Voluntarily causing grievous hurt
Section 117 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 deals with 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”. The Act came into force on 01 Jul 2024.
(1) 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 of 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 fifteen days. A has voluntarily caused grievous hurt.
(2) Whoever, except in the case provided for by sub-section (2) of section 122, 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.
(3) Whoever commits an offence under sub-section (1) and in the course of such commission causes any hurt to a person which causes that person to be in permanent disability or in persistent vegetative state, shall be punished with rigorous imprisonment for a term which shall not be less than ten years but which may extend to imprisonment for life, which shall mean imprisonment for the remainder of that person’s natural life.
(4) When a group of five or more persons acting in concert, causes grievous hurt to a person on the ground of his race, caste or community, sex, place of birth, language, personal belief or any other similar ground, each member of such group shall be guilty of the offence of causing grievous hurt, and shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to seven years, and shall also be liable to fine.
Section 117, The Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 (Act 45 of 2023).
Replaces a provision of the Indian Penal Code
IPC 322 Voluntarily causing grievous hurt Text carried over almost unchanged 95%
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
Referred to by 4
- Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (Draft stage of translated version) s. 245
- Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam, 2023 (Draft stage of the translated version) s. 108
- Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita s. 245 When offence proved included in offence charged
- Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam s. 108 Burden of proving that case of accused comes within exceptions
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. This section is classified 3 ways.
| Offence | Punishment | Cognizable | Bailable | Triable by |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Voluntarily causing grievous hurt. | Imprisonment for 7 years and fine. | Cognizable. | Bailable. | Any Magistrate. |
| If hurt to results in permanent disability or persistent vegetative state. | Rigorous imprisonment for not less than 10 years but which may extend to imprisonment for life which shall mean the remainder of that person's natural life. | Cognizable. | Non-bailable. | Court of Session. |
| Grievous hurt caused by a group of 5 or more persons. | Imprisonment for 7 years and fine. | Cognizable. | Non-bailable. | Court of Session. |
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.
-
Mathai v. State of Kerala
Decided under Indian Penal Code 325, which this section replaces. The court did not have this Act before it.
Court's Decision & Legal Precedent
IPC s.320 defines the only kinds of hurt designated as grievous; a conviction for voluntarily causing grievous hurt requires that one of the s.320 clauses be strictly proved. Tooth fracture is grievous hurt under s.320 seventhly. Whether a stone is a ‘dangerous weapon’ under s.326 depends on size and facts — here it was not — so conviction is altered to s.325, but the s.320 grievous-hurt finding stands.
On this section: Successor of IPC 325 (mapping.csv near-identical, score 0.8855). Ordinary grievous-hurt punishment carries to BNS 117.
-
Commissioner of Police vs Shiv Singh
Decided under Indian Penal Code 325, 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 grievous hurt; listed in Annexure A as offence affecting human body
-
Vidhya Rattan vs The State of Haryana Home Department Chief Secretary
Decided under Indian Penal Code 325, which this section replaces. The court did not have this Act before it.
Court's Decision & Legal Precedent
For the application of Section 149 IPC, it is not necessary to explicitly invoke Section 141 IPC in the charge sheet. What is essential is that the ingredients of unlawful assembly as defined in Section 141 IPC must be proven. An unlawful assembly requires: (i) an assembly of at least five persons, and (ii) a common object to commit an offence or achieve any of the objects enumerated in Section 141. The common object is to be gathered from the circumstances of each case such as time, place, and conduct of the gathering. Once the existence of an unlawful assembly with a common object is proven, all members of that assembly are vicariously liable under Section 149 IPC for offences committed in prosecution of that common object, regardless of whether each member inflicted a specific injury or even any injury at all. Mere presence in the unlawful assembly with knowledge of the common object is sufficient for vicarious liability.
On this section: Provides punishment for voluntarily causing hurt. Appellants were convicted under this section and sentenced to 3 years RI with fine of Rs. 200 each.
-
Fazar Ali vs State of Assam
Decided under Indian Penal Code 325, 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 Grievous Hurt - Applied in the cross-case against Samsuddin and his sons, which resulted in acquittal after finding insufficient evidence.
