Causing grievous hurt by act endangering life or personal safety of others
Section 338 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 deals with causing grievous hurt by act endangering life or personal safety of others. Whoever causes grievous hurt to any person by doing any act so rashly or negligently as to endanger human life, or the personal safety of others, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to two years, or with fine which may extend to one thousand rupees, 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 Repealed by section 358 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 (45 of 2023) with effect from 1 July 2024, but conduct before that date is still charged, tried and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 causes grievous hurt to any person by doing any act so rashly or negligently as to endanger human life, or the personal safety of others, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to two years, or with fine which may extend to one thousand rupees, or with both.
Of wrongful restraint and wrongful confinement
Section 338, 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 Close, with changes 69%
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 The repealed enactment still governs what happened while it was in force.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.
-
The State of Tripura Home Department Chief Secretary vs Ramchandra Rabidas @ Ratan Rabidas
Court's Decision & Legal Precedent
A prosecution, if otherwise maintainable, would lie both under the Indian Penal Code and the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, since both the statutes operate with full vigour in their own independent spheres. The offences provided under both the statutes are separate and distinct from each other, and an offender can be tried and punished independently under both statutes. The principle that the special law should prevail over the general law has no application in cases of prosecution of offenders in road accidents under the IPC and Motor Vehicles Act, as the offences do not overlap. Section 26 of the General Clauses Act, 1897 permits prosecution under either or both enactments but prevents double punishment for the same offence.
On this section: Causing grievous hurt by act endangering life; applicable when rash or negligent driving causes grievous hurt to any person
-
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: Causing grievous hurt by act endangering life or personal safety - 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: Causing grievous hurt by act endangering life or personal safety - applied to charges against Kar Sewaks
-
Gopal Ansal vs State Tr. C. B. I
Court's Decision & Legal Precedent
In cases of criminal negligence causing mass casualties in public places, particularly where the convict is advanced in age and health, the court may enhance the sentence from the High Court's award to the maximum prescribed under law, but may substitute the enhanced portion with substantial fines directed toward constructive public purposes (such as trauma centre construction and healthcare infrastructure development), with the alternative of full imprisonment if fines are not paid within the specified timeframe. The principle of parity requires that similarly situated convicts receive similar sentencing treatment. Courts may creatively deploy sentencing to serve both retributive justice (through financial liability) and restorative justice (through victim-benefiting infrastructure) simultaneously.
On this section: Causing grievous hurt by act endangering life or personal safety - secondary charge
-
Harsarup Panwar vs State(nct of Delhi) Thr. Cbi
Court's Decision & Legal Precedent
In criminal cases involving death by negligence where the accused have already undergone substantial portion of sentence and are willing to pay substantial fine, such fine can be substituted for remaining imprisonment period if the fine amount is directed towards a public purpose serving restorative justice and community welfare, and this approach is particularly appropriate when the accused are aged or infirm and the victims' families are not seeking monetary compensation. The appropriate quantum of sentence in such cases must balance the gravity of offense (number of deaths and injuries) with mitigating factors such as advanced age, willingness to pay fine, and opportunity to serve public purpose through fine amount.
On this section: Provides for punishment for act causing grievous hurt; appellants were convicted under this section for serious injuries caused to cinema patrons during the fire.
-
Association of Victim of Uphar Tragedy vs Sushil Ansal
Court's Decision & Legal Precedent
In cases of criminal negligence resulting in mass casualties where the legal maximum sentence available is not commensurate with the gravity of the offense and the number of victims, and where the accused are of advanced age or suffering from serious health conditions, and where crime victims do not seek traditional compensation, the court may substitute imprisonment with substantial monetary penalty directed towards public welfare purposes (such as trauma center establishment) that serve both criminal accountability and victim-protective objectives. The sentence may be further reduced to period already undergone upon payment of such fine. Principles of parity require similarly-situated accused to receive proportional treatment unless material differences in culpability exist.
On this section: Applied for causing hurt by act endangering life with further injury; conviction upheld for mass injury caused by inadequate evacuation procedures
-
Sushil Ansal vs State Thr. Cbi
Court's Decision & Legal Precedent
In cases involving mass casualty criminal negligence, the appropriate sentence should balance the gravity of the offense with the circumstances of the accused, and when imprisonment becomes unfruitful due to advanced age or health conditions, a substantial fine directed towards public purpose (such as healthcare infrastructure) can be imposed in substitution for additional imprisonment, while ensuring that at least the minimum sentence proportionate to culpability is served. The approval of authorities for certain safety measures does not absolve the accused of criminal responsibility for negligence in their domain of control.
On this section: Applied for causing hurt by act endangering life - covers injuries in cases of fire accident and smoke inhalation
-
State through C. B. I vs Sushil Ansal
Court's Decision & Legal Precedent
In cases of criminal negligence resulting in mass casualties, where the accused has undergone substantial imprisonment and demonstrates willingness to make meaningful financial contribution, and where such financial contribution can be directed towards public welfare purposes serving the interests of victims and society, courts may appropriately substitute a portion of enhanced sentence with substantial fines, particularly when age and health conditions of aged accused make further imprisonment unduly burdensome. The quantum of such fines must reflect the gravity of the offense while balancing principles of mercy and proportionality. The conviction itself remains unaffected by such sentence modifications, ensuring accountability is maintained.
On this section: Causing grievous hurt by act endangering human life - applied to victims with severe burn and smoke inhalation injuries
-
State of Karnataka vs Muralidhar
Court's Decision & Legal Precedent
In cases of death caused by rash and negligent driving under Section 304-A IPC, custodial sentences are necessary to reflect the gravity of the offense and to serve the dual purposes of punishment and deterrence. A court cannot waive custodial sentences merely on the basis of elapsed time without providing reasoned justification and without considering the severe consequences of inadequate sentencing on public confidence in the justice system. The sentencing court must carefully balance aggravating and mitigating factors with regard to the nature of the offense, the manner of its commission, and broader societal implications, particularly in cases involving road traffic fatalities which represent an epidemic in developing countries.
