Punishment for voluntarily causing grievous hurt
Section 325 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 deals with punishment for voluntarily causing grievous hurt. Whoever, except in the case provided for by section 335, 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. 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 Repealed by section 358 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 (45 of 2023) with effect from 1 July 2024, but conduct before that date is still charged, tried and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 335, 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.
Section 325, The Indian Penal Code, 1860 (Act 45 of 1860).
Now in the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita
BNS 117 Voluntarily causing grievous hurt Text carried over almost unchanged 89%
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 The repealed enactment still governs what happened while it was in force.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 13
- Code of Criminal Procedure s. 220 Trial for more than one offence
- Code of Criminal Procedure s. 222 When offence proved included in offence charged
- Code of Criminal Procedure s. 484 Repeal and savings
- Code of Criminal Procedure Act s. 220 Trial for more than one offence
- Code of Criminal Procedure Act s. 222 When offence proved included in offence charged
- Code of Criminal Procedure Act s. 484 Repeal and savings
- Code of Criminal Procedure s. 220 Trial for more than one offence
- Code of Criminal Procedure s. 222 When offence proved included in offence charged
- Crpc 1973 s. 220 Trial for more than one offence
- Crpc 1973 s. 222 When offence proved included in offence charged
- Crpc 1973 s. 484 Repeal and savings
- Indian Evidence Act s. 105 Burden of proving that case of accused comes within exceptions
and 1 more
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
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: s.325 is the ordinary punishment for grievous hurt. Fracture of a tooth is grievous under s.320 seventhly; where the weapon is not shown to be dangerous, the conviction is s.325 not s.326 (Mathai).
-
Shaji vs State of Kerala
Court's Decision & Legal Precedent
Where the prosecution fails to establish that grievous hurt was caused by means of an instrument specifically mentioned in Section 326 IPC (for shooting, stabbing, cutting, or a weapon likely to cause death), the conviction should be altered from Section 326 to Section 325 IPC, notwithstanding that the voluntary causation of grievous hurt may be established. The second ingredient—the specific nature of the instrument used—is essential and cannot be presumed or inferred without clear evidence.
On this section: Voluntary causing of grievous hurt without the use of specific weapon; applied as the appropriate conviction after alteration
-
Dasan vs State of Kerala
Court's Decision & Legal Precedent
When evidence does not consistently and certainly establish the use of a dangerous weapon in an assault case, and the recovered weapon and victim's own pleadings indicate use of a non-dangerous weapon (such as a wooden stick), the conviction for causing grievous hurt by dangerous weapon (Section 326 IPC) should be converted to voluntarily causing grievous hurt (Section 325 IPC). Once so converted, the court may grant permission to compound the offence under Section 325 IPC when the victim and accused have amicably settled, subject to strict compliance with Section 320 CrPC which governs the entire field of compounding of offences. The court's discretionary powers under Article 142 cannot be exercised to circumvent or override the statutory restrictions prescribed in Section 320 CrPC.
On this section: Voluntarily causing grievous hurt - conviction converted to this section; compoundable offence
-
Channabasappa vs State of Karnataka
Court's Decision & Legal Precedent
When an axe is used in an assault but not from its sharp side, and co-accused are armed only with stones which cannot be considered weapons of offense, the conviction for causing grievous hurt under Section 326 IPC cannot be sustained. The appropriate conviction would be for causing simple hurt under Section 325 IPC. Additionally, in cases involving exceptional delay of 20 years from incident to final judgment, where appellants have already served a portion of sentence and progressed from youth to middle age, mitigation of sentence to the period already undergone is warranted as a matter of judicial discretion.
On this section: Voluntarily causing hurt - substitute charge applied by Supreme Court in place of Section 326
-
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 grievous hurt; listed in Annexure A as offence affecting human body
-
Vidhya Rattan vs The State of Haryana Home Department Chief Secretary
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
-
Bir Singh vs State of Haryana
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
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
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.
-
… PC Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Lucknow in Complaint Case No.9780 of 2022. The allegations levelled by the petitioner in the complaint case were of offences under Section 498A, 325 and 506 of Indian Penal Code, 1860 and Sections 3/4 of Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961. In fact, the petitioner had arrayed ten persons in the complaint; her husband, his parents, two brothers of his father, their wives and three children of three brothers, totalling ten. The Magistrate after perusing the complaint, by …
-
… Respondents J U D G M E N T ABHAY S. OKA, J. FACTUAL ASPECTS 1. The present appeal is preferred by the State Government. The respondents were tried for the offences punishable under Sections 147, 452, 302, 325, and 323 read with Section 149 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (for short, 'the IPC'). The Trial Court held the respondents accused as guilty. The Trial Court convicted the respondents for the offences punishable under Section 147 and Sections 452, 302, 325, and 323 read with Section 149 of the IPC. For the offences …
-
… The learned Trial Court convicted accused no.3 – Paro Yadav, for the offence punishable under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (for short, 'IPC'). The appellants were convicted for the offences punishable under Section 302 read with Section 34 of the IPC and Section 325 read with Section 34 of the IPC. The appellants were sentenced to undergo life imprisonment for the offence punishable under Section 302 read with Section 34 of the IPC. They were also sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for three years for the offence punishable under Section 325 read with Section 34 of …
Questions about Section 325
What have the courts held on Section 325 of the Indian Penal Code?
Mathai v. State of Kerala (12 Jan 2005) is the leading judgment on this section among those set out below: s.325 is the ordinary punishment for grievous hurt. Fracture of a tooth is grievous under s.320 seventhly; where the weapon is not shown to be dangerous, the conviction is s.325 not s.326 (Mathai). Another 15 judgments on this section are set out below, 13 of them from the Supreme Court. They run from 2005 to 2024.
How do I find court cases under Section 325 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 325, section 325 IPC, section 325 of the Indian Penal Code. People searching for it also type ipc 325 in bns and ipc 325 punishment 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 325 of the Indian Penal Code, and has it changed?
Its own text turns on section 335 (Voluntarily causing grievous hurt on provocation), so none of them can safely be read on its own. 13 other provisions in this corpus refer back to it. For anything done on or after 1 July 2024 the provision to read is BNS 117 (Voluntarily causing grievous hurt), which replaced it; conduct before that date is still charged, tried and appealed under this section.
When did Section 325 of the Indian Penal Code come into force?
Section 325 of the Indian Penal Code, cited as IPC 325, 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.