-
In Re: vs Indian Woman Says Gang-raped on Orders
Decided under Indian Penal Code 325, which this section replaces. The court did not have this Act before it.
Court's Decision & Legal Precedent
The State has a constitutional duty under Article 21 of the Constitution to protect the fundamental rights of its citizens, including the freedom of choice in marriage and protection from sexual violence. When the State fails to prevent grave violations of these fundamental rights such as gang rape, the State is duty bound to provide substantial monetary compensation to the victim for rehabilitation and must implement systemic reforms including police vigilance, mandatory victim protection procedures under the Criminal Procedure Code, and long-term victim rehabilitation. Panchayats and village councils have no legal authority to order, authorize, or participate in violence or sexual assault, and such acts constitute unlawful assemblies and barbaric crimes deserving harsh punishment. The investigating agency must comply with mandatory procedural requirements including recording rape FIRs and victim statements exclusively by women police officers, invoking all applicable criminal sections, obtaining and certifying all evidence properly, and investigating larger conspiracies if any.
On this section: Court noted this offence had not been invoked despite physical injuries to victim; recommended inclusion in charge sheet
-
Hazara Singh vs Raj Kumar
Decided under Indian Penal Code 325, 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 grievous hurt - applied to all accused for injuries caused to the three victims
-
Senthil & Etc vs State Rep. Insp. of Police
Decided under Indian Penal Code 325, which this section replaces. The court did not have this Act before it.
Court's Decision & Legal Precedent
When an assault is committed with blunt weapons (or blunt side of weapons that could have been used sharply), and the deceased dies after a time lapse, and medical evidence shows injuries consistent with blunt weapon use, the criminal act amounts to culpable homicide not amounting to murder under Section 304 Part-I IPC read with Section 34 IPC, not murder under Section 302 IPC, because such facts indicate that the accused had knowledge that their act would cause death but did not have the specific intention to cause death. The distinction between intention to cause death (Section 302) and knowledge of likelihood of death (Section 304 Part-I) is crucial; use of blunt instead of sharp weapons, when both were available, evidences lack of intention to cause death.
On this section: Voluntarily causing grievous hurt; original charge against some accused
-
Gulam Rasul vs Siri Kishan
Decided under Indian Penal Code 325, which this section replaces. The court did not have this Act before it.
Court's Decision & Legal Precedent
The non-explanation of injuries sustained by the accused by the prosecution is not fatal to the prosecution case where the evidence of the prosecution witnesses is clear, cogent, creditworthy, independent, disinterested, probable, consistent and outweighs the effect of such omission. Furthermore, when accused persons form an unlawful assembly armed with deadly weapons with a common object to commit violence on a particular occasion (here, election time), and injuries are intentionally inflicted on the deceased and others, conviction under Sections 148 and 149 IPC is appropriate. However, for conviction under Section 302 IPC (murder) as opposed to Section 304 Part II IPC (culpable homicide), it must be proved that the bodily injury inflicted was of such a nature and seriousness that the offender knew or intended it to be sufficient in the ordinary course of nature to cause death. If the prosecution fails to establish this higher threshold of knowledge or intention regarding the sufficiency of the injury to cause death, conviction should be restricted to culpable homicide under Section 304 Part II IPC.
On this section: Voluntarily causing grievous hurt; applied to injuries more serious than simple hurt
-
Dinesh Singh vs State of U. P
Decided under Indian Penal Code 325, which this section replaces. The court did not have this Act before it.
Court's Decision & Legal Precedent
Where an accused claims the right of private defence, he must establish on the basis of preponderance of probabilities that there existed reasonable apprehension of death or grievous hurt at the time of the alleged defensive action. The right of private defence is a legitimate right available only when circumstances clearly justify it, requiring careful examination of the entire incident in its proper setting. Where no person on the prosecution side is shown to be armed with any weapon, there cannot be any reasonable apprehension of death or grievous hurt, and therefore the right cannot extend to causing death. The burden rests on the accused to establish this right, and absent such establishment, an act causing death constitutes culpable homicide.
