent and creditworthy prosecution evidence.
On this section: Simple hurt; charge that High Court improperly reduced conviction to, from Section 302 with Section 149
-
Hazara Singh vs Raj Kumar
Decided under Indian Penal Code 323, which this section replaces. The court did not have this Act before it.
Court's Decision & Legal Precedent
In determining appropriate sentence for offences under Section 307 IPC (Attempt to Murder), courts must apply the principle of proportionality between the crime and punishment. Trial pendency and potential social enmity between parties cannot be valid grounds for reducing sentences, as such considerations would undermine the deterrent effect of criminal law, undermine public confidence in the justice system, and ignore society's collective cry for justice. The nature, gravity, and manner of commission of the offence, including the nature of weapons used, injuries inflicted, and factual circumstances, must be paramount considerations. High Court's appellate power to alter sentences must be exercised based on sound judicial principles and cannot be used to impose meager sentences based on irrelevant or untenable grounds.
On this section: Voluntarily causing hurt - applied for simple hurt caused to the injured persons
-
Harpreet Kaur vs Jagtesh Singh
Decided under Indian Penal Code 323, which this section replaces. The court did not have this Act before it.
Court's Decision & Legal Precedent
When multiple related proceedings arising from the same matrimonial dispute are pending in different courts, and one party seeks consolidation of these proceedings in a single court for judicial efficiency and to prevent conflicting orders, the court may exercise its discretionary authority to transfer the case to the court where other related proceedings are pending, particularly when the respondent does not oppose the transfer and the circumstances of the case (such as the applicant's financial dependence and custody of a minor child) warrant such consolidation.
On this section: Criminal complaint filed by the applicant against the respondent under these sections is pending in courts at Jagraon. The existence of these criminal proceedings was considered as a mitigating circumstance for granting the transfer.
-
Amarjeet Singh Kapoor vs The State of Punjab
Decided under Indian Penal Code 323, which this section replaces. The court did not have this Act before it.
Court's Decision & Legal Precedent
In criminal cases where an accused is willing to cooperate with investigation, custodial interrogation is not automatically required merely because the offences are serious. Courts must assess whether custodial interrogation is genuinely necessary for the investigation or whether the investigative objectives can be achieved through the accused's voluntary cooperation, conditional bail, and periodic visits to the Police Station. Anticipatory bail can be granted with conditions ensuring cooperation and availability, balancing the investigative powers of the State with the personal liberty of the accused during the investigation phase.
On this section: Voluntarily causing hurt - offence for which petitioner was accused
-
Suchet Singh vs Union Territory Of Jammu And Kashmir
Decided under Indian Penal Code 323, which this section replaces. The court did not have this Act before it.
Court's Decision & Legal Precedent
An FIR cannot be quashed under Section 482 Cr.P.C. merely because it follows a civil or criminal proceeding. Each case must be evaluated on its specific facts and circumstances. The determination of whether an FIR is a counterblast often involves disputed questions of fact which cannot be resolved by the High Court in exercise of its inherent jurisdiction under Section 482 Cr.P.C., and such determination should be left to the wisdom of the trial court. When allegations in an FIR prima facie disclose the commission of cognizable offences, the High Court cannot embark upon an enquiry as to the genuineness or otherwise of the allegations, and criminal proceedings cannot be terminated at the initial stage by the High Court under Section 482 Cr.P.C.
On this section: Offence of voluntarily causing hurt; cited as one of the offences in the impugned FIR
The holding above is the ratio decidendi as extracted from the judgment by eCourts India, reproduced unaltered — it is a rendering of the court's reasoning, not a substitute for its words. Read the order itself before relying on it.
Questions about Section 115
What have the courts held on Section 115 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita?
Badrinarayana Jaganathan vs The State of Karnataka (24 Jan 2025) is the leading judgment on this section among those set out below, though it was decided under IPC 321, which this section replaced -- the court never mentioned this Act: Definition of voluntarily causing hurt - read conjointly with Sections 319 and 323 to establish essential ingredients. Another 15 judgments on this section are set out below, 14 of them from the Supreme Court. They run from 2013 to 2025.
Is Section 115 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita bailable?
Bailable, under the First Schedule to the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023.
Is Section 115 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita cognizable?
Non-cognizable. "Cognizable" means a police officer may arrest without warrant; "non-cognizable" that they may not. An offence under this section is triable by Any Magistrate.
How do I find court cases under Section 115 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita?
In judgments and charge sheets this section is written several ways, and each form finds a different set of orders. These search the full text of every order eCourtsIndia holds, best matches first: BNS 115, section 115 BNS, section 115 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita. People searching for it also type bns 115(2) and bns 115 in ipc. Each opens the full list of orders on eCourtsIndia, where it can be narrowed by court, year and outcome. 16 reported judgments on this section are set out on this page, beginning with Badrinarayana Jaganathan vs The State of Karnataka (24 Jan 2025).
What should I read with Section 115 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, and has it changed?
Its own text turns on section 122 (Voluntarily causing hurt or grievous hurt on provocation), so none of them can safely be read on its own. It carries forward IPC 321 (Voluntarily causing hurt), so the judgments decided under that provision are the case law on this one.
When did Section 115 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita come into force?
Section 115 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, commonly called hurt, and cited as BNS 115, came into force on 01 Jul 2024, having been enacted on 25 Dec 2023. It is in force as at the date shown on this page.
Other sections of this Act
- 2. Definitions2199 words
- 356. Defamation1543 words
- 335. Making a false document1318 words
- 101. Murder1177 words
- 303. Theft1104 words
- 3. General explanations858 words
Source and method. Compiled from the enactments of Parliament and of the State legislatures as published on India Code, and republished together with commentary and other original matter under section 52(1)(q)(ii) of the Copyright Act, 1957. Structured, cross-referenced and maintained by eCourtsIndia. Text as in force on 14 Oct 2026. This page is not a substitute for legal advice.