Voluntarily causing hurt to deter public servant from his duty
Section 332 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 deals with voluntarily causing hurt to deter public servant from his duty. Whoever voluntarily causes hurt to any person being a public servant in the discharge of his duty as such public servant, or with intent to prevent or deter that person or any other public servant from discharging his duty as such public servant, or in consequence of anything done or attempted to be 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 Repealed by section 358 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 (45 of 2023) with effect from 1 July 2024, but conduct before that date is still charged, tried and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 voluntarily causes hurt to any person being a public servant in the discharge of his duty as such public servant, or with intent to prevent or deter that person or any other public servant from discharging his duty as such public servant, or in consequence of anything done or attempted to be done by that person in the lawful discharge of his duty as such public servant, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to three years, or with fine, or with both.
Section 332, The Indian Penal Code, 1860 (Act 45 of 1860).
Now in the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita
BNS 121 Voluntarily causing hurt or grievous hurt to deter public servant from his duty Text carried over almost unchanged 95%
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 The repealed enactment still governs what happened while it was in force.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.
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(tr)central Bureau of Investigation vs Shri Kalyan Singh(former Cm of Up)
Court's Decision & Legal Precedent
The Supreme Court of India has the power under Article 142 of the Constitution to transfer criminal proceedings from one Special Court to another Special Court under the same High Court jurisdiction to achieve complete justice and remedy procedural defects, provided such transfer does not violate mandatory substantive provisions of law. In cases involving crimes that shake the secular fabric of the Constitution and where procedural defects have prevented a unified trial of accused persons charged with criminal conspiracy in the course of the same transaction, the Supreme Court can exercise this power to consolidate fragmented proceedings and ensure that all accused are tried together for the conspiracy charge, even if some had been previously discharged from separate proceedings. The absence of a non-obstante clause in the relevant statutory provision (Section 11(1) proviso of the Criminal Procedure Code) distinguishes this case from situations where such a clause exists, and therefore the transfer does not violate the fundamental right to appeal under Article 21 of the Constitution.
On this section: Voluntarily causing hurt to deter public servant from his duty - Applied to charges.
-
Haji Mahboob Ahmad vs Kalyan Singh
Court's Decision & Legal Precedent
The Supreme Court of India has the constitutional power under Article 142 to transfer criminal proceedings from one court to another to remedy procedural defects and ensure complete justice, even when the High Court has statutory power under Section 407 of the Criminal Procedure Code to do so. This power can be exercised when crimes that shake the secular fabric of the Constitution have allegedly been committed and the accused persons have not been brought to book largely because of procedural defects and the conduct of the investigating agency. The transfer does not violate Article 21 of the Constitution because the procedure established by law itself contemplates such transfers under Section 407 of the Criminal Procedure Code, and the absence of a non-obstante clause in Section 11(1) proviso of the Criminal Procedure Code distinguishes this case from cases where substantive rights are infringed. Additionally, criminal conspiracy charges already contained in a joint charge sheet cannot be separated from the accused persons by discharging them, and all offences committed in the course of the same transaction to accomplish a conspiracy must be tried jointly.
On this section: Voluntarily causing hurt to deter public servant from his duty - applied to charges against some accused
-
Pramod Kumar vs State(gnct) of Delhi
Court's Decision & Legal Precedent
Police officer witnesses cannot be automatically discredited solely on the ground that they are official witnesses. Their testimony must be evaluated on the same standards of veracity, credibility, and reliability as any other witness. If, after careful scrutiny of evidence, the court finds police testimony to be reliable and trustworthy, the court can act upon such testimony. The quality and strength of evidence is more important than the quantity of evidence or the source thereof. In the present case, the consistent testimony of multiple police witnesses, combined with ballistic evidence (FSL report on the country-made pistol, test fire results, matching cartridge evidence) and post-mortem findings (gunshot wound characteristics and direction), collectively and conclusively establishes that the accused (appellant) fired the fatal shot from the country-made pistol recovered from his custody, causing the death of Constable Maharaj Singh. The appellant's alternative defense that another police officer (Samar Singh) fired the fatal shot is rejected as lacking credibility and being contradicted by material evidence.