On this section: Voluntarily causing grievous hurt; original charge against co-accused
-
Fazar Ali vs State of Assam
Decided under Indian Penal Code 325, which this section replaces. The court did not have this Act before it.
Court's Decision & Legal Precedent
When an FIR mentions specific names of accused and also indicates 'and others,' the non-mention of all accused names in the FIR does not invalidate the chargesheet against those accused if their names emerge during investigation. Minor contradictions and inconsistencies in eyewitness statements between police examination and court testimony should be ignored if the core facts, presence of accused, and their role in causing injuries are consistently established. It is unreasonable to expect a witness to give a picture perfect account of injuries caused by multiple armed assailants, and such minor discrepancies do not undermine the credibility of eyewitness evidence. Each member of an unlawful assembly is guilty of offences committed in prosecution of the common object, and the detention of injured persons preventing their hospital access demonstrates the common object of the assembly.
On this section: Voluntarily causing grievous hurt - Applied in the cross-case against Samsuddin and others, resulting in acquittal
-
Gulab Das vs State of M. P
Decided under Indian Penal Code 325, which this section replaces. The court did not have this Act before it.
Court's Decision & Legal Precedent
While offences punishable under Section 307 IPC (attempt to cause death) are non-compoundable under Section 320 of the Criminal Procedure Code and cannot be compounded even with settlement between parties, the settlement/compromise between the parties can be taken into consideration by the Court as a mitigating factor when determining the quantum of sentence to be imposed. In cases where parties have reconciled, especially in old matters involving family relationships where the accused were young at the time of incident and have already served substantial portions of their sentences, the Court may reduce the sentence to the period already undergone, thereby giving effect to the settlement while maintaining the conviction.
On this section: Voluntarily causing grievous hurt - applied to some appellants in conviction
-
Thammu Panduranga Rao vs State of A. P
Decided under Indian Penal Code 325, which this section replaces. The court did not have this Act before it.
Court's Decision & Legal Precedent
The right of private defence is a defensive right that must be exercised as a shield to avert attack and protect oneself or one's family, but it cannot be exercised for causing more harm than necessary, for taking revenge, or for retaliation. When injuries are inflicted in excess of what is required for self-defence, and death results from such excessive injuries caused with knowledge that they are likely to cause death, the offence is culpable homicide under Section 304(2) IPC, not murder under Section 302 IPC. The Supreme Court will not interfere with a High Court's judgment that properly evaluates evidence, finds common intention among accused, and appropriately modifies both conviction and sentence based on the nature of injuries, weapons used, and circumstances of the case.
On this section: Punishment for voluntarily causing grievous hurt - applied to Appellant No. 2 for injuries caused to witnesses; Supreme Court affirmed conviction but reduced sentence from 4 years to 1 year
-
Jameel vs State of U. P
Decided under Indian Penal Code 325, which this section replaces. The court did not have this Act before it.
Court's Decision & Legal Precedent
In cases of attempt to commit culpable homicide (Section 308 IPC) involving grievous hurt (specifically fracture of bone as defined in Section 320 IPC clause 7) caused by use of dangerous weapon (lathi) with criminal intention and prior enmity, a sentence of two years rigorous imprisonment is reasonable, appropriate, and proportional to the gravity of the offence. The sentencing courts must consider illustrative factors including motive, prior enmity, intention of the accused, gravity and nature of injury, nature and size of weapon used, and force of blow inflicted, to ensure that appropriate sentence commensurate with the gravity of the offence is imposed. The burden is on the court to ensure proper and appropriate sentence as a bounded obligation and duty, reflecting the gravity of the offence.
On this section: Punishment for voluntarily causing grievous hurt; provides imprisonment extending to seven years and liability to fine
-
Bir Singh vs State of Haryana
Decided under Indian Penal Code 325, which this section replaces. The court did not have this Act before it.
