Law and You > Criminal Laws > Indian Penal Code > Grievous Hurt Under IPC (S. 320)
Section 319 IPC defines hurt as follows: Whoever causes bodily pain, disease or infirmity to any person is said to cause hurt. In the offence of hurt, accused voluntarily causes bodily pain, deceases or causes infirmity to the victims. The accused does so with intention of causing hurt or with the knowledge that he would thereby cause hurt to the victim. If the accused did not know about any special condition of the deceased and causes death because of hurt, he will be held guilty of only hurt. A physical contact is not necessary. Hurt may be serious or grievous. In this article we shall discuss grievous hurt under IPC.
Section 320 IPC:
Grievous Hurt:
The following kinds of hurt only are designated as “grievous”:-
First- Emasculation.
Secondly- Permanent privation of the sight of either eye.
Thirdly- Permanent privation of the hearing of either ear,
Fourthly- Privation of any member or joint.
Fifthly- Destruction or permanent impairing of the powers of any member or joint.
Sixthly- Permanent disfiguration of the head or face.
Seventhly- Fracture or dislocation of a bone or tooth.
Eighthly- Any hurt which endangers life or which causes the sufferer to be during the space of twenty days in severe bodily pain, or unable to follow his ordinary pursuits.
Section 320 of IPC is a penal provision. It is required to be interpreted strictly. So, no other injury can be read as grievous hurt on the grounds of similarity or analogy, similarity of consequences or effect. All other offences which do not fall within the purview of section 320 of the IPC are simple hurt under the laws of the land.
1) Emasculation:
‘Emasculation’ means the depriving a person of masculine vigour, castration. This clause is confined to males only. Emasculation could be done by castration, by cutting the male organ, or by causing injury to testis or to the spinal cord at the level of 2nd to 4th lumbar vertebrae to result in impotence. Impotence refers to taking away penetrating power during intercourse. If the male retains penetrating power, accused will not be responsible for causing emasculation.
“Permanent” does not mean that it should be incurable. Where the victim is impotent before sustaining injury which is likely to cause impotence needs to be ruled out before holding the accused guilty of grievous hurt except in the cases where injuries which are subject to physical verification for example amputation or cutting of penis or testes the determination of emasculation is difficult and prone to mistake.
A person emasculating himself cannot be convicted under this section. A person causing hurt to himself does not come within the purview of this section.
2) Permanent Privation of the Sight of Either Eye:
The Oxford dictionary defines privation “as loss of basic things that people need for living” Lexico has defined privation as “loss or absence of a quality or attribute that is normally present.
The test of gravity is the permanency of the injury caused to one eye or both eyes. Permanent loss of eye sight does not mean that it should be incurable for instance, loss of sight occurring due to corneal opacity resulting from injury to the cornea may be curable by corneoplasty but being permanent by itself constitutes a grievous hurt and chances of treating by corneoplasty do not lower its gravity. The gravity of injury lies in its permanency because it deprives a person of the use of the organ of sight and also disfigures him. Permanent privation of sight can be caused by gouging out of eyes, poking eyes, chemicals, etc.
It is sufficient if there is loss of quality or attribute of eye. The clause is silent about the extent of loss of quality or attribute. Meaning thereby that if before the injury, the vision was 6/6 and due to the injury it deteriorates to 6/12, it would be a case of grievous hurt. But it is difficult for the doctor to determine the extent of loss of quality or attribute unless the status of the quality of eye sight before the injury is available with the medico legal expert, which is a rare possibility.
3. Permanent Privation of the hearing Of Either Ear:
Permanent deprivations of the sense of hearing have been kept under the category of grievous hurt. It may be with respect to one ear or both ears. To attract this clause the deafness caused must be permanent. Permanent privation of hearing may be caused by a blow on the head or the ear, or by blows which injure the tympanum or auditory nerves or by trusting something or pouring hot liquid into the ear which causes deafness. Even, permanent partial loss of hearing is considered as grievous.
Unless the status of hearing capacity of the victim before the injury is accessible to the doctor who examines the victim, it may not be possible for the doctor to evaluate the extent of loss of quality or attribute of the hearing of the ear. So there is a reasonable possibility of error in the evaluation of effect of injury and improper reporting of the nature of injury.
4. Privation of Any Member or Joint:
The term “member” used in section 320 means “an organ or a limb, being part of a man capable of performing a distinct function or any part of the body which has a separate morphological and functional identity. As such, it includes the eyes, ears, nose, mouth, hands, feet and, in fact, all distinct parts of the human body designed to perform a distinct function. A joint, also called an articulation, it is a place where adjacent bones or bone and cartilage come together (articulate with each other) to form a connection.
The privation of a member or a joint means injuring in any way or depriving a person of the functions of a member or a joint against his or her will. If due to an injury, any joint becomes stiff to the extent that the normal function of the joint is not possible, it is a grievous hurt. It is not necessary for grievous hurt that the privation should be of permanent nature.
5. Destruction or Permanent Impairing of the Powers of Any Member or Joint:
The use of limbs and joints of body are essential to the discharge of thenormal functions of the body. Their deprivation causes lifelong crippling and makesthe person defenseless and miserable.