On this section: Voluntarily causing hurt to deter public servant from duty; charged for injuries caused during struggle with police
-
Surajsinh Alias Sonu Surajsinh Collectorsinh Alias Sevaram Rajput vs State of Gujarat
Court's Decision & Legal Precedent
In cases of kidnapping for ransom, conviction can be based on circumstantial evidence where the core facts—kidnapping of the victim, recovery of the victim in custody of the accused, and proof of ransom demand through telephone records and witness testimony—are established. Minor discrepancies and inconsistencies in witness statements, particularly those arising from the passage of time or the tender age of a child witness, must be ignored if the essential elements of the crime and the identity of the accused are proved through reliable and corroborating evidence. Non-recovery of a specific item (such as a SIM card) does not materially affect the proof of the act alleged to have been committed using that item when the act itself is proved through independent witness testimony and documentary records such as call details. An acquittal in related but distinct criminal charges does not operate to overturn a conviction in a separate and distinct charge arising from the same transaction if the evidence for the latter charge stands independently proved.
On this section: Voluntarily causing hurt to extort property. Related charge in Dausa case from which appellant was acquitted.
-
Jagtamba Devi vs Hem Ram
Court's Decision & Legal Precedent
A court is constitutionally and procedurally bound to provide reasoned orders explaining the basis for its decision. The complete absence of reasons in a judicial order renders that order unsustainable and violates principles of natural justice. An order that merely states "Heard. Dismissed" without any indication of the court's mind or application of law is fundamentally defective and subject to reversal on appeal. The right to reasons is an indispensable part of a sound judicial system, and the giving of reasons is one of the salutary requirements of natural justice.
On this section: Voluntarily causing hurt to deter a public servant from duty; one of the charges in the original complaint.
-
Rajendra Harakchand Bhandari vs State of Maharashtra
Court's Decision & Legal Precedent
Although Section 307 IPC offences are non-compoundable and conviction cannot be withdrawn even if parties reconcile, the court possesses discretion to reduce the substantive sentence based on mitigating circumstances such as the appellants' lack of criminal background, passage of significant time (20 years), genuine reconciliation between parties, and the fact that the appellants have already undergone substantial imprisonment (more than 2.5 years). In matters involving simple agriculturists with no criminal propensity, where relations have become cordial and they have served substantial time, the ends of justice are served by reducing the sentence to time already undergone rather than rigidly adhering to the original sentence.
On this section: Voluntarily causing hurt by act endangering life or personal safety. Applied to the injuries caused during the assault.
-
Udailal and Anr. vs State
Court's Decision & Legal Precedent
While the conviction of appellants for criminal conspiracy, attempted murder, and illegal firearms possession is legally sustainable and properly established by reliable evidence, the sentences imposed by the trial court can be reduced to the period already undergone by the appellants when the appellants have already served more than six years and three months of imprisonment out of the maximum ten-year sentence, provided that the appellants pay the fine amounts imposed as compensation to the injured victims. The principles of rehabilitation, proportionality in sentencing, and the substantial time already served in custody justify such reduction, thereby meeting the ends of justice.
On this section: Voluntarily causing hurt to deter public servant from duty - Applied to the assault on Constable Shivlal
-
Nabeel K.p vs State of Kerala
Court's Decision & Legal Precedent
When the lower court, after detailed evaluation of evidence, concludes that the prosecution has failed to prove the essential ingredients of the offence (formation of unlawful assembly and causing hurt to public servants), and such judgment becomes final without challenge, the High Court may exercise its discretionary power to quash further proceedings against accused who did not participate in the trial, provided that costs are imposed to compensate for the delay caused by their absence from proceedings.
On this section: Voluntarily causing hurt to deter public servant from duty - charged against the petitioners
-
Anant Bhagat& ORS. vs State of Bihar& ORS.
