Hurt and Grievous Hurt PDF

Preview

Summary

Download Hurt and Grievous Hurt PDF

Description

Hurt and Grievous Hurt

3rd Semester Section A

Acknowledgement Firstly, I would like to express my profound sense of gratitude towards the almighty for providing me with the authentic circumstances which were mandatory for the completion of my project.

Secondly, I am highly indebted to at Faculty of Law, Jamia Millia Islamia University, New Delhi for providing me with constant encouragement and guidance throughout the preparation of this project.

My cardinal thanks are also for my parents, friends and all teachers of law department in our college who have always been the source of my inspiration and

Submitted by: Kashif Zafar

1

motivation without which I would have never been able to unabridged my project.

Kashif Zafar

Contents 1. Introduction to Criminal Law 2. Hurt 3. Grievous hurt o Rational behind the Section o Scope 4. Difference between hurt and grievous hurt o Difference between punishments for hurt and grievous hurt o Difference between grievous hurt and culpable homicide 5. Grievous hurt and compelling wife to prostitution 6. Acid Attack 7. Latest Development 8. Case Analysis 9. Conclusion Submitted by: Kashif Zafar

2

10.

Bibliography

Criminal Law: Introduction Criminal law is the body of law that relates to crime. It regulates social conduct and proscribes whatever is threatening, harmful, or otherwise endangering to the property, health, safety, and moral welfare of people. It includes the punishment of people who violate these laws. Criminal law varies according to jurisdiction, and differs from civil law, where emphasis is more on dispute resolution and victim compensation than on punishment. Criminal law is distinctive for the uniquely serious potential consequences or sanctions for failure to abide by its rules. Every crime is composed of criminal elements. Capital punishment may be imposed in some jurisdictions for the most serious crimes. Physical or corporal punishment may be imposed such as whipping or caning, although these punishments are prohibited in much of the world. Individuals may be incarcerated in prison or jail in a variety of conditions depending on the jurisdiction. Confinement may be solitary. Length of incarceration may vary from a day to life. Government supervision may be imposed, including house arrest, and convicts may be required to conform to particularized guidelines as part of a parole or probation regimen. Fines also may be imposed, seizing money or property from a person convicted of a crime. Five objectives are widely accepted for enforcement of the criminal law by punishments: retribution, deterrence, incapacitation, rehabilitation and restoration . Jurisdictions differ on the value to be placed on each. Submitted by: Kashif Zafar

3



Retribution – Criminals ought to suffer in some way. This is the most widely seen goal. Criminals have taken improper advantage, or inflicted unfair detriment, upon others and consequently, the criminal law will put criminals at some unpleasant disadvantage to "balance the scales." People submit to the law to receive the right not to be murdered and if people contravene these laws, they surrender the rights granted to them by the law. Thus, one who murders may be executed himself. A related theory includes the idea of "righting the balance."



Deterrence – Individual deterrence is aimed toward the specific offender. The aim is to impose a sufficient penalty to discourage the offender from criminal behavior. General deterrence aims at society at large. By imposing a penalty on those who commit offenses, other individuals are discouraged from committing those offenses.  Incapacitation – Designed simply to keep criminals away from society so that the public is protected from their misconduct. This is often achieved through prison sentences today. The death penalty or banishment has served the same purpose. Rehabilitation – Aims at transforming an offender into a valuable member  of society. Its primary goal is to prevent further offense by convincing the offender that their conduct was wrong.  Restoration – This is a victim-oriented theory of punishment. The goal is to repair, through state authority, any injury inflicted upon the victim by the offender. For example, one who embezzles will be required to repay the amount improperly acquired. Restoration is commonly combined with other main goals of criminal justice and is closely related to concepts in the civil law, i.e., returning the victim to his or her original position before the injury.

Submitted by: Kashif Zafar

4

Hurt In normal sense, hurt means to cause bodily injury and/or pain to another person. IPC defines Hurt as follows Section 319 - Whoever causes bodily pain, disease, or infirmity to any person is said to cause hurt. Based on this, the essential ingredients of Hurt are 1. Bodily Pain:- Bodily 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. The duration of the pain is immaterial. Infirmity means when any organ is not able to function normally. It can be temporary or permanent. It also includes state of mind such as hysteria or terror. 2. Disease:- A person communicating a particular disease to another would be guilty of hurt. However, there appears to be conflicting judicial decisions w.r.t. cases of communication of sexual diseases by one to another. In R. v. Clarence1, 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. 1 (1888) 22 QBD 23 (42-43) (HL).

