Voluntarily causing hurt by dangerous weapons or means
Section 324 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 deals with voluntarily causing hurt by dangerous weapons or means. Whoever, except in the case provided for by section 334, 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 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 Repealed by section 358 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 (45 of 2023) with effect from 1 July 2024, but conduct before that date is still charged, tried and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 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, or with both.
Section 324, The Indian Penal Code, 1860 (Act 45 of 1860).
Now in the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita
BNS 118 Voluntarily causing hurt or grievous 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 The repealed enactment still governs what happened while it was in force.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.
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.
-
Anwarul Haq v. State of Uttar Pradesh
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: IPC 324’s ‘instrument likely to cause death’ looks to the nature of the weapon, not the manner of use; a knife is a dangerous weapon even if not recovered (Anwarul Haq).
-
Manoj vs State of M. P
Court's Decision & Legal Precedent
An offence under Section 324 IPC (voluntarily causing hurt by dangerous weapons or means) remains compoundable with the permission of the Court under Section 320(2) Cr.P.C. as long as the Cr.P.C. (Amendment) Act 2005 has not been brought into force. Upon valid and voluntary compounding of such an offence by the person to whom hurt is caused, based on sufficient and genuine grounds including reconciliation and family relations, the Court is empowered to set aside the conviction and sentence, thereby allowing rehabilitation of the offenders within the community.
On this section: Voluntarily causing hurt by dangerous weapons or means - primary charge after High Court conversion, determined to be compoundable
-
Manoj Singh vs The State of Bihar Thr. Secretary Home
Court's Decision & Legal Precedent
When multiple credible eyewitnesses consistently testify that the accused were present at the scene of occurrence armed with firearms and caused injuries to the victim, and medical evidence corroborates that injuries were caused by firearms, the conviction under Section 324 IPC (voluntarily causing hurt by dangerous weapons) and Section 27 of the Arms Act is sustainable despite minor contradictions in witness testimony regarding time of occurrence or specific injuries. Minor contradictions in material particulars do not discredit the entire testimony of truthful witnesses, and an alibi defense based on government service records cannot override consistent eyewitness testimony placing the accused at the scene.
On this section: Voluntarily causing hurt by dangerous weapons or means - Applied by High Court and upheld by Supreme Court; requires voluntary hurt caused by firearm or other dangerous instrument
-
Roop Chand @ Lala vs State (nct) of Delhi Home Department Secretary
Court's Decision & Legal Precedent
To secure conviction under Section 308 IPC, the prosecution must establish that the accused possessed the requisite intention or knowledge that the act could cause death or culpable homicide not amounting to murder. The mere fact that an injury caused by a sharp-edged weapon is severe, even requiring multiple stitches, is not by itself sufficient to establish such intention or knowledge. The presence of a single blow, without repetition or further attacks, coupled with absence of any other circumstances indicating intention to cause fatal injury, negates the application of Section 308. In such cases, if a sharp weapon is voluntarily used to cause hurt, the offence falls under Section 324 IPC. Furthermore, in sentencing, courts must exercise discretion by considering the totality of circumstances including the actual period of imprisonment already served, delay in judicial processes, absence of prior criminal history, and rehabilitative potential, to ensure that punishment serves the ends of justice proportionately.
On this section: Section 324 criminalizes voluntarily causing hurt by means of a sharp-edged weapon. Unlike Section 308, it does not require proof of intention to cause death. The court applied Section 324 to hold the appellant liable because the sharp weapon was undoubtedly used to cause injury, even though the requisite intention for Section 308 was absent.
-
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 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
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.
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
-
Krishna @ Bala Krishnan vs State Tr. Insp. of Police
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
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
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
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
-
Senthil & Etc vs State Rep. Insp. of Police
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
-
Gulam Rasul vs Siri Kishan
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 hurt by weapon; applied to injuries caused by Pharsa and lathis
-
State of Maha vs Suresh Dhanorkar
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
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
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.
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 imprisonment …
-
… Leave granted. - 2. This appeal assails the correctness of the judgment and order dated 18.09.2018 whereby the appeal of the appellant-accused no.1, against his conviction under sections 302, 324 and 326/34 of Indian Penal Code, 1860[1]( page-0-0) has been dismissed. The prosecution story in brief is: <span id="page-0-0"></span> - 2.1. On 10.04.2006, the sympathizers of United Democratic Front (UDF) and Left Democratic Front (LDF) fought against each other in connection with …
-
… It is argued by the learned amicus curiae on behalf of the appellant that the Investigating Officer (P.W-8), after due investigation, filed chargesheet only under Sections 323, 324, 341 and 34 of the Indian Penal Code. However, the learned Court took cognizance under Section 307 of IPC also despite the absence of necessary ingredients to constitute an offence under the Section 307. She further argued that even if the prosecution case is accepted in totality, at best, an offence under Section …
Questions about Section 324
What have the courts held on Section 324 of the Indian Penal Code?
Anwarul Haq v. State of Uttar Pradesh (26 Apr 2005) is the leading judgment on this section among those set out below: IPC 324’s ‘instrument likely to cause death’ looks to the nature of the weapon, not the manner of use; a knife is a dangerous weapon even if not recovered (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.
How do I find court cases under Section 324 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 324, section 324 IPC, section 324 of the Indian Penal Code. People searching for it also type ipc 324 in bns and ipc 324 is bailable or not. 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 324 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. For anything done on or after 1 July 2024 the provision to read is BNS 118 (Voluntarily causing hurt or grievous hurt by dangerous weapons or means), which replaced it; conduct before that date is still charged, tried and appealed under this section.
When did Section 324 of the Indian Penal Code come into force?
Section 324 of the Indian Penal Code, cited as IPC 324, 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.