Voluntarily causing hurt or grievous hurt to deter public servant from his duty
Section 121 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 deals with voluntarily causing hurt or grievous hurt to deter public servant from his duty. Whoever voluntarily causes hurt to any person being a public servant in the discharge of his duty as such public servant, or with intent to prevent or deter that person or any other public servant from discharging his duty as such public servant or in consequence of anything done or attempted to be The Act came into force on 01 Jul 2024.
(1) Whoever voluntarily causes hurt to any person being a public servant in the discharge of his duty as such public servant, or with intent to prevent or deter that person or any other public servant from discharging his duty as such public servant or in consequence of anything done or attempted to be done by that person in the lawful discharge of his duty as such public servant, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to five years, or with fine, or with both.
(2) Whoever voluntarily causes grievous hurt to any person being a public servant in the discharge of his duty as such public servant, or with intent to prevent or deter that person or any other public servant from discharging his duty as such public servant or in consequence of anything done or attempted to be done by that person in the lawful discharge of his duty as such public servant, shall be punished 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 121, The Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 (Act 45 of 2023).
Replaces a provision of the Indian Penal Code
IPC 332 Voluntarily causing hurt to deter public servant from his duty 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 The repealed enactment still governs what happened while it was in force.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.
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 to deter public servant from his duty. | Imprisonment for 5 years, or fine, or both. | Cognizable. | Non-bailable. | Magistrate of the first class. |
| Voluntarily causing grievous hurt to deter public servant from his duty. | Imprisonment not less than 1 year, or imprisonment for 10 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.
-
State(tr)central Bureau of Investigation vs Shri Kalyan Singh(former Cm of Up)
Decided under Indian Penal Code 332, which this section replaces. The court did not have this Act before it.
Court's Decision & Legal Precedent
The Supreme Court of India has the power under Article 142 of the Constitution to transfer criminal proceedings from one Special Court to another Special Court under the same High Court jurisdiction to achieve complete justice and remedy procedural defects, provided such transfer does not violate mandatory substantive provisions of law. In cases involving crimes that shake the secular fabric of the Constitution and where procedural defects have prevented a unified trial of accused persons charged with criminal conspiracy in the course of the same transaction, the Supreme Court can exercise this power to consolidate fragmented proceedings and ensure that all accused are tried together for the conspiracy charge, even if some had been previously discharged from separate proceedings. The absence of a non-obstante clause in the relevant statutory provision (Section 11(1) proviso of the Criminal Procedure Code) distinguishes this case from situations where such a clause exists, and therefore the transfer does not violate the fundamental right to appeal under Article 21 of the Constitution.
On this section: Voluntarily causing hurt to deter public servant from his duty - Applied to charges.
-
Haji Mahboob Ahmad vs Kalyan Singh
Decided under Indian Penal Code 332, which this section replaces. The court did not have this Act before it.
Court's Decision & Legal Precedent
The Supreme Court of India has the constitutional power under Article 142 to transfer criminal proceedings from one court to another to remedy procedural defects and ensure complete justice, even when the High Court has statutory power under Section 407 of the Criminal Procedure Code to do so. This power can be exercised when crimes that shake the secular fabric of the Constitution have allegedly been committed and the accused persons have not been brought to book largely because of procedural defects and the conduct of the investigating agency. The transfer does not violate Article 21 of the Constitution because the procedure established by law itself contemplates such transfers under Section 407 of the Criminal Procedure Code, and the absence of a non-obstante clause in Section 11(1) proviso of the Criminal Procedure Code distinguishes this case from cases where substantive rights are infringed. Additionally, criminal conspiracy charges already contained in a joint charge sheet cannot be separated from the accused persons by discharging them, and all offences committed in the course of the same transaction to accomplish a conspiracy must be tried jointly.
On this section: Voluntarily causing hurt to deter public servant from his duty - applied to charges against some accused
-
Pramod Kumar vs State(gnct) of Delhi
Decided under Indian Penal Code 332, which this section replaces. The court did not have this Act before it.
