Causing hurt by means of poison, etc., with intent to commit and offence
Section 328 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 deals with causing hurt by means of poison, etc., with intent to commit and offence. Whoever administers to or causes to be taken by any person any poison or any stupefying, intoxicating or unwholesome drug, or other thing with intent to cause hurt to such person, or with intent to commit or to facilitate the commission of an offence or knowing it to be likely that he will thereby c 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 Repealed by section 358 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 (45 of 2023) with effect from 1 July 2024, but conduct before that date is still charged, tried and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 administers to or causes to be taken by any person any poison or any stupefying, intoxicating or unwholesome drug, or other thing with intent to cause hurt to such person, or with intent to commit or to facilitate the commission of an offence or knowing it to be likely that he will thereby cause hurt, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to ten years, and shall also be liable to fine.
Section 328, The Indian Penal Code, 1860 (Act 45 of 1860).
Now in the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita
BNS 123 Causing hurt by means of poison, etc., with intent to commit an offence Text carried over almost unchanged 100%
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 The repealed enactment still governs what happened while it was in force.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.
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 of H. P vs Nirmala Devi
Court's Decision & Legal Precedent
When the Indian Penal Code provides for punishment with imprisonment 'and shall also be liable to fine' for serious offences, both imprisonment and fine are mandatory and imperative. The appellate court's power under Section 386(b)(iii) of the Criminal Procedure Code to alter the nature or extent of sentence must be exercised in accordance with the statutory scheme of punishment in the IPC and cannot be used to eliminate imprisonment entirely and substitute it with fine alone, even when mitigating circumstances such as the accused being a woman with dependent children are present. For heinous crimes against society, the deterrence theory becomes paramount, and the principle of proportionality requires that punishment be commensurate with the gravity of the offence.
On this section: Causing hurt by means of poison with intent to commit offence - provides for imprisonment of either description for a term extending to 10 years and shall also be liable to fine. Court held that both are imperative.
-
Prashant Bharti vs State of Nct of Delhi
Court's Decision & Legal Precedent
When material evidence of sterling and impeccable quality - consisting of documentary records (judgment and decree of divorce, marriage certificate) and scientifically-generated electronic evidence (call detail records) - conclusively establishes that the factual basis of criminal accusations is false and that the allegations cannot be substantiated in trial, the inherent powers under Section 482 of the Criminal Procedure Code ought to be exercised by the High Court to quash criminal proceedings at the stage of charge framing or trial, as proceeding further would constitute abuse of court process and denial of justice to the innocent accused, even though the prosecution has filed a chargesheet based on complainant's statement.
On this section: Causing hurt by poison or noxious substance - alleged administration of intoxicating substance in cold drink, ultimately found to have no evidence
-
Ravindersingh @ Ravi Pavar vs State of Gujarat
Court's Decision & Legal Precedent
In cases involving mass harm and crimes against society at large, particularly those involving supply of poisonous substances with knowledge of their lethal nature in violation of complete prohibition policy of a State, courts should grant bail only in exceptional circumstances. The gravity of offence, number of casualties and injuries, impact on social fabric, criminal antecedents of the accused, likelihood of witness intimidation, and evidence of destruction of evidence are paramount considerations that may outweigh the consideration of pre-trial detention period. An accused's role as mere supplier does not exonerate from criminal conspiracy charges if materials establish participation in conspiracy to manufacture and distribute poisoned liquor with knowledge of its poisonous nature. Parity argument in bail cannot succeed when State has challenged another accused's bail before the same court.
On this section: Causing hurt by poison - application to methanol poisoning
-
State of M. P vs Munnibai
Court's Decision & Legal Precedent
In a criminal poisoning case, conviction cannot be sustained solely on eyewitness testimony of a potentially interested party without corroborating forensic evidence. Where the alleged poisoned item is available but not forensically examined, and the motive and circumstances of the alleged crime appear inherently improbable, the absence of such evidence combined with credibility concerns regarding the witness creates reasonable doubt, warranting acquittal.
On this section: Charge for act causing hurt by poison; applicable to the alleged poisoning of Tirath Singh and Munnibai (PW3)
-
Vikrant Rana @ Shankar vs State Of Haryana
Court's Decision & Legal Precedent
At the stage of framing charges under Sections 227, 239, and 240 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, the trial court is required to evaluate the material presented by the investigating agency only to ascertain whether the facts emerging from the record, if taken at their face value, disclose the existence of all the ingredients constituting the offence alleged. The trial court is not required to weigh the probative value of the material or to consider the probable defence of the accused. The standard of evaluation is limited to determining whether a prima facie case exists, and the adequacy and sufficiency of evidence is not to be considered at this stage. The veracity of evidence can only be evaluated during the trial.
On this section: Causing hurt by poison - discussed as alternative charge for supplying spurious liquor
-
Nazeema vs State of Kerala
Court's Decision & Legal Precedent
For the offence of robbery under Section 390 IPC to be established, the prosecution must prove either theft or extortion as a constituent element, and must also prove that the offender caused or attempted to cause hurt, death, wrongful restraint, or fear thereof in the course of committing the theft or extortion. When an accused is acquitted of the constituent offences (theft and administering poison/causing hurt), the derivative offence of robbery cannot be established against the same accused based on the same evidence, as the essential ingredients required for robbery are not proven. Logical consistency requires that if the foundational elements of an offence are not established, the derivative offence built upon those elements cannot be sustained.
On this section: Administering poison or stupefying drug with intent to cause hurt or facilitate commission of offence. The trial court found insufficient evidence to prove this offence against both accused.
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 328
What have the courts held on Section 328 of the Indian Penal Code?
State of H. P vs Nirmala Devi (10 Apr 2017) is the leading judgment on this section among those set out below: Causing hurt by means of poison with intent to commit offence - provides for imprisonment of either description for a term extending to 10 years and shall also be liable to fine. Court held that both are imperative. Another 5 judgments on this section are set out below, 4 of them from the Supreme Court. They run from 2008 to 2025.
How do I find court cases under Section 328 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 328, section 328 IPC, section 328 of the Indian Penal Code. People searching for it also type ipc 328 in bns and ipc 328 punishment. Each opens the full list of orders on eCourtsIndia, where it can be narrowed by court, year and outcome. 6 reported judgments on this section are set out on this page, beginning with State of H. P vs Nirmala Devi (10 Apr 2017).
What should I read with Section 328 of the Indian Penal Code, and has it changed?
For anything done on or after 1 July 2024 the provision to read is BNS 123 (Causing hurt by means of poison, etc., with intent to commit an offence), which replaced it; conduct before that date is still charged, tried and appealed under this section.
When did Section 328 of the Indian Penal Code come into force?
Section 328 of the Indian Penal Code, cited as IPC 328, 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.