Voluntarily causing hurt or grievous hurt by dangerous weapons or means
Section 118 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 deals with voluntarily causing hurt or grievous hurt by dangerous weapons or means. Whoever, except in the case provided for by sub-section (1) of section 122, voluntarily causes hurt by means of any instrument for shooting, stabbing or cutting, or any instrument which, used as a weapon of offence, is likely to cause death, or by means of fire or any heated substance, or by means o The Act came into force on 01 Jul 2024.
(1) Whoever, except in the case provided for by sub-section (1) of section 122, voluntarily causes hurt by means of any instrument for shooting, stabbing or cutting, or any instrument which, used as a weapon of offence, is likely to cause death, or by means of fire or any heated substance, or by means of any poison or any corrosive substance, or by means of any explosive substance, or by means of any substance which it is deleterious to the human body to inhale, to swallow, or to receive into the blood, or by means of any animal, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to three years, or with fine which may extend to twenty thousand rupees, or with both.
(2) Whoever, except in the case provided for by sub-section (2) of section 122, voluntarily causes grievous hurt by any means referred to in sub-section (1), shall be punished with imprisonment for life, or with imprisonment of either description for a term which shall not be less than one year but which may extend to ten years, and shall also be liable to fine.
Section 118, The Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 (Act 45 of 2023).
Replaces a provision of the Indian Penal Code
IPC 324 Voluntarily causing hurt by dangerous weapons or means Text carried over almost unchanged 91%
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 The repealed enactment still governs what happened while it was in force.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.
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 2 ways.
| Offence | Punishment | Cognizable | Bailable | Triable by |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Voluntarily causing hurt by dangerous weapons or means. | Imprisonment for 3 years, or fine of 20,000 rupees, or both. | Cognizable. | Non-bailable. | Any Magistrate. |
| Voluntarily causing grievous hurt by dangerous weapons or means [except as provided in section 122(2)]. | Imprisonment for life or imprisonment of not less than 1 year but which may extend to 10 years and fine. | Cognizable. | Non-bailable. | Magistrate of the first class. |
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.
-
Anwarul Haq v. State of Uttar Pradesh
Decided under Indian Penal Code 324, which this section replaces. The court did not have this Act before it.
Court's Decision & Legal Precedent
Judgment of Main Case order-3.pdf 2005-04-26 DATE VERIFIED. Crl.A. 625-626/2005 (from SLP(Crl.) 4321-22/2004). Arijit Pasayat / S.H. Kapadia. Isolates IPC 324: ‘an instrument which, used as a weapon of offence, is likely to cause death’ is construed by the nature of the instrument, not the manner of use; a knife is a dangerous weapon and non-recovery does not defeat injured-eye-witness proof. Map ipc 324 cited. Carry bns 118 successor (near-identical 0.9106) decided_under=ipc 324. Do not confuse with later Anwarul Haq civil SLPs. bns 118 already has Mathai from ipc 326 — still carry this 324 isolate.
On this section: BNS 118 succeeds IPC 324: hurt by a dangerous weapon is gauged by the nature of the instrument (a knife), not the manner of use (Anwarul Haq).
-
Mathai v. State of Kerala
Decided under Indian Penal Code 326, 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 326 (mapping.csv near-identical, score 0.9314). The dangerous-weapon requirement carries to BNS 118.
-
Pravat Chandra Mohanty vs The State of Odisha
Decided under Indian Penal Code 324, 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 by dangerous weapons or means. Applied to convict appellants for causing injuries with wooden lathi and batten.
-
Pratap Kumar Choudhury vs The State of Odisha
Decided under Indian Penal Code 324, 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 by dangerous weapons or means - applied to convict appellants for causing hurt by wooden lathi and batten which are weapons likely to cause death
-
Parshuram vs State Of M.P.
Decided under Indian Penal Code 324, 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: Voluntarily causing hurt by dangerous weapons or means - Applied to accused for causing grievous injuries with weapons
-
Bannareddy vs The State of Karnataka Navalgund Police Station Police Sub Inspector
Decided under Indian Penal Code 326, which this section replaces. The court did not have this Act before it.