On this section: Causing hurt by act endangering life or personal safety; applied for the grievous injury sustained by one passenger
-
Kuldeep Singh vs State of H. P
Court's Decision & Legal Precedent
Where a professional driver operates a motor vehicle carrying multiple passengers at dangerously high speed, creating an obvious and substantial risk of harm that any reasonable person would foresee, such conduct constitutes rash and negligent driving under Section 304A IPC. The resulting deaths from such conduct are punishable as offences of causing death by rash or negligent act. The primary consideration in sentencing for such offences is deterrence, to compel professional drivers to maintain constant vigilance and to prevent further motor vehicle accidents. A conviction for causing death by rash or negligent driving, even with time already spent in custody, must result in imprisonment to serve the deterrent purpose and uphold public safety.
On this section: Causing grievous hurt by act endangering life or personal safety
-
Venkatesh Krishna Harijan vs State of Goa
Court's Decision & Legal Precedent
While upholding the conviction of an appellant for rash and negligent driving causing injury under Sections 279 and 338 IPC and Section 196 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, the Supreme Court may reduce the sentence to the period already undergone in custody, balancing the principles of accountability and proportionality in criminal punishment.
On this section: Causing hurt by act endangering life or personal safety, applied to the injury caused to the victim in the traffic incident
-
OHSSAI (Occupational Health, Safety, Sustainability Association India) Foundation vs The Principal Secretary, Ministry-Department of Labour, Government of Maharashtra
Court's Decision & Legal Precedent
Safety Officers appointed under Section 40B of the Factories Act, 1948 and governed by the Maharashtra Safety Officers Rules, 1982 bear positive statutory duties to ensure workplace safety that extend beyond merely advising factory management. These duties include conducting safety inspections, investigating accidents and dangerous occurrences, maintaining safety records, and promoting safety committees. Consequently, Safety Officers cannot be granted immunity from criminal prosecution for workplace accidents and deaths, and they may be prosecuted if their conduct constitutes criminal negligence in breach of these statutory duties. The police are not required to conduct preliminary investigation before registering FIR and arresting a Safety Officer if the information discloses commission of a cognizable offence, as FIR registration is mandatory under Section 154 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973.
On this section: Relates to causing hurt by act endangering life or personal safety. Court cited this in context of Allaiah case where proceedings were quashed as contrary to this section.
-
Bichitra Mohanty vs State of Kerala
Court's Decision & Legal Precedent
When criminal charges are substantially altered after a guilty plea and conviction, the original guilty plea cannot be allowed to remain as it would violate the accused's right to fair trial. A guilty plea is valid only for the specific offences for which it was made, and if those offences are changed to substantially different and more serious offences, the accused must be permitted to withdraw the plea and contest the new charges on merits. The procedure for accepting a guilty plea must be strictly followed, and the plea must be voluntary and made with full understanding of the implications of the specific offences charged.
On this section: Causing hurt by act endangering life or personal safety - original charge against petitioner
-
Ajeesh S.nair vs The State of Kerala
Court's Decision & Legal Precedent
When a vehicle causes multiple deaths by hitting pedestrians and off-road structures in the absence of mechanical failure, the nexus between the rash act and the death is established, satisfying Section 304A IPC.
On this section: Causing grievous hurt by act endangering life.
-
State of Haryana vs Shish Ram
Court's Decision & Legal Precedent
Merely directing workers to remove the support of a vehicle does not constitute criminal negligence under IPC Sections 279, 337, or 338. Criminal liability for negligence requires direct participation in a rash or negligent act that endangers human life or causes hurt. The distinction between instruction and direct causation is critical in determining criminal negligence liability.
On this section: Defines causing grievous hurt by rash or negligent act; court examined applicability to the respondents' conduct
-
SANJAY KUMAR vs STATE OF UT
Court's Decision & Legal Precedent
In cases of traffic violations causing injury, where the prosecution produces credible eyewitness testimony, medical evidence of injury, and mechanical examination reports corroborating the accident, and the defence merely asserts false implication without providing any plausible reason for such implication, the conviction shall be upheld. However, for young first-time offenders, the court may exercise discretion under the Probation of Offenders Act to release the offender on probation of good conduct instead of imposing imprisonment, balancing the need for punishment with modern penological principles of rehabilitation.
On this section: Causing hurt by act endangering life or personal safety - applied to establish that the collision caused fracture of left clavicle to Surinder Kumar
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 338
What have the courts held on Section 338 of the Indian Penal Code?
The State of Tripura Home Department Chief Secretary vs Ramchandra Rabidas @ Ratan Rabidas (04 Oct 2019) is the leading judgment on this section among those set out below: Causing grievous hurt by act endangering life; applicable when rash or negligent driving causes grievous hurt to any person. Another 15 judgments on this section are set out below, 11 of them from the Supreme Court. They run from 2008 to 2024.
How do I find court cases under Section 338 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 338, section 338 IPC, section 338 of the Indian Penal Code. People searching for it also type ipc 338 in bns and ipc 338 punishment. Each opens the full list of orders on eCourtsIndia, where it can be narrowed by court, year and outcome. 16 reported judgments on this section are set out on this page, beginning with The State of Tripura Home Department Chief Secretary vs Ramchandra Rabidas @ Ratan Rabidas (04 Oct 2019).
What should I read with Section 338 of the Indian Penal Code, and has it changed?
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 338 of the Indian Penal Code come into force?
Section 338 of the Indian Penal Code, cited as IPC 338, 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.