Voluntarily causing grievous hurt by dangerous weapons or means
Section 326 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 deals with voluntarily causing grievous hurt by dangerous weapons or means. Whoever, except in the case provided for by section 335, voluntarily causes grievous 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 pois 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 Repealed by section 358 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 (45 of 2023) with effect from 1 July 2024, but conduct before that date is still charged, tried and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 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 for life], or with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to ten years, and shall also be liable to fine.
Section 326, 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 93%
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 The repealed enactment still governs what happened while it was in force.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 6
- Code of Criminal Procedure s. 211 Contents of charge
- Code of Criminal Procedure Act s. 211 Contents of charge
- Code of Criminal Procedure s. 211 Contents of charge
- Crpc 1973 s. 211 Contents of charge
- Crpc 1973 s. 439 Special powers of High Court or Court of Session regarding bail
- Uttar Pradesh Dacoity Affected Areas Act s. 30
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.326 (grievous hurt by dangerous weapons or means) is not attracted merely because a stone was used. Whether the article is a 'dangerous weapon' depends on size, sharpness and facts; a stone is not per se such a weapon (Mathai).
-
Pandurang Chandrakant Mhatre vs State of Maharashtra
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
-
Hanumantappa Bhimappa Dalavai vs State of Karnataka
Court's Decision & Legal Precedent
The right of private defence cannot be claimed by a person who deliberately retrieves a weapon from his premises and then assaults the visitors; such conduct bears the stamp of design to kill and falls outside the purview of private defence as defined in Sections 96-106 of the Indian Penal Code. The absence of injury on the accused persons, combined with credible eye-witness testimony of the victims, the deliberate fetching of a weapon, and the coordinated nature of the assault, establishes that the appellants were aggressors, not defenders, and the burden on the accused to establish self-defence by preponderance of probabilities was not discharged. Consequently, the conviction for murder under Section 302 IPC and grievous hurt under Section 326 IPC is upheld.
On this section: Conviction of Appellant No. 1 for causing grievous hurt by means of a crowbar, which caused injuries to Lalithavva and the complainant.
-
Gopal vs State of U. P
Court's Decision & Legal Precedent
When the nature and extent of injuries caused in a group assault, along with the manner and circumstances of the attack, do not establish an intent to cause death or knowledge that death would result, the conviction under Section 307 IPC (attempt to murder) should be reduced to Section 326 IPC (causing grievous hurt), notwithstanding the common object of the unlawful assembly. Appellate courts have the jurisdiction and duty to reassess evidence and alter convictions where the proof falls short of the gravity of the charge, distinguishing between individual culpability within group criminal actions.
On this section: Causing grievous hurt - conviction to which three appellants were convicted instead, indicating lesser mens rea
-
Ramesh Kumar vs State of M. P
Court's Decision & Legal Precedent
The ingredients of murder under Section 302 IPC are not established merely by proof of assault with non-lethal weapons on non-vital parts of the body causing contusions and fractures. Criminal intention to cause death or knowledge that bodily injury is likely to cause death must be inferred from the nature of weapon used, the part of body chosen for assault, and attending circumstances. When the weapon is not inherently lethal, vital organs are not targeted, and the victim could have been saved by prompt medical aid, the offense constitutes grievous hurt under Section 326 IPC rather than murder under Section 302 IPC.
On this section: Causing grievous hurt by dangerous weapon in furtherance of common intention - conviction upheld as the facts proved this offense
-
George Pon Paul vs Kanagalet
Court's Decision & Legal Precedent
While the mandatory nature of custodial sentence under Section 326 IPC for causing grievous hurt by dangerous weapons is established and trial courts cannot impose only fine as punishment, appellate courts in exercise of their equitable jurisdiction may consider the extraordinary passage of time, victim compensation already provided, and fine already deposited as relevant factors in determining whether to execute additional custodial sentence beyond time already undergone, thereby balancing the demands of statutory mandates with principles of equitable justice.
On this section: The Court analyzed Section 326 to determine the mandatory nature of custodial sentence for voluntarily causing grievous hurt by dangerous weapons. The Court noted that Section 326 provides for imprisonment for life or term up to 10 years and fine, establishing that imprisonment is not merely discretionary but forms part of the statutory punishment scheme. The trial court's imposition of only fine was found inadequate and the Court endorsed the High Court's modification imposing 2 years rigorous imprisonment in addition to fine.
