Act endangering life or personal safety of others
Section 336 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 deals with act endangering life or personal safety of others. Whoever does any act so rashly or negligently as to endanger human life or the personal safety others, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to three months or with fine which may extend to two hundred and fifty rupees, or with both. 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 Repealed by section 358 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 (45 of 2023) with effect from 1 July 2024, but conduct before that date is still charged, tried and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 does any act so rashly or negligently as to endanger human life or the personal safety others, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to three months or with fine which may extend to two hundred and fifty rupees, or with both.
Section 336, The Indian Penal Code, 1860 (Act 45 of 1860).
Now in the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita
BNS 125 Act endangering life or personal safety of others 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 The repealed enactment still governs what happened while it was in force.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.
Referred to by 1
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.
-
Commissioner of Police vs Shiv Singh
Court's Decision & Legal Precedent
Acquittal or discharge in criminal proceedings does not per se entitle a candidate to consideration for public service appointment, particularly in police recruitment. The Screening Committee has discretion to assess suitability based on the nature of charges, circumstances of the case, and whether acquittal resulted from serious flaws in prosecution or hostile witnesses. Judicial review of such decisions is limited to grounds of mala fides, illegality, or mindlessness; courts cannot conduct intensive factual scrutiny or second-guess the suitability determination made by the designated public employer authority.
On this section: Act endangering life or personal safety; charged against Raj Kumar
-
Abbas Ahmad Choudhary vs State of Assam
Court's Decision & Legal Precedent
In criminal cases involving rape, the prosecution must prove its case beyond reasonable doubt, and this principle applies equally to rape cases as to all other criminal offenses. While the statement of a rape victim must be given primary consideration, material inconsistencies between the victim's earlier statement (recorded immediately after the crime before a Magistrate under Section 164 CrPC) and later in-court testimony regarding a specific accused's involvement can create reasonable doubt about that accused's guilt. When such inconsistencies exist, and when corroborating circumstantial evidence (such as apprehension by police) suggests an accused was not present at the material time, the Court cannot convict the accused merely on the basis of the victim's contradictory testimony. There is no presumption that a rape victim would always tell the entire truth, and courts must apply the standard test of reasonable doubt to determine guilt.
On this section: Act Endangering Life or Personal Safety - Originally charged but focus of appeal was on rape conviction
-
Arsh @ Mohammad Kaif Khan vs The State of Madhya Pradesh
Court's Decision & Legal Precedent
When an accused in a serious case (involving communal violence and explosive substances) has already spent considerable time in pre-trial custody (approximately 22 months), and the trial is still ongoing with no imminent conclusion, continued judicial custody ceases to serve any legitimate purpose. Bail may be granted with conditions ensuring regular court appearance and prohibition of activities disrupting communal harmony, striking a balance between individual liberty and public order. The gravity of charges alone does not justify indefinite pre-trial detention if the detention itself is no longer proportionate to trial progress and the period already spent.
On this section: Covers acts that injured various persons during the riots
-
Dilip Sheshrao Chachane Etc vs State of Maharashtra
Court's Decision & Legal Precedent
For conviction under Section 149 IPC, three essential ingredients must be established: (i) Formation of an unlawful assembly, (ii) Commission of an offence by any member of that assembly, and (iii) The offence must have been committed in prosecution of the common object of the assembly or must be such as the members knew to be likely to be committed in prosecution of that object. The mere fact that an offence results in death does not per se establish that the common object of the unlawful assembly was to commit murder; instead, the court must examine the nature of weapons used, the nature and location of injuries inflicted, and all surrounding circumstances to determine whether there was a preconceived intention to cause death. Absent clear and convincing evidence of such common object, conviction under Section 302 read with Section 149 IPC cannot be sustained, and the conviction should be reduced to Section 304-II IPC (culpable homicide not amounting to murder).