Court's Decision & Legal Precedent
When allegations of police harassment and malicious FIR registration are raised in a writ petition, the High Court may direct the aggrieved parties to file a representation before the Superintendent of Police, who shall examine such grievances within a reasonable timeframe and pass appropriate orders. This provides an effective administrative remedy while maintaining the integrity of the criminal investigation process.
On this section: Voluntarily causing hurt to deter public servant from duty - cited in FIR
-
Kanchan @ Dharmendra vs State of Rajasthan through P P
Court's Decision & Legal Precedent
A second anticipatory bail petition cannot be entertained and must be dismissed if there is no change in circumstances from the earlier dismissed petition, as the earlier dismissal on merits remains binding unless material new facts or changed circumstances are demonstrated.
On this section: Voluntarily causing hurt to deter public servant from duty; charge against the petitioner
-
Imran Kamal Sayyad vs The State of Maharashtra Through Malwani Police Station
Court's Decision & Legal Precedent
When an offense of obstructing a public servant (Section 353 IPC) does not involve serious physical injury or pending property/article recovery, further custodial detention is unwarranted, and the risk of witness tampering is minimal where the witnesses are themselves public servants.
On this section: Voluntarily causing hurt to deter public servant from his duty.
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.
-
… The details of the offences under the Indian Penal Code (for short "IPC") for which the accused were tried are set out herein below: - (1) A 1 to A 9 Section 120B, IPC - (2) A1 to A 5 Section 148, IPC - (3) A 1 to A 5 Section 302, IPC - (4) A1 Section 332, IPC 6. On 19th August 1991, some posters were found pasted on the walls of public streets in the city of Coimbatore. These posters contained threats that seven persons belonging to a particular community would be killed. One person, out of the seven named person, was "Siva Kumar @ Siva". 7. Siva on coming to …
-
… Dated this the 26th day of October, 2016 J U D G M E N T Appellant is the accused in S.C.No.346/2005 of the Additional Sessions Court(Adhoc-II), Alappuzha, who stands convicted under Section 8(2) of the Abkari Act and Section 332 of the Indian Penal Code, and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for six months and to pay a fine of ₹1,00,000/-, in default, to undergo simple imprisonment for one more month for the offence under Section 8(2) of the Abkari Act and further sentenced to undergo simple imprisonment for three months and to pay …
-
… Dated this the 12th day of August, 2016 J U D G M E N T The appellant is the first accused in S.C.No.6/06 of the Sessions Court/Special Court for trial of cases under the SC/ST Act Cases, Thiruvananthapuram, who stands convicted under Sections 143, 147, 148, 324, 332 and 307 read with Section 149 of the Indian Penal Code and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for six years and to pay a fine of ₹10,000/-, in default, to undergo rigorous imprisonment for one year for the offence punishable under Section 307 read with Section 149 IPC and sentenced to various terms of …
Questions about Section 332
What have the courts held on Section 332 of the Indian Penal Code?
State(tr)central Bureau of Investigation vs Shri Kalyan Singh(former Cm of Up) (19 Apr 2017) is the leading judgment on this section among those set out below: Voluntarily causing hurt to deter public servant from his duty - Applied to charges. Another 10 judgments on this section are set out below, 6 of them from the Supreme Court. They run from 2008 to 2023.
How do I find court cases under Section 332 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 332, section 332 IPC, section 332 of the Indian Penal Code. People searching for it also type ipc 332 and 352 and ipc 332 and 352 in bns. Each opens the full list of orders on eCourtsIndia, where it can be narrowed by court, year and outcome. 11 reported judgments on this section are set out on this page, beginning with State(tr)central Bureau of Investigation vs Shri Kalyan Singh(former Cm of Up) (19 Apr 2017).
What should I read with Section 332 of the Indian Penal Code, and has it changed?
1 other provision in this corpus refers back to it. For anything done on or after 1 July 2024 the provision to read is BNS 121 (Voluntarily causing hurt or grievous hurt to deter public servant from his duty), which replaced it; conduct before that date is still charged, tried and appealed under this section.
When did Section 332 of the Indian Penal Code come into force?
Section 332 of the Indian Penal Code, cited as IPC 332, 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.