Court's Decision & Legal Precedent
Police officer witnesses cannot be automatically discredited solely on the ground that they are official witnesses. Their testimony must be evaluated on the same standards of veracity, credibility, and reliability as any other witness. If, after careful scrutiny of evidence, the court finds police testimony to be reliable and trustworthy, the court can act upon such testimony. The quality and strength of evidence is more important than the quantity of evidence or the source thereof. In the present case, the consistent testimony of multiple police witnesses, combined with ballistic evidence (FSL report on the country-made pistol, test fire results, matching cartridge evidence) and post-mortem findings (gunshot wound characteristics and direction), collectively and conclusively establishes that the accused (appellant) fired the fatal shot from the country-made pistol recovered from his custody, causing the death of Constable Maharaj Singh. The appellant's alternative defense that another police officer (Samar Singh) fired the fatal shot is rejected as lacking credibility and being contradicted by material evidence.
On this section: Voluntarily causing hurt to deter public servant from duty; charged for injuries caused during struggle with police
-
Surajsinh Alias Sonu Surajsinh Collectorsinh Alias Sevaram Rajput vs State of Gujarat
Decided under Indian Penal Code 332, which this section replaces. The court did not have this Act before it.
Court's Decision & Legal Precedent
In cases of kidnapping for ransom, conviction can be based on circumstantial evidence where the core facts—kidnapping of the victim, recovery of the victim in custody of the accused, and proof of ransom demand through telephone records and witness testimony—are established. Minor discrepancies and inconsistencies in witness statements, particularly those arising from the passage of time or the tender age of a child witness, must be ignored if the essential elements of the crime and the identity of the accused are proved through reliable and corroborating evidence. Non-recovery of a specific item (such as a SIM card) does not materially affect the proof of the act alleged to have been committed using that item when the act itself is proved through independent witness testimony and documentary records such as call details. An acquittal in related but distinct criminal charges does not operate to overturn a conviction in a separate and distinct charge arising from the same transaction if the evidence for the latter charge stands independently proved.
On this section: Voluntarily causing hurt to extort property. Related charge in Dausa case from which appellant was acquitted.
-
Jagtamba Devi vs Hem Ram
Decided under Indian Penal Code 332, which this section replaces. The court did not have this Act before it.
Court's Decision & Legal Precedent
A court is constitutionally and procedurally bound to provide reasoned orders explaining the basis for its decision. The complete absence of reasons in a judicial order renders that order unsustainable and violates principles of natural justice. An order that merely states "Heard. Dismissed" without any indication of the court's mind or application of law is fundamentally defective and subject to reversal on appeal. The right to reasons is an indispensable part of a sound judicial system, and the giving of reasons is one of the salutary requirements of natural justice.
On this section: Voluntarily causing hurt to deter a public servant from duty; one of the charges in the original complaint.
-
Shajahan@shaje@shahul Hameed@basha@thoka vs The State Rep. by the Additional Deputy Superintendent of Police and Chief Investigating Officer
Decided under Indian Penal Code 333, which this section replaces. The court did not have this Act before it.
Court's Decision & Legal Precedent
Where evidence of harboring under Section 212 IPC depends on witness testimony that the escaped prisoner came to and resided at a specific location, and the owner of that location and other witnesses explicitly deny this allegation without contradiction from the prosecution, the harboring charge cannot be sustained even if conspiracy is otherwise proved, as the charge of harboring requires clear positive evidence of the specific act of harboring and cannot rest on mere presumption or conspiracy alone.
On this section: Act of causing hurt by instrument used for self-defence
-
Rajendra Harakchand Bhandari vs State of Maharashtra
Decided under Indian Penal Code 332, which this section replaces. The court did not have this Act before it.