The impairing of a member or a joint means injuring in any way or depriving a person of the functions of a member or a joint against his or her will. If due to an injury, any joint becomes stiff to the extent that the normal function of the joint is not possible, it is a grievous hurt. It is not necessary for grievous hurt that the privation should be of permanent nature.
6. Permanent Disfiguration of The Head or Face:
Disabling is distinguishable from disfiguring as discussed in the sixth clause. To disfigure means to cause some external injury which detracts from a person’s personal appearance. It may not weaken him. Age, sex, occupation of the subject is immaterial. On the other hand, to disable means to do something creating a permanent disability and not a mere temporary injury.
In Gangaram v. State of Rajasthan, 1983 WLN 356 case, where the bridge of the nose was cut, as the injury was inflicted by a sharp –edged weapon, it was held that the act amounted to permanent disfiguration within the meaning of this clause and hence the injury was grievous
7. Fracture or Dislocation of a Bone or Tooth:
The term fracture has not been defined in Section 320 IPC. Fracture or dislocation of a bone or tooth causes great pain and suffering to the injured person and hence it is considered grievous hurt. For application of this clause, it is not necessary that a bone should be fractured through and through or that there should be a displacement of any fragment of bone. Any break or splintering of the bone, rupture or fissure in it would amount to fracture.
In Hori Lal v. State of U.P., AIR 1970 SC 1969 case, the Court said that incised wound to the bone is to be consider as fracture, hence, grievous hurt. Before giving opinion, it has to be proved that, the tooth was not originally loose and injury caused fracture or dislocation of tooth.
In Mokkasamy v. Unknown, 1965 CriLJ 48(Madras) case, the court observed “where the evidence is merely that a bone has been cut and there is nothing whatever to indicate the extent of the cut, whether deep or a mere scratch upon the surface, it is impossible to infer from that evidence alone that grievous hurt has been caused within the meaning of the definition in section 320 of Indian Penal Code.
8. Dangerous Hurt Endangering Life:
An injury can be said to endanger life if it is in itself that it put the life of the injured in danger. The hurt which causes severe bodily pain for the period of twenty days means that a person must be unable to follow his ordinary pursuits. The mere fact that a man has been in hospital for twenty days is not sufficient; it must be proved that during that time he was unable to follow his ordinary pursuits. A disability for twenty days constitutes grievous hurt; if it constitutes for a smaller period, then the offence is hurt.
Dangerous injury is a variety of grievous injury. Dangerous injuries are those which cause imminent danger to life, either by involvement of important organs and structures, or extensive area of the body. If no surgical aid is available, such injuries may prove fatal.
In Grievous Hurt, the life is endangered due to injury while in Culpable Homicide; death is likely to be caused. However, acts neither intended nor likely to cause death may amount to grievous hurt even though death is caused.
In Abdul Sajid Abdul Sadiq v. State of Maharashtra 2003 (4) MhLj 306 case, the Court observed that under clause VIII three different types of hurt have been included:
- Any hurt which endangers life.
- Any hurt which causes the victim to be in severe bodily pain for a period of twenty days.
- Any hurt which prevents the victim from following his ordinary pursuits for a period of twenty days.
The three clauses are independent of one another and the injuries mentioned in clause VIII will fall within the purview of grievous hurt.
In Niranjan Singh V State of Madhya Pradesh 2007 (7) SCR 1017 case, the Supreme Court observed that the term “endangers life” is much stronger than the expression “dangerous to life”. “Ordinary pursuits” means acts which are a daily routine in every human being’s day to day life like eating food, taking bath, going to toilet, etc.
In Khudiram Majhi v State of WB, AIR 1972 SC 1221 case, the Court observed dividing lines between culpable homicide and grievous hurt are very thin; in former case, injuries must be such as are likely to cause death and in the latter, they may endanger life. Blow in the head with axe, which penetrated half an inch into the head, is an act, which is likely to endanger the life, and is covered under clause eight of section 320. The accused in this case convicted under section 326.
In Muhammad Rafi v. Emperor, AIR 1930 Lah. 305 case, the accused, a mocha (cobbler) inflicted an injury on the neck of the deceased with a penknife from behind. The deceased was taken to the hospital and died fifteen days later as a result of septic poisoning from the wound. The accused was convicted by the Session’s Court under section 304(2) IPC for culpable homicide to murder. Allowing the appeal partially, the Lahore High Court held the accused liable under section 322, IPC for causing death by grievous hurt as against culpable homicide not amounting to murder as the circumstances did not justify a time a wound on the neck is dangerous to life within the meaning of clause 8 of section 320, IPC.
Medical Opinion on Nature of Hurt:
In Sarwan Singh v State, AIR 1978 SC 1525 case, the Court held that the opinion of the doctor about the nature of injury is not binding on the court.
In Manga v State, AIR 1979 SC 1194 case, the Court observed that the medical evidence can be hardly be relied upon to falsify the evidence of eyewitness because of the fact that medical evidence is guided by various factors based on guess and certain calculations.
Conclusion:
Section 320 of IPC is a penal provision. It is required to be interpreted strictly. So, no other injury can be read as grievous hurt on the grounds of similarity or analogy, similarity of consequences or effect. All other offences which do not fall within the purview of section 320 of the IPC are simple hurt under the laws of the land.