Submitted by: Kashif Zafar

5

In Raka v. Emperor2, the Bombay High Court held a prostitute who had sexual intercourse with the complainant and thereby communicated syphilis, liable under section 269, I.P.C., for spreading of infection and not causing hurt, because the interval between the act and disease was too remote to attract sections 319 and 321 I.P.C. On the other hand, an accused who had veneral disease induced a girl of 13 years of age, who was ignorant of his condition, to have sexual intercourse with him and infected her with the disease, was held guilty of indecent assault. 3. Infirmity:- infirmity means a temporary mental impairment, hysteria or terror. In Jashanmal Jhamatmal v. Brahmanand Sarupanand3, 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. 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. Act neither intended to cause death nor grievous hurt may be hurt even though it results in death- When there is no intention of causing death or bodily injury as is likely to cause death, and there is no knowledge that inflicting such injury would cause death, the accused would be guilty of hurt if the injury is not serious. In a case in 1883, the accused struck a man one blow on the head with a bamboo yoke and the injured man died, primarily due to excessive opium administered by his friends to alleviate pain. He was held guilty under this section. In Bysagoo Noshyo4, 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.

2 1887 ILR 11 Bom 59. 3 A.I.R. 1944 Sind. 19. 4 (1867) 8 WR (Cr) 29.

Submitted by: Kashif Zafar

6

In re Marana Goundan5, A demanded ten rupees from B which latter owed him. B promised to pay later. A thereupon kicked B twice in his abdomen. B collapsed and died. A was held guilty of voluntarily causing hurt. In Beshor Bewa6 , the accused lady, gave a kick on the back and two slaps on the face of her 10 year old daughter which resulted in her death. She was held guilty of causing hurt only. The authors of the code have observed that 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. Thus, in Marana Goundan's case AIR 1941, when the accused kicked a person and the person died because of a diseased spleen, he was held guilty of only hurt. A physical contact is not necessary. Thus, a when an accused gave food mixed with dhatura and caused poisoning, he was held guilty of Hurt.

5 A.I.R. 1971 Goa, Daman and Diu 18. 6 (1872) 18 WR (Cr.) 29.

Submitted by: Kashif Zafar

7

Grievous Hurt Cases of severe hurt are classified under grievous hurt. The authors of the code observed that it would be very difficult to draw a line between hurt and grievous hurt but it was important to draw a line even if it is not perfect so as to punish the cases which are clearly more than hurt. Section 320- Grievous Hurt- The following kinds of hurt 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 victim to be in severe bodily pain or unable to follow his ordinary pursuits for a period of 20 days. The section is explained in the following lines. Firstly- ‘Emasculation’- the term ‘emasculation’ means the depriving a person of masculine vigor, castration. Injury to the scrotum would render a man impotent. 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. Secondly- Losing eye sight-where as many as twenty four persons lost their eye-sight permanently in consequence of arrack distributed by the accused after mixing methyl

Submitted by: Kashif Zafar

8

alcohol in it, the hurt has to be regarded as grievous hurt because of what has been stated in the clause 2. Thirdly- It deprives a man of his sense of hearing. Injury to the tympanum or auditory nerve or by thrusting something into the ear which causes deafness. Fourthly- The term ‘member’ means an organ or a limb being part of man capable of performing a distinct function. It includes, nose, mouth, hands, feet, phalanges etc. Fifthly- The use of limbs and joints of body are essential to the discharge of the normal functions of the body. Their deprivation causes lifelong crippling and makes the person defenseless and miserable. Sixthly- The word ‘disfigure’ means to cause some external injuries which detracts from his personal appearance but does not weaken him. In Gangaram v. State of Rajasthan7 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. Seventhly- It is not necessary that a bone should be cut through and, the cut should be up to the medulla. If there is a break by cutting or splintering of the bone or there is a rupture or fissure in it, it would amount to a fracture but the doctor must document the dimensions of fracture and duration/age correlation with age of injury. Dislocation means displacement. Mere looseness of teeth will not amount to dislocation. It has to be proved that the tooth was originally not loose and that there was fracture or dislocation by the injury. In Horilal8, the Supreme Court held that ordinary fracture means breaking of a bone. A mere abrasion or cut that does not go across the bone cannot be called a fracture of the bone9 Eighthly- Any hurt which endangers life or which causes the victim to be in severe bodily pain or unable to follow his ordinary pursuits for a period of 20 days. A wound may cause intense pain, prolonged disease or long lasting body injury but does not fall under any of the seven clauses. A body injury/beating may not mutilate the sufferer or fracture his bones but may be so harsh and painful may cause even death. The eighth 7 1984 Cr LJ 180 NOC (Raj) 8 Horilal v. State of Uttar Pradesh, A.I.R. 1970 SC 1969 9 Parma, A.I.R. 1956, Raj 39.