Court's Decision & Legal Precedent
Although Section 307 IPC offences are non-compoundable and conviction cannot be withdrawn even if parties reconcile, the court possesses discretion to reduce the substantive sentence based on mitigating circumstances such as the appellants' lack of criminal background, passage of significant time (20 years), genuine reconciliation between parties, and the fact that the appellants have already undergone substantial imprisonment (more than 2.5 years). In matters involving simple agriculturists with no criminal propensity, where relations have become cordial and they have served substantial time, the ends of justice are served by reducing the sentence to time already undergone rather than rigidly adhering to the original sentence.
On this section: Voluntarily causing hurt by act endangering life or personal safety. Applied to the injuries caused during the assault.
-
Pratheesh vs State of Kerala
Decided under Indian Penal Code 333, which this section replaces. The court did not have this Act before it.
Court's Decision & Legal Precedent
When accused persons attack public servants with dangerous weapons with the intention to rescue a person from lawful custody, the circumstances including the nature of weapons, severity of injuries, and number of officials attacked establish the intention to commit murder under Section 307 IPC. Identification of accused by eyewitnesses at trial is admissible without formal identification parade when witnesses had sufficient opportunity to observe the accused during extended overt acts. A mother's natural emotional reaction (crying) when her son is arrested does not constitute criminal liability under Sections 307, 333, or 225B IPC. Intentional resistance or illegal obstruction to lawful apprehension under Section 225B IPC requires active resistance, not mere running away.
On this section: Causing hurt to public servant - Applied to 1st and 2nd accused for voluntarily causing grievous hurt to excise officials while discharging official duty
-
Aarif Khan @ Sanu vs The State of Bihar
Decided under Indian Penal Code 333, which this section replaces. The court did not have this Act before it.
Court's Decision & Legal Precedent
When a trial is ongoing and prosecution witnesses have testified that they were attacked and suffered injuries, the trial court does not act illegally or with perversity in refusing to alter charges from attempted murder and causing hurt to the lesser charge of extortion, particularly when the High Court should exercise judicial restraint and not examine the merits of witness depositions during the revision stage as such examination may influence the course of trial.
On this section: Charge of voluntarily causing hurt - applied to injuries suffered by police officers during the attack
-
Benetto Mussolini vs State of Kerala
Decided under Indian Penal Code 333, which this section replaces. The court did not have this Act before it.
Court's Decision & Legal Precedent
When a public servant's status and discharge of official duties are not specifically challenged during cross-examination of the victim-witness, the burden shifts to the accused to prove that the victim was not a public servant or was not discharging official duties. In the absence of such proof by the accused, the conviction under Section 333 IPC for assault on a public servant discharging official duty is justified. However, in sentencing, only previous convictions of the accused are relevant considerations; unsubstantiated allegations of involvement in other crimes cannot be considered. The sentence must be proportionate to the offence and consider mitigating factors such as the delay between the incident and conviction, custody already undergone, and the absence of weapons used.
On this section: Assault or criminal force to deter public servant from his duty. The court applied this section to convict the appellant for assaulting PW1 (a KSEB official) while he was performing his official duty of lopping tree branches near power lines.
-
Udailal and Anr. vs State
Decided under Indian Penal Code 332, which this section replaces. The court did not have this Act before it.
Court's Decision & Legal Precedent
While the conviction of appellants for criminal conspiracy, attempted murder, and illegal firearms possession is legally sustainable and properly established by reliable evidence, the sentences imposed by the trial court can be reduced to the period already undergone by the appellants when the appellants have already served more than six years and three months of imprisonment out of the maximum ten-year sentence, provided that the appellants pay the fine amounts imposed as compensation to the injured victims. The principles of rehabilitation, proportionality in sentencing, and the substantial time already served in custody justify such reduction, thereby meeting the ends of justice.
On this section: Voluntarily causing hurt to deter public servant from duty - Applied to the assault on Constable Shivlal
-
Nabeel K.p vs State of Kerala
Decided under Indian Penal Code 332, which this section replaces. The court did not have this Act before it.
