Punishment for assault or criminal force otherwise than on grave provocation
Section 352 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 deals with punishment for assault or criminal force otherwise than on grave provocation. Whoever assaults or uses criminal force to any person otherwise than on grave and sudden provocation given by that person, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to three months, or with fine which may extend to five hundred 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 Repealed by section 358 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 (45 of 2023) with effect from 1 July 2024, but conduct before that date is still charged, tried and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 assaults or uses criminal force to any person otherwise than on grave and sudden provocation given by that person, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to three months, or with fine which may extend to five hundred rupees, or with both.
Explanation.-Grave and sudden provocation will not mitigate the punishment for an offence under this section, if the provocation is sought or voluntarily provoked by the offender as an excuse for the offence, or
if the provocation is given by anything done in obedience to the law, or by a public servant, in the lawful exercise of the powers of such public servant, or
if the provocation is given by anything done in the lawful exercise of the right of private defence.
Whether the provocation was grave and sudden enough to mitigate the offence, is a question of fact.
Section 352, The Indian Penal Code, 1860 (Act 45 of 1860).
Now in the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita
BNS 131 Punishment for assault or criminal force otherwise than on grave provocation Text carried over almost unchanged 99%
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 The repealed enactment still governs what happened while it was in force.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.
-
Sheikh Juman Etc vs State of Bihar
Court's Decision & Legal Precedent
Members of an unlawful assembly share criminal liability for deaths caused by other members in furtherance of the common object of the assembly, even if they did not directly perpetrate the killing, provided they actively participated in the crime through facilitating acts such as preventing rescue efforts or demonstrating force with weapons, and this liability can be established through reliable eye-witness testimony corroborated by circumstantial evidence, and mere presence at the scene with knowledge of the common object is sufficient when combined with active facilitation.
On this section: Voluntarily causing hurt - Discussed as potential alternative charge for members sharing original common object of merely assaulting without intention to cause death
-
Lunaram vs Bhupat Singh
Court's Decision & Legal Precedent
An appellate court reviewing an order of acquittal must apply strict scrutiny and recognize the double presumption of innocence (from criminal jurisprudence and from the acquittal itself). While appellate courts have full power to review evidence, they should not interfere with acquittal orders unless the judgment is clearly unreasonable, material evidence has been unjustifiably ignored, or glaring mistakes are evident. When two reasonable conclusions are possible from the evidence on record, one favoring conviction and one favoring acquittal, the appellate court must uphold the acquittal and not disturb the lower court's finding. In cases where eyewitness testimony is contradicted by credible medical and expert evidence that demonstrates the prosecution's version is physically impossible, the acquittal based on credibility assessment may be upheld. The appellate court's role is to prevent miscarriage of justice from acquittal of the guilty, but not at the cost of convicting the innocent on potentially unreliable evidence.
On this section: Criminal intimidation; charged but focus of judgment remained on more serious charges of murder
-
The State of Maharashtra vs Amol Nanasaheb Jogdanda
Court's Decision & Legal Precedent
When the primary witness (complainant) in a criminal case admits to an out-of-court settlement with the accused and recants the allegations, and no other credible corroborating evidence is presented by the prosecution, the accused persons must be acquitted as the burden of proof on the prosecution to establish guilt beyond reasonable doubt has not been discharged. The court cannot convict based on mere allegations when the complainant himself contradicts the complaint and admits to amicable resolution of the dispute.
On this section: Punishment for assault or criminal force otherwise than on grave provocation - applied to alleged physical violence
-
Narayan Singh S/o Nathu Singh vs State of Rajasthan
Court's Decision & Legal Precedent
In cases involving charges of violent offences under Sections 143, 147, 352, 307, and 251 IPC, where the accused have been in custody for a substantial period, have no criminal antecedents, and the evidence does not indicate the use of firearms or the most serious form of violence, bail may be granted under Section 439 CrPC with appropriate personal bonds and sureties to ensure court appearance and compliance with bail conditions.
On this section: Assault or criminal force otherwise than on grave provocation - charge against accused
-
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: Intentional insult with intent to provoke breach of peace
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 352
What have the courts held on Section 352 of the Indian Penal Code?
Sheikh Juman Etc vs State of Bihar (23 Feb 2017) is the leading judgment on this section among those set out below: Voluntarily causing hurt - Discussed as potential alternative charge for members sharing original common object of merely assaulting without intention to cause death. Another 4 judgments on this section are set out below, 2 of them from the Supreme Court. They run from 2009 to 2025.
How do I find court cases under Section 352 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 352, section 352 IPC, section 352 of the Indian Penal Code. People searching for it also type ipc 352 is bailable or not and ipc 352 in bns. Each opens the full list of orders on eCourtsIndia, where it can be narrowed by court, year and outcome. 5 reported judgments on this section are set out on this page, beginning with Sheikh Juman Etc vs State of Bihar (23 Feb 2017).
What should I read with Section 352 of the Indian Penal Code, and has it changed?
4 other provisions in this corpus refer back to it. For anything done on or after 1 July 2024 the provision to read is BNS 131 (Punishment for assault or criminal force otherwise than on grave provocation), which replaced it; conduct before that date is still charged, tried and appealed under this section.
When did Section 352 of the Indian Penal Code come into force?
Section 352 of the Indian Penal Code, cited as IPC 352, 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.