-
Bankat vs State of Maharashtra
Court's Decision & Legal Precedent
In cases of violent offenses under Section 326 IPC read with Section 34 IPC, where the accused have already undergone a substantial period of imprisonment, the appellate court may reduce the sentence by crediting the time served and substituting the remaining imprisonment with an appropriate monetary fine, provided such reduction maintains proportionality between the offense and the punishment and serves the interests of justice.
On this section: Offense of voluntarily causing grievous hurt by means of acid, alkali or corrosive substances; the section was applied in the original conviction and reviewed by the Supreme Court for proportionality of sentence
-
Ramesh Kumar vs State of M. P
Court's Decision & Legal Precedent
Criminal intention for murder must be established by examining the nature of the weapon used, the specific parts of the body chosen for assault, and other attending circumstances. Where the injuries are confined to contusions on non-vital areas caused by lathi blows, and the weapon is not inherently designed to cause death, the intention to cause death cannot be inferred merely from the fact that death subsequently occurred, especially when delay in medical treatment may have contributed to the fatal outcome. In such circumstances, the conviction should be downgraded from murder to grievous hurt under Section 326 IPC.
On this section: Conviction for causing grievous hurt by dangerous weapon in furtherance of common intention - Court applied this as the appropriate conviction based on evidence
-
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: Causing grievous hurt by means of instrument for shooting, stabbing, cutting, or weapon likely to cause death; court examined whether prosecution established both ingredients - voluntary causing of grievous hurt AND use of specified instrument
-
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: Causing grievous hurt by dangerous weapon - original conviction; non-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: Causing grievous hurt by weapon or means - original conviction charge, held inapplicable as axe was not used from sharp side
-
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: Causing grievous hurt by dangerous weapons or means - Applied to accused for causing serious injuries
-
Bannareddy vs The State of Karnataka Navalgund Police Station Police Sub Inspector
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
-
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 grievous hurt - Court examined allegations of causing grievous hurt with iron rod and wooden stick but found no credible evidence
-
Nirmal Singh vs The State Of Punjab
Court's Decision & Legal Precedent
In criminal revision petitions, where an elderly accused has already undergone substantial custody period and the offense involved minor injuries not affecting vital organs, the court may exercise discretion to reduce imprisonment to the period already undergone while enhancing monetary compensation to the injured party to ensure both proportionality in punishment and adequate restitution to the victim.
On this section: Causing grievous hurt by means of poison or corrosive substance - applied as primary charge with 1.5 years imprisonment
-
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: Causing grievous hurt by act endangering life or personal safety; cited as a non-compoundable offence, but the court exercised inherent jurisdiction to permit compromise
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.
-
… 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 the …
-
… A single blow may, in some cases, entail conviction Under Section 302 Indian Penal Code, in some cases Under Section 304 Indian Penal Code and in some other cases Under Section 326 Indian Penal Code. The question with regard to the nature of offence has to be determined on the facts and in the circumstances of each case. The nature of the injury, whether it is on the vital or non-vital part of the body, the weapon used, the circumstances in which the injury is caused and the manner in which …
-
… and Order of Sentence dated 18.11.2024 and 19.11.2024 respectively, passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Khowai Judicial District, Khowai, in Sessions Trial(T-II) 4 of 2021, whereby the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Khowai, convicted the appellants for committing offences, punishable under Sections 323, 456 and 326 of Indian Penal Code, and sentenced them to suffer Rigorous Imprisonment for 6(six) months with a fine of Rs.500/-, in default of payment of fine they shall suffer Simple Imprisonment for 1(one) month for committing offence, punishable under Section 323 of IPC; and they were further sentenced to suffer Rigorous …
Questions about Section 326
What have the courts held on Section 326 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.326 (grievous hurt by dangerous weapons or means) is not attracted merely because a stone was used. Whether the article is a 'dangerous weapon' depends on size, sharpness and facts; a stone is not per se such a weapon (Mathai). Another 15 judgments on this section are set out below, 13 of them from the Supreme Court. They run from 2004 to 2025.
How do I find court cases under Section 326 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 326, section 326 IPC, section 326 of the Indian Penal Code. People searching for it also type ipc 326 punishment in hindi and ipc 326 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 Mathai v. State of Kerala (12 Jan 2005).
What should I read with Section 326 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. 6 other provisions in this corpus refer back to it. 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 326 of the Indian Penal Code come into force?
Section 326 of the Indian Penal Code, cited as IPC 326, 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.