Law and You > Criminal Laws > Indian Penal Code > Force Under IPC (Section 349)
Every individual has a right to live in the society without any unreasonable interference by others. Sometimes people may interfere with the body of others by threat or force. Any such interference using threat or force is considered as an offence, as it affects the mental and bodily wellbeing of the person to whom the said act is committed. The Indian Penal Code, 1860 declares unreasonable interference in the form of threat or application of force others body to as punishable offences. The Sections 349 to 358 of the Code explains about the offence of Force, Use of Criminal Force, Assaults and various aggravated forms of Assaults. In this article, we shall discuss force under IPC.
Force:
The Oxford Dictionary defines force as coercion or compulsion, especially with the use or threat of violence. The Section 349 of Indian Penal Code explains the law relating to use of force.
Section 349 IPC:
Force:
A person is said to use force to another if he causes motion, change of motion, or cessation of motion to that other, or if he causes to any substance such motion, or change of motion, or cessation of motion as brings that substance into contact with any part of that other’s body, or with anything which that other is wearing or carrying, or with anything so situated that such contact affects that other’s sense of feeling:
Provided that the person causing the motion, or change of motion, or cessation of motion, causes that motion, change of motion, or cessation of motion in one of the three ways hereinafter described:
First.—By his own bodily power.
Secondly.—By disposing any substance in such a manner that the motion or change or cessation of motion takes place without any further act on his part, or on the part of any other person.
Thirdly.—By inducing any animal to move, to change its motion, or to cease to move.
This Section elaborately defines what “force” is and does not by itself constitute an offence. It merely explains what amounts to “force”. The object of Sections 349 and 350 is to provide a clear understanding about the concept of “force” and “criminal force” for the purpose of other subsequent Sections such as 350 – 358.
Ingredients of Force (Section 349):
- The causing of motion or change of motion or cessation of motion of any person; or the causing of motion or change of motion or cessation of motion of any substance
- By a person using his own bodily power or by disposing any substance in such a manner that the motion or change or cessation of motion takes place without any further act on his part, or on the part of any other person or by inducing any animal to move, to change its motion, or to cease to move.
Under the terms of this Section to cause motion, change of motion or cessation of motion by one or other of the three means mentioned to another person, either directly or indirectly bringing some substance into contact with his body or with something that he is wearing or carrying or with something that thereby affects his sense of feeling, is to use force.
In Balaram Sahu v Chandra Sahu, AIR 1921 Pat 391 case, the Court observed that the term “force” as defined in this section contemplates force used by a human being on another human being. It does not contemplate the use of force against inanimate objects. This is clear from the use of the word “another” in the section.
In Gordhan Das v. State of Rajasthan, AIR 1968 Raj 241 case, the Court observed that a motion or change of motion or cessation of motion caused to property without affecting a human being is not the “use of force to another” within the meaning of this section.
Terminology of Section:
The terms used in this Section for defining force are exemplified by illustrations given under Section 350 (Criminal Force). In order to constitute force, there must be at least the causing of motion, change of motion or cessation of motion in another.
Motion:
Illustration (a) exemplifies the word “motion”. It states that “Z is sitting in a moored boat on a river. A unfastens the moorings, and thus intentionally causes the boat to drift down the stream. Here A intentionally causes motion to Z, and he does this by disposing substances in such a manner that the motion is produced without any other action on any person’s part”.
In Jai Ram v. Emperor, Criminal Revn. No. 1199 of 1913 case, the Accused raises his stick to strike the Plaintiff, the plaintiff seeing the accused raising the stick moves away, Accused is said to use force within the meaning of this Section.
Change of Motion:
Illustration (b) exemplifies the word “change of motion”. It states that “Z is riding in a chariot. A lashes Z’s horses, and thereby causes them to quicken their pace. Here A has caused change of motion to Z by inducing the animals to change their motion. A has, therefore, used force to Z”.
Cessation of Motion:
Illustration (c) exemplifies the word “cessation of motion”. It states that “Z is riding in a palanquin. A, intending to rob Z, seizes the pole and stops the palanquin. Here A has caused cessation of motion to Z, and he has done this by his own bodily power. A has, therefore, used force to Z”.
Bring that Substance into Contact with any Part of that Others Body:
Illustration (d) explains the phrase “bring that substance into contact with any part of that others body”. It states that “A intentionally pushes against Z in the street. Here A has by his own bodily power moved his own person so as to bring it into contact with Z. He has, therefore, used force to Z”.
In Chandrika Sao v. State of Bihar, (1967) Cr LJ 261 (SC) case, where an assistant superintendent of commercial taxes paid a surprise visit to the shop of the accused to inspect the books of account. He found two sets of account books in the shop. He took them and started looking into them. Suddenly, the accused snatched away both the books from him. The accused was charged under section 353, IPC. It was contented on behalf of the accused that the mere snatching of books does not amount to “using force” as contemplated by section 349. The Supreme Court rejected this argument observing that it would be clear from a bare perusal of the section that one person can be said to have used force against another if he causes motion, change of motion or cessation of motion to that other. By snatching away the books which the official was holding, the accused necessarily caused a jerk to the hand or hands. Further, the natural effect of snatching the books from the hand or hands of the official would be to affect the sense of feeling of the hands of the official. The court, therefore, held that the action of the accused amounts to use of force as contemplated by section 349, IPC.
Others Sense of Feeling:
Illustration (g) exemplifies the idea of “others sense of feeling”. It states that “Z is bathing, A pours into the bath water which he knows to be boiling. Here A intentionally by his own bodily power causes such motion in the boiling water as brings that water into contact with Z, or with other water so situated that such contact must affect Z’s sense of feeling. A has, therefore, used force to Z.
Conclusion:
To attract Section 349 IPC, there must be motion or change of motion or cessation of motion of any person; or the causing of motion or change of motion or cessation of motion of any substance affecting another person. The force contemplated in this Section is force against a human being and not against an inanimate object. if any motion, change of motion or cessation of motion, is caused to any property without affecting a human being, there is no use of force, within the meaning of Section 349. “Force” does not contemplate the use of force against inanimate objects. Force does not imply a causing or cessation of motion by personal contacts however the presence of the parties are essential under this Section.