Submitted by: Kashif Zafar

9

clause provides for such hurts. Under this, three different clauses of hurt are included. These are:   

Any hurt which endangers life. Any hurt which causes the victim to be in severe bodily pain for a period of 20 days. Any hurt which prevents the victim from following his ordinary pursuits for a

period

of 20 days.

In Muhammad Rafi’s10 case, the accused, a mocha (cobbler) aged about 20 years who inflicted an injury on the neck of the deceased with a penknife from behind, was convicted by the Session’s Court under section 304(2) IPC for culpable homicide to murder. The tragedy took place as a result of a quarrel between the two boys over a loan of sum of fifteen paisa. The deceased was taken to the hospital and died fifteen days later as a result of septic poisoning from the wound. 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. In Mohindar Singh v. Emperor11, the accused on 22nd August, 1922 inflicted a wound on Sarwan singh’s leg with a gandasa (a sharp – edged weapon) and gave him blows with the back of the gandasa. Tetanus set in on 31st August, 1922 which caused his death. Held, a wound in the leg was not in itself sufficiently dangerous to bring the case within the meaning of grievous hurt when death due to tetanus which supervened and resulted in the death of deceased. Rational behind the section- The authors of the code observe: “we have found it very difficult to draw a line between those bodily hurts which are serious and those which are slight. To draw such a line between with perfect accuracy is absolutely impossible; but it is far better that such a line should be drawn, though rudely, than that offences some of which approach in enormity to murder, while others are little

10 AIR 1930 Lah. 305 11 AIR 1925 Lah. 297.

Submitted by: Kashif Zafar

10

more than frolics which a good natures man would hardly recent, should be classed together. Some hurts which are not, like those kinds of hurt which are mentioned in condition 1 to 7, distinguished by a broad and obvious line from slight hurts, may nevertheless be most serious. A wound, for example, which neither emasculates the sufferer, nor blinds him, nor destroys his hearing, nor deprives him of a member or a joint, nor breaks his bones, nor dislocate them, may yet cause intense pain, prolonged disease, lasting injury to constitution. It is evidently desirable that law should make a distinction between such a wound, mad scratch which he headed by just sticking plaster. A beating, again, which does not maim the sufferer or break his bones may be so cruel as to bring him to point of death. Such a beating, it is clear, ought not to be confounded with a bruise, which requires only to be bathed with vinegar, and of which the traces disappear in a day.” Scope- Like in Section 319, this section is also in the nature of definite clause. Section 319 defines hurt, whereas section 320 defines ‘grievous hurt’. To make out the offence of voluntarily causing grievous hurt, there must be some specific hurt, voluntarily inflicted, and coming within the eight kinds enumerated in this section. When a person forcibly thrust lathi into the rectum of another person and causes serious injuries, he was held guilty of causing grievous hurt. Injuries inflicted with the help of burning firewood cannot be considered as grievous hurt as they do not come within the specific items of the injuries mentioned in the definition of grievous hurt; nor do they endanger life.

Submitted by: Kashif Zafar

11

Difference between hurt and grievous hurt Section 321- Voluntarily causing hurt – Whoever does any act with the intention of thereby causing hurt to any person, or with the knowledge that he is likely thereby to cause hurt to any person, and does thereby cause hurt to any person, is said "voluntarily to cause hurt". Section 322- Voluntarily causing grievous hurt – Whoever voluntarily causes hurt, if the hurt which he intends to cause or knows himself to be likely to cause is grievous hurt, and if the hurt which he causes is grievous hurt, is said "voluntarily to cause grievous hurt". Explanation-A person is not said voluntarily to cause grievous hurt except when he both causes grievous hurt and intends or knows himself to be likely to cause grievous hurt. But he is said voluntarily to cause grievous hurt, if intending or knowing himself to be likely to cause grievous hurt of one kind, he actually causes grievous hurt of another kind. Illustration- A, intending or knowing himself to be likely permanently to disfigure Z’s face, gives Z a below which does not permanently disfigure Z’s face, but which cause Z to suffer severe bodily pain for the space of twenty days. A has voluntarily caused grievous hurt. The provisions of this section are very precise and incapable of misconstruction. A magistrate dealing with charges of voluntarily causing grievous hurt must consider and decide not only whether grievous hurt has been caused but if it has been caused voluntarily or himself knew to be likely to cause grievous hurt. If he intended or knew himself to be likely to cause only simple hurt, he cannot be convicted under section 325. Section 321 and the explanation to section 322 make it clear that either the

Submitted by: Kashif Zafar

12

ingredient of intention or that of knowledge, must be essentially present in order to constitute the offence of hurt. Such a knowledge cab be inferred from the part of body chosen for inflicting violence and the severity of that violence as