Law and You > Criminal Laws > Indian Penal Code > Hurt Under IPC (S. 319)
The word “injury” denotes any harm whatever illegally caused to any person, in body, mind, reputation and property. Section 319 to 338 of Indian Penal Code deals with hurt and Grievous Hurt in various forms. In normal sense, hurt means to cause bodily injury and/or pain to another person. IPC defines Hurt as follows:
Section 319 IPC:
Hurt:
Whoever causes bodily pain, disease or infirmity to any person is said to cause hurt.
Hurt Under IPC (Ingredients):
To constitute hurt (battery under English Law) any of the following essentials needs to be caused
- Bodily pain, or
- Disease, or
- Infirmity to another.
Bodily Pain:
To cause hurt, there need not be any direct physical contact. Where the direct result of an act is causing of bodily pain it is hurt whatever be the means employed to cause it. Hurt is constituted by causing bodily pain, not mental pain. Except such slight harm for which nobody would complain, is hurt. For example, pricking a person with pointed object like a needle or punching somebody in the face, or pulling a woman’s hair is a hurt. The duration of the pain is immaterial.
- Dragging women out of house held to an offence of hurt (Abdul Sattar v Moti Bibi, AIR 1930 Cal 720).
- Causing of pain being sufficient to constitute hurt, it is not necessary that there should be visible injury caused on the person the victim, not it is necessary that injury should be received by physical contact (Ranganayamma v Sibamma, AIR 1967 AP 208.).
- Causing pain by voluntary act is sufficient (1970 Raj LW 135).
- A person who deliberately sets out to cause shock to a person with a weak heart and succeeds in doing so causes hurt to that person (Jashnmal v Bhramanand, AIR 1924 Sind 19).
Disease:
A person communicating a particular disease to another would be guilty of hurt. It must, however, be done by contact.
In Raka v. Emperor, 1887 ILR 11 Bom 59 case, where the accused was a prostitute and she inflicted syphilis to her customers. The Bombay High Court held that accused; the prostitute was liable under Section 269 of IPC- negligent act likely to spread infection of any disease dangerous to the life of another person and not of causing hurt, because the interval between the act and disease was too remote to attract sections 319 and 321, IPC.
In R. v. Clarence, (1889) 22 QB 23 Case, the defendant (husband), was charged for unlawfully inflicting grievous bodily harm upon his wife and occasioning actual bodily harm The husband had sexual intercourse and knowingly transmitting Gonorrhoea to his wife, who was unaware of his infection. The husband was convicted by the lower court for communicating a disease to his wife. By a majority of nine to four the Court for Crown Cases quashed the conviction and held that it is neither an infliction of grievous bodily harm, nor an assault for a men to infect his wife with gonorrhea by having sexual intercourse with her, even though was aware of his condition and she was ignorant of it, and even though she wouldn’t have had intercourse with him had she known of his condition.
Infirmity
‘Infirmity’ denotes an unsound or unhealthy state of the body Infirmity means the inability of an organ to perform its normal function which may either be temporary or permanent. It denotes a temporary mental impairment, hysteria or terror.
The term “infirmity‟ has been interpreted to mean inability of an organ to perform normal functions which may be either temporary or permanent (Pateshwari Prasad v S. Dayal, AIR 1924 ALL 215).
In Jashanmal Jhamatmal v. Brahmanand Sarupanand, AIR 1944 Sind 19 case, the accused landlord in order to frighten the complainant’s wife uttered a piercing sound like ‘Haoo’ and, extending his arms towards the lady pointed a pistol at her, with a view to causing the couple to vacate the premises. Due to shock, the complainant’s wife collapsed and become seriously ill for some considerable time. The Court held, the act was sufficient to cause a state of temporary mental impairment or hysteria resulting in infirmity of the mind of the lady to attract section 319, I.P.C
Hurt resulting in Death:
Where there is no intention to cause death, or no knowledge that death is likely to be caused, and death is caused, the accused will be guilty of ‘hurt’ only if the injuries are not serious in nature.
In re Marana Goundan, (1941) 1 MLJ 364 case, where the deceased owed one anna to the appellant and the latter demanded repayment. The deceased promised to pay later and the appellant kicked him twice on the abdomen. The deceased collapsed and died soon after. The accused was held guilty of causing hurt only.
In Bysagoo Noshyo, (1867) 8 WR (Cr) 29(14) case, A, on a grave and sudden provocation given by B, gave B a kick on the abdomen. B had an enlarged spleen which was punctured by the blow, and B died in consequence. Since A had no intention to cause death, nor any knowledge that injury was likely to cause death, he was held liable for causing simple hurt under sections 319 and 321 of I.P.C
Conclusion:
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. In many cases offences that fall under hurt will also fall under assault. However, there can be certain situations, where they may not. For example, if A leaves food mixed with poison on B’s desk and later on B eats the food causing hurt, it cannot be a case of assault. 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.