On this section: Act endangering life, mischief, criminal intimidation - lesser convictions maintained for various accused persons
-
Harbans Lal vs State of Punjab
Court's Decision & Legal Precedent
A revision petition challenging the grant of probation becomes infructuous and cannot be entertained once the probation period has been completed by the accused, as the court cannot grant the relief sought (cancellation of probation and enhancement of sentence) when the probation has already been undergone. In such circumstances, the court need not examine the legality or propriety of the original probation order.
On this section: Act endangering life or personal safety - used to convict accused with 6 months imprisonment
-
Shah Rukh Khan S/o. Meer Taj Mohammed vs State of Gujarat
Court's Decision & Legal Precedent
For an act to constitute criminal negligence under IPC Sections 336-338, the degree of negligence must be 'gross' or of a very high degree; mere promotion/waving at a crowd does not meet this threshold and cannot be deemed the 'causa causans' of a stampede where other intervening factors exist.
On this section: Negligent acts endangering life or causing hurt.
-
Ranjeet Yadav vs State of U.p.
Court's Decision & Legal Precedent
An FIR disclosing prima facie cognizable offences cannot be quashed at the writ petition stage merely on the assertion that allegations are false and concocted. However, interim protection from arrest may be granted to an accused willing to cooperate with investigation, with the condition that the accused participates in the investigation and police conclude the investigation expeditiously.
On this section: Act endangering life or personal safety
-
Amit Kuri vs State of Rajasthan
Court's Decision & Legal Precedent
When the State assures the High Court that a criminal investigation is being conducted earnestly, arrests have been made, and adequate security arrangements are in place for the petitioner, the High Court will not exercise its inherent jurisdiction under Section 482 CrPC to interfere with the investigation in the absence of specific grounds demonstrating abuse of process or injustice.
On this section: These sections were cited as the charges in FIR No. 62/2017. Section 336 relates to act endangering life or personal safety, Section 427 relates to mischief causing loss or damage, and Section 455 relates to lurking house-trespass or house-breaking.
-
Vijay Singh vs State of Rajasthan through Pp
Court's Decision & Legal Precedent
A person with a history of criminal conduct and involvement in multiple prior criminal cases, particularly when such history demonstrates a pattern of habitual offending, is not entitled to anticipatory bail under Section 438 Criminal Procedure Code, as the criminal antecedents constitute sufficient grounds for denial of bail.
On this section: Act endangering life or personal safety - related to firing the shot
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.
-
… FOR R-2 AND 3) (RESPONDENT NO.3 DESH RAJ IS PRESENT IN PERSON) Whether approved for reporting? This Petition coming on for admission this day, this Court delivered the following: J U D G M E N T Present petition has been filed for quashing of FIR No. 26 of 2021, dated 17.3.2021 registered under Sections 336 and 337 of Indian Penal Code at P.S. Bangana, District Una H.P. and criminal proceedings initiated in pursuance thereto, on the basis of compromise, arrived at between petitioner/accused and injured/respondent No.2. 2. Petitioner/accused and respondent No. 2-injured were present in Court on 19th August, 2021, who …
Questions about Section 336
What have the courts held on Section 336 of the Indian Penal Code?
Commissioner of Police vs Shiv Singh (25 Aug 2021) is the leading judgment on this section among those set out below: Act endangering life or personal safety; charged against Raj Kumar. Another 8 judgments on this section are set out below, 4 of them from the Supreme Court. They run from 2009 to 2024.
How do I find court cases under Section 336 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 336, section 336 IPC, section 336 of the Indian Penal Code. People searching for it also type ipc 336 3 in hindi and ipc 336 in bns. Each opens the full list of orders on eCourtsIndia, where it can be narrowed by court, year and outcome. 9 reported judgments on this section are set out on this page, beginning with Commissioner of Police vs Shiv Singh (25 Aug 2021).
What should I read with Section 336 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 125 (Act endangering life or personal safety of others), which replaced it; conduct before that date is still charged, tried and appealed under this section.
When did Section 336 of the Indian Penal Code come into force?
Section 336 of the Indian Penal Code, cited as IPC 336, 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.