Voluntarily causing hurt on provocation
Section 334 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 deals with voluntarily causing hurt on provocation. Whoever voluntarily causes hurt on grave and sudden provocation, if he neither intends nor knows himself to be likely to cause hurt to any person other than the person who gave the provocation, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to one month, or wit 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 Repealed by section 358 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 (45 of 2023) with effect from 1 July 2024, but conduct before that date is still charged, tried and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 on grave and sudden provocation, if he neither intends nor knows himself to be likely to cause hurt to any person other than the person who gave the provocation, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to one month, or with fine which may extend to five hundred rupees, or with both.
Section 334, The Indian Penal Code, 1860 (Act 45 of 1860).
Now in the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita
BNS 122 Voluntarily causing hurt or grievous hurt on provocation 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 The repealed enactment still governs what happened while it was in force.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.
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 U. P vs Sheo Lal
Court's Decision & Legal Precedent
The absence of moonlight or artificial light in the FIR does not per se preclude reliable identification of assailants when: (1) the assailants are closely related and well-known to the witnesses; (2) there is proximity and confrontation between parties; (3) some ambient light is available (stars, glow from surroundings); (4) the location is roofless or open; and (5) the logical principle applies that light sufficient for assailants to identify and target victims is equally sufficient for victims to identify assailants. In such circumstances, eyewitness evidence of identification, particularly from injured witnesses, must be given substantial weight. The non-establishment of motive alone is not sufficient to discard a prosecution case supported by credible eyewitness testimony and circumstantial evidence. Courts must apply careful scrutiny to evidence and must not reject testimony merely because certain technical details were not recorded in procedural documents.
On this section: Voluntarily causing hurt in committing or attempting to commit an offence punishable with imprisonment - applied in conjunction with other sections
-
State Government vs velu and 2 others
Court's Decision & Legal Precedent
In a criminal trial, the prosecution bears the burden of proving the guilt of the accused beyond any reasonable doubt. When the evidence of interested witnesses (related to the injured person) is inconsistent regarding the place of occurrence, the weapons used, and the specific injuries caused by each accused, and when there is no independent corroborating evidence or independent eye witness, and when there is unexplained delay in registration of the First Information Report, the court must give the benefit of doubt to the accused and acquit them. The cardinal principle that guilt must be proved beyond reasonable doubt cannot be compromised by circumstantial evidence or interested witness testimony alone.
On this section: Exception to hurt offences - act of a person who causes hurt in good faith for the benefit of a person without consent. Referenced as a potential exception that prosecution must disprove.
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 334
What have the courts held on Section 334 of the Indian Penal Code?
State of U. P vs Sheo Lal (12 Feb 2009) is the leading judgment on this section among those set out below: Voluntarily causing hurt in committing or attempting to commit an offence punishable with imprisonment - applied in conjunction with other sections. Another 1 judgment on this section is set out below, 1 of them from the Supreme Court. They run from 2009 to 2023.
How do I find court cases under Section 334 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 334, section 334 IPC, section 334 of the Indian Penal Code. People searching for it also type ipc 334 2 in hindi and ipc 334 punishment. Each opens the full list of orders on eCourtsIndia, where it can be narrowed by court, year and outcome. 2 reported judgments on this section are set out on this page, beginning with State of U. P vs Sheo Lal (12 Feb 2009).
What should I read with Section 334 of the Indian Penal Code, and has it changed?
2 other provisions in this corpus refer back to it. For anything done on or after 1 July 2024 the provision to read is BNS 122 (Voluntarily causing hurt or grievous hurt on provocation), which replaced it; conduct before that date is still charged, tried and appealed under this section.
When did Section 334 of the Indian Penal Code come into force?
Section 334 of the Indian Penal Code, cited as IPC 334, 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.