Court's Decision & Legal Precedent
The High Court should not interfere with a well-reasoned order of acquittal passed by the trial court unless strong and compelling reasons exist in the evidence itself which can dislodge the findings. When two views are reasonably possible from the evidence on record, one favouring the accused and one against the accused, the High Court is not expected to reverse the acquittal merely because it would have taken the view against the accused, as the very fact that two views are possible makes it clear that the prosecution has not proved the guilt of the accused beyond reasonable doubt and consequently the accused is entitled to benefit of doubt. The prosecution must establish guilt beyond reasonable doubt through consistent, reliable, and corroborated evidence; material contradictions in witness statements, hostile witnesses, suspicious recovery procedures, and dubious victim conduct collectively render the prosecution case insufficient to sustain conviction.
On this section: Causing grievous hurt by dangerous weapons or means - accused charged with assaulting victims with iron rods and clubs; conviction reversed due to weak evidence
-
Krishna @ Bala Krishnan vs State Tr. Insp. of Police
Decided under Indian Penal Code 324, which this section replaces. The court did not have this Act before it.
Court's Decision & Legal Precedent
Where eyewitness evidence establishes that members of an unlawful assembly of five or more persons came together with the common object of committing murder, attacked family members with deadly weapons and with common intent as evidenced by slogans and coordinated attack in quick succession, all members of such unlawful assembly are vicariously liable under Section 302 read with Section 149 IPC for all murders committed in prosecution of the common object, even if not all members physically perpetrated each murder. The High Court's modification of conviction from Section 34 to Section 149 is justified where the facts establish common object rather than merely common intention. While multiple life sentences can be awarded for multiple murders, they cannot be directed to run consecutively, but term sentences may precede and commence before life sentences in accordance with Section 31 CrPC.
On this section: Voluntarily causing hurt by use of deadly weapon. Cited in original charge-sheet and applied for non-fatal injuries.
-
Muthuramalingam vs State Rep. by Insp. of Police
Decided under Indian Penal Code 324, which this section replaces. The court did not have this Act before it.
Court's Decision & Legal Precedent
In cases involving unlawful assembly and mass murder, where eyewitnesses testify to the presence of multiple armed persons acting in concert with a common object to commit murder, and where the accused are heard shouting slogans indicating intent to kill, the conviction can be upheld under Section 302 read with Section 149 IPC even if the charge was originally framed under Section 34 IPC, provided the evidence establishes the common object of the assembly and the participation of the accused in the unlawful assembly. The vicarious liability of all members of the unlawful assembly for acts committed in prosecution of the common object is established when eyewitness testimony is credible and corroborated by other evidence such as recovered weapons and the nature of the attack.
On this section: Voluntarily causing hurt by dangerous weapons or means; applied to convict accused for causing injuries
-
Muthuramalingam vs State Rep. by Insp. of Police
Decided under Indian Penal Code 324, which this section replaces. The court did not have this Act before it.
Court's Decision & Legal Precedent
When an unlawful assembly of five or more armed persons with a common object attacks and kills multiple persons in a coordinated manner demonstrating shared purpose through actions like shouting incitements to kill, the members of such assembly are all vicariously liable under Section 302 read with Section 149 IPC for the murders committed in prosecution of the common object, even without proof of a pre-arranged plan required for Section 34. The conviction does not become fatal merely because originally charged under Section 34 if the evidence establishes the elements of Section 149 and no prejudice is shown.
On this section: Voluntarily causing hurt by dangerous weapons; applied during the assault phase of the crime
-
Hazara Singh vs Raj Kumar
Decided under Indian Penal Code 324, 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 by dangerous weapon - applied particularly for gandasi (sharp-edged weapon) injury caused by Kesho Ram to Hazara Singh
-
Haradhan Das vs State of West Bengal
Decided under Indian Penal Code 326, which this section replaces. The court did not have this Act before it.
Court's Decision & Legal Precedent
When five or more accused are charged with an offence under Section 302 read with Section 149 IPC and the Court finds that the identification, role, and object in participation against some of those accused is not proved, still other persons forming the unlawful assembly against whom the prosecution proves its case beyond reasonable doubt can be punished for an offence under Sections 302/149 IPC. The conviction recorded by the Trial Court cannot be vitiated merely because other co-accused are acquitted, provided the eyewitness evidence clearly establishes the specific role and identification of the convicted accused. Additionally, eyewitness testimony from injured witnesses and family members who were present at the scene remains credible and admissible even if minor discrepancies exist, if the core facts regarding time, place, manner of occurrence, and identification are consistent and corroborated by medical evidence.
