Punishment for voluntarily causing hurt
Section 323 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 deals with punishment for voluntarily causing hurt. Whoever, except in the case provided for by section 334, 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 one thousand rupees, or with both. The Act came into force on 01 Jan 1862. Repealed by section 358 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 (45 of 2023) with effect from 1 July 2024, but conduct before that date is still charged, tried and appealed under it.
Whoever, except in the case provided for by section 334, 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 one thousand rupees, or with both.
Section 323, The Indian Penal Code, 1860 (Act 45 of 1860).
Now in the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita
BNS 115 Voluntarily causing hurt Text carried over almost unchanged 88%
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 The repealed enactment still governs what happened while it was in force.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
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
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: Punishment for voluntarily causing hurt - Court found no prima facie case as actual hurt was not established; actions attributed to security personnel, not appellants
-
Commissioner of Police vs Shiv Singh
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
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
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
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.
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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.
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.
-
… Nine accused were arrayed in the FIR but only six, against whom charge was laid by the Trial Court of which one died during the proceedings. Three, the appellants herein were charged with offences under Sections 302, 323 & 324 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code[1]( page-1-0). Two were charged under Sections 324, 341 & 506 read with Section 34; who were acquitted by the Trial Court. The three appellants herein were convicted under Section 302 read with Section 34 of the IPC, for the homicide and sentenced to life …
-
… Construction, which is the complainant's (respondent No.4 herein) entity, to obtain manpower. It is alleged in the subject FIR that 'YSSS' in connivance with the other accused defaulted payment to the complainant's company. The subject FIR was registered under Sections 406, 420, 323, 504, 506 and 120-B of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (hereafter, 'the IPC') against the accused, including the appellant herein on the allegation that 'YSSS', in connivance with the other accused defaulted payment to the company to the tune of Rs.9 Crores. Pursuant to the lodgement of the FIR, the appellant received …
-
… Singh (Accused No.1), Ram Nandan Singh (Accused No.2), Raj Nandan Singh (Accused No.3), Shyam Nandan Singh (Accused No.4), Bhagwan Singh (Accused No. 5), Vijay Singh (Accused No. 6) and Tanik Singh (Accused No.7). 2. The Trial Court charged all seven accused persons for the commission of offences punishable under Sections 323, 302, 364, 449, 450, 380/34 and 120-B of the Indian Penal Code, 1860[2]( page-1-1) . Later, accused nos. 6 and 7 were distinctly charged for the commission of offences punishable under Sections 342, 506 read with Section 34 of IPC. After trial, the Trial Court, vide order dated 05.06.1992, convicted the accused …
Questions about Section 323
What have the courts held on Section 323 of the Indian Penal Code?
Badrinarayana Jaganathan vs The State of Karnataka (24 Jan 2025) is the leading judgment on this section among those set out below: Punishment for voluntarily causing hurt - Court found no prima facie case as actual hurt was not established; actions attributed to security personnel, not appellants. Another 15 judgments on this section are set out below, 14 of them from the Supreme Court. They run from 2013 to 2025.
How do I find court cases under Section 323 of the Indian Penal Code?
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: IPC 323, section 323 IPC, section 323 of the Indian Penal Code. People searching for it also type ipc 323 punishment and ipc 323 in bns. 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 323 of the Indian Penal Code, and has it changed?
Its own text turns on section 334 (Voluntarily causing hurt on provocation), so none of them can safely be read on its own. 4 other provisions in this corpus refer back to it. For anything done on or after 1 July 2024 the provision to read is BNS 115 (Voluntarily causing hurt), which replaced it; conduct before that date is still charged, tried and appealed under this section.
When did Section 323 of the Indian Penal Code come into force?
Section 323 of the Indian Penal Code, cited as IPC 323, came into force on 01 Jan 1862, having been enacted on 06 Oct 1860. It is no longer in force.
Other sections of this Act
- 499. Defamation1512 words
- 464. Making a false document1223 words
- 300. Murder1172 words
- 378. Theft980 words
- 108. Abettor745 words
- 403. Dishonest misappropriation of property727 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. Recovered from the consolidated text published by India Code (item 7b7d4fe6-206b-4e33-81f1-b98b018acaf6). This page is not a substitute for legal advice.