Court's Decision & Legal Precedent
When the lower court, after detailed evaluation of evidence, concludes that the prosecution has failed to prove the essential ingredients of the offence (formation of unlawful assembly and causing hurt to public servants), and such judgment becomes final without challenge, the High Court may exercise its discretionary power to quash further proceedings against accused who did not participate in the trial, provided that costs are imposed to compensate for the delay caused by their absence from proceedings.
On this section: Voluntarily causing hurt to deter public servant from duty - charged against the petitioners
-
Anant Bhagat& ORS. vs State of Bihar& ORS.
Decided under Indian Penal Code 332, which this section replaces. The court did not have this Act before it.
Court's Decision & Legal Precedent
When allegations of police harassment and malicious FIR registration are raised in a writ petition, the High Court may direct the aggrieved parties to file a representation before the Superintendent of Police, who shall examine such grievances within a reasonable timeframe and pass appropriate orders. This provides an effective administrative remedy while maintaining the integrity of the criminal investigation process.
On this section: Voluntarily causing hurt to deter public servant from duty - cited in FIR
-
Imran Kamal Sayyad vs The State of Maharashtra Through Malwani Police Station
Decided under Indian Penal Code 332, which this section replaces. The court did not have this Act before it.
Court's Decision & Legal Precedent
When an offense of obstructing a public servant (Section 353 IPC) does not involve serious physical injury or pending property/article recovery, further custodial detention is unwarranted, and the risk of witness tampering is minimal where the witnesses are themselves public servants.
On this section: Voluntarily causing hurt to deter public servant from his duty.
-
Sadhuram Kiran Wagmare vs The Inspector of Police
Decided under Indian Penal Code 333, which this section replaces. The court did not have this Act before it.
Court's Decision & Legal Precedent
A Criminal Revision Application may be withdrawn with liberty to agitate contentions regarding the applicability of specific provisions of the Indian Penal Code at the appropriate procedural stage, namely at the time of charge framing before the Trial Court, when the High Court is disinclined to grant relief in the revision itself.
On this section: The applicant sought to challenge the applicability of Section 333 IPC to the charges, and the High Court granted liberty to agitate this contention at the time of charge framing before the Trial Court
-
Kanchan @ Dharmendra vs State of Rajasthan through P P
Decided under Indian Penal Code 332, which this section replaces. The court did not have this Act before it.
Court's Decision & Legal Precedent
A second anticipatory bail petition cannot be entertained and must be dismissed if there is no change in circumstances from the earlier dismissed petition, as the earlier dismissal on merits remains binding unless material new facts or changed circumstances are demonstrated.
On this section: Voluntarily causing hurt to deter public servant from duty; charge against the petitioner
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 121
What have the courts held on Section 121 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita?
State(tr)central Bureau of Investigation vs Shri Kalyan Singh(former Cm of Up) (19 Apr 2017) is the leading judgment on this section among those set out below, though it was decided under IPC 332, which this section replaced -- the court never mentioned this Act: Voluntarily causing hurt to deter public servant from his duty - Applied to charges. Another 15 judgments on this section are set out below, 7 of them from the Supreme Court. They run from 2008 to 2023.
Is Section 121 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita bailable?
Non-bailable, under the First Schedule to the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023.
Is Section 121 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 Magistrate of the first class.
How do I find court cases under Section 121 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 121, section 121 BNS, section 121 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita. People searching for it also type bns 121(1) in hindi and bns 121 2 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 State(tr)central Bureau of Investigation vs Shri Kalyan Singh(former Cm of Up) (19 Apr 2017).
What should I read with Section 121 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, and has it changed?
It carries forward IPC 332 (Voluntarily causing hurt to deter public servant from his duty), so the judgments decided under that provision are the case law on this one.
When did Section 121 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita come into force?
Section 121 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, cited as BNS 121, 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 15 Oct 2026. This page is not a substitute for legal advice.