On this section: Causing grievous hurt by dangerous weapons or means - charged against the accused for assaulting Anuva Mukherjee and Jiten Mukherjee
-
Senthil & Etc vs State Rep. Insp. of Police
Decided under Indian Penal Code 324, 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 hurt by means of weapon or means known to cause hurt; conviction affirmed for accused no. 4
-
Pandurang Chandrakant Mhatre vs State of Maharashtra
Decided under Indian Penal Code 326, which this section replaces. The court did not have this Act before it.
Court's Decision & Legal Precedent
In cases involving unlawful assembly with multiple accused persons where eyewitness evidence is partisan due to factional rivalry: (1) Interested witnesses may be relied upon if found otherwise trustworthy and their testimony is examined with utmost care and caution; (2) The court must apply a rule of caution and convict only those accused whose presence is consistently established and whose specific overt acts in commission of the crime are clearly proved; (3) When determining the common object of an unlawful assembly, the object can evolve during the course of incident, and different members may share different objects at different stages—some sharing mere intent for grievous hurt while others share intent for murder if they specifically chase and attack the victim; (4) Regarding causation of death, when doubt exists about which specific individual inflicted the fatal blow, the safe course is to convict under Section 326 or 304 Part II IPC rather than Section 302 IPC, unless there is clear evidence of murderous common object shared by at least five members of assembly.
On this section: Causing grievous hurt by dangerous weapon or means—applied for injuries sustained by prosecution witnesses
-
State of Maha vs Suresh Dhanorkar
Decided under Indian Penal Code 324, which this section replaces. The court did not have this Act before it.
Court's Decision & Legal Precedent
When material witnesses are untraceable after decades and the prosecution fails to produce substantive evidence, the charge is considered 'groundless' under Section 239 CrPC.
On this section: The penal provision for voluntarily causing hurt by dangerous weapons.
-
Ganesh Reddy vs The State of Maharashtra
Decided under Indian Penal Code 324, which this section replaces. The court did not have this Act before it.
Court's Decision & Legal Precedent
An accused person has a right to speedy trial and cannot be incarcerated indefinitely as an under-trial prisoner; where trial progress is extremely slow and the period of incarceration exceeds four years, the accused is entitled to bail.
On this section: Voluntarily causing hurt by dangerous weapons.
-
State of Karnataka vs Hanamantappa Shivappa Havanur
Decided under Indian Penal Code 324, which this section replaces. The court did not have this Act before it.
Court's Decision & Legal Precedent
When the main prosecution witnesses, particularly the alleged victims of the crime, turn hostile and depose that no incident took place, and their testimony contradicts the statements given to police, the prosecution fails to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt. In such circumstances, the benefit of doubt must be given to the accused persons, and they must be acquitted. The credibility and reliability of witness testimony is paramount in criminal prosecutions, and the court cannot convict based on documents or circumstantial evidence alone when the direct witnesses deny the allegations.
On this section: Causing hurt by weapon - Court analyzed allegations of causing hurt with weapons but found insufficient evidence
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 118
What have the courts held on Section 118 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita?
Anwarul Haq v. State of Uttar Pradesh (26 Apr 2005) is the leading judgment on this section among those set out below, though it was decided under IPC 324, which this section replaced -- the court never mentioned this Act: BNS 118 succeeds IPC 324: hurt by a dangerous weapon is gauged by the nature of the instrument (a knife), not the manner of use (Anwarul Haq). Another 15 judgments on this section are set out below, 13 of them from the Supreme Court. They run from 2005 to 2025.
Is Section 118 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita bailable?
Non-bailable, under the First Schedule to the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023.
Is Section 118 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 118 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 118, section 118 BNS, section 118 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita. People searching for it also type bns 118 1 section in hindi and bns 118 125. 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 Anwarul Haq v. State of Uttar Pradesh (26 Apr 2005).
What should I read with Section 118 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. 2 other provisions in this corpus refer back to it. It carries forward IPC 324 (Voluntarily causing hurt by dangerous weapons or means), so the judgments decided under that provision are the case law on this one.
When did Section 118 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita come into force?
Section 118 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, cited as BNS 118, 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.