Court's Decision & Legal Precedent
In cases involving post-conviction compromise between the accused and the victim in matters relating to compoundable or semi-compoundable offences (such as causing hurt or grievous hurt), where the victim has no grievance and the parties have settled amicably, the High Court can exercise its inherent jurisdiction under Section 482 CrPC to set aside the conviction and sentence, notwithstanding the statutory bar on compounding non-compoundable offences under Section 320 CrPC. This exercise of inherent jurisdiction is justified on the grounds that: (1) continuation of criminal proceedings would violate the constitutional guarantee of liberty under Article 21; (2) the pragmatic approach recognizes that when parties have reconciled, continuing prosecution serves no fruitful purpose; (3) the court should prioritize restoration of harmony and reconciliation over rigid adherence to statutory bars; and (4) extensive Supreme Court precedent supports this approach. However, this power must be exercised cautiously and only in cases where the facts and circumstances justify such intervention, and it may not apply to the most serious offences (such as murder).
On this section: Voluntarily causing grievous hurt; cited as a compoundable offence that can be compromised with court permission
-
Gurcharan Singh @ Billa vs State of Punjab
Decided under Indian Penal Code 325, which this section replaces. The court did not have this Act before it.
Court's Decision & Legal Precedent
In cases involving non-heinous offences of a predominantly private nature where the parties have genuinely compromised after conviction and the victim has willingly consented to the nullification of criminal proceedings, the High Court can exercise its inherent jurisdiction under Section 482 CrPC to quash the criminal proceedings and set aside the conviction and sentence, provided the court exercises such discretion with rectitude, keeping in view the circumstances surrounding the incident, the fashion in which the compromise has been arrived at, and the nature and seriousness of the offence. The touchstone for exercising this extraordinary power is to secure the ends of justice. However, grave or serious offences involving moral turpitude or having a harmful effect on the social and moral fabric of society cannot be compounded or quashed through compromise.
On this section: Voluntarily causing grievous hurt; cited as a compoundable offence that can be compounded with the permission of the court
-
Sewa Singh @ Nanha vs State of Haryana
Decided under Indian Penal Code 325, which this section replaces. The court did not have this Act before it.
Court's Decision & Legal Precedent
Human teeth cannot be considered as an instrument for cutting or weapon of offence as enumerated under Section 326 IPC. Therefore, injury caused by biting should be classified under Section 325 IPC (voluntary hurt) rather than Section 326 IPC (grievous hurt by weapon). The appropriate sentence for such injury, even if causing permanent deformation, should be proportionate to the nature of the offense and consider the accused's criminal history, duration of prosecution, and bail conduct.
On this section: Voluntarily causing hurt - applied as the correct charge for bite injury instead of Section 326
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.
Judgments citing this section
These may be obiter dicta or a precedent, for you to study. These are the judgments where this section is quoted.
-
… Smt.S.Seetha, the learned Senior Public Prosecutor on instructions submits that the investigation is already over and the final report has been filed, adding Section 117(2) of Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023. The above submission is recorded and accordingly, the W.P.(Crl.) is closed. Sd/- DR. KAUSER EDAPPAGATH JUDGE APA ..3.. 2024:KER:96620 APPENDIX OF WP(CRL.) 1249/2024 PETITIONER EXHIBITS - Exhibit P1 THE TRUE …
Questions about Section 117
What have the courts held on Section 117 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita?
Mathai v. State of Kerala (12 Jan 2005) is the leading judgment on this section among those set out below, though it was decided under IPC 325, which this section replaced -- the court never mentioned this Act: Successor of IPC 325 (mapping.csv near-identical, score 0.8855). Ordinary grievous-hurt punishment carries to BNS 117. Another 15 judgments on this section are set out below, 13 of them from the Supreme Court. They run from 2005 to 2024.
Is Section 117 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita bailable?
Bailable, on a first conviction, under the First Schedule to the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023. This section is classified 3 ways; all of them are set out on this page.
Is Section 117 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita cognizable?
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 117 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 117, section 117 BNS, section 117 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita. People searching for it also type bns 117(2) in hindi and bns 117 4 in hindi. 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 Mathai v. State of Kerala (12 Jan 2005).
What should I read with Section 117 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. 4 other provisions in this corpus refer back to it. It carries forward IPC 322 (Voluntarily causing grievous hurt), so the judgments decided under that provision are the case law on this one.
When did Section 117 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita come into force?
Section 117 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, commonly called grievous hurt, and cited as BNS 117, 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.