Voluntarily causing grievous hurt to deter public servant from his duty
Section 333 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 deals with voluntarily causing grievous hurt to deter public servant from his duty. Whoever voluntarily causes grievous 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 attemp 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 Repealed by section 358 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 (45 of 2023) with effect from 1 July 2024, but conduct before that date is still charged, tried and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 grievous 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 ten years, and shall also be liable to fine.
Section 333, 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 97%
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 The repealed enactment still governs what happened while it was in force.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.
Referred to by 6
- Code of Criminal Procedure s. 220 Trial for more than one offence
- Code of Criminal Procedure Act s. 220 Trial for more than one offence
- Code of Criminal Procedure s. 220 Trial for more than one offence
- Crpc 1973 s. 220 Trial for more than one offence
- 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.
-
Shajahan@shaje@shahul Hameed@basha@thoka vs The State Rep. by the Additional Deputy Superintendent of Police and Chief Investigating Officer
Court's Decision & Legal Precedent
Where evidence of harboring under Section 212 IPC depends on witness testimony that the escaped prisoner came to and resided at a specific location, and the owner of that location and other witnesses explicitly deny this allegation without contradiction from the prosecution, the harboring charge cannot be sustained even if conspiracy is otherwise proved, as the charge of harboring requires clear positive evidence of the specific act of harboring and cannot rest on mere presumption or conspiracy alone.
On this section: Act of causing hurt by instrument used for self-defence
-
Benetto Mussolini vs State of Kerala
Court's Decision & Legal Precedent
When a public servant's status and discharge of official duties are not specifically challenged during cross-examination of the victim-witness, the burden shifts to the accused to prove that the victim was not a public servant or was not discharging official duties. In the absence of such proof by the accused, the conviction under Section 333 IPC for assault on a public servant discharging official duty is justified. However, in sentencing, only previous convictions of the accused are relevant considerations; unsubstantiated allegations of involvement in other crimes cannot be considered. The sentence must be proportionate to the offence and consider mitigating factors such as the delay between the incident and conviction, custody already undergone, and the absence of weapons used.
On this section: Assault or criminal force to deter public servant from his duty. The court applied this section to convict the appellant for assaulting PW1 (a KSEB official) while he was performing his official duty of lopping tree branches near power lines.
-
Pratheesh vs State of Kerala
Court's Decision & Legal Precedent
When accused persons attack public servants with dangerous weapons with the intention to rescue a person from lawful custody, the circumstances including the nature of weapons, severity of injuries, and number of officials attacked establish the intention to commit murder under Section 307 IPC. Identification of accused by eyewitnesses at trial is admissible without formal identification parade when witnesses had sufficient opportunity to observe the accused during extended overt acts. A mother's natural emotional reaction (crying) when her son is arrested does not constitute criminal liability under Sections 307, 333, or 225B IPC. Intentional resistance or illegal obstruction to lawful apprehension under Section 225B IPC requires active resistance, not mere running away.
On this section: Causing hurt to public servant - Applied to 1st and 2nd accused for voluntarily causing grievous hurt to excise officials while discharging official duty
-
Aarif Khan @ Sanu vs The State of Bihar
Court's Decision & Legal Precedent
When a trial is ongoing and prosecution witnesses have testified that they were attacked and suffered injuries, the trial court does not act illegally or with perversity in refusing to alter charges from attempted murder and causing hurt to the lesser charge of extortion, particularly when the High Court should exercise judicial restraint and not examine the merits of witness depositions during the revision stage as such examination may influence the course of trial.
On this section: Charge of voluntarily causing hurt - applied to injuries suffered by police officers during the attack
-
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 grievous hurt to deter public servant from duty - Applied to the shooting of Constable Indramal
-
Sadhuram Kiran Wagmare vs The Inspector of Police
Court's Decision & Legal Precedent
A Criminal Revision Application may be withdrawn with liberty to agitate contentions regarding the applicability of specific provisions of the Indian Penal Code at the appropriate procedural stage, namely at the time of charge framing before the Trial Court, when the High Court is disinclined to grant relief in the revision itself.
On this section: The applicant sought to challenge the applicability of Section 333 IPC to the charges, and the High Court granted liberty to agitate this contention at the time of charge framing before the Trial Court
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.
-
… 20.11.2008 Present: Mr. M.L.Brakta, Advocate, for the appellant. Mr. Vikas Rathore, Dy. Advocate General, for the respondent. Heard. The appeal involves arguable points of law and facts, hence admitted . Cr.M.P.No.733/2008. The appellant/applicant has been convicted under Section 333 of the Indian Penal Code and sentenced to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of one year and to pay a fine of Rs.10,000/-. It is stated in the application that the applicant is the sole bread earner of the family and has a large family to support. Since there is no likelihood of taking this appeal at the …
Questions about Section 333
What have the courts held on Section 333 of the Indian Penal Code?
Shajahan@shaje@shahul Hameed@basha@thoka vs The State Rep. by the Additional Deputy Superintendent of Police and Chief Investigating Officer (01 Nov 2018) is the leading judgment on this section among those set out below: Act of causing hurt by instrument used for self-defence. Another 5 judgments on this section are set out below, 1 of them from the Supreme Court. They run from 2018 to 2020.
How do I find court cases under Section 333 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 333, section 333 IPC, section 333 of the Indian Penal Code. People searching for it also type ipc 333 in bns and ipc 333 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 Shajahan@shaje@shahul Hameed@basha@thoka vs The State Rep. by the Additional Deputy Superintendent of Police and Chief Investigating Officer (01 Nov 2018).
What should I read with Section 333 of the Indian Penal Code, and has it changed?
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 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 333 of the Indian Penal Code come into force?
Section 333 of the Indian Penal Code, cited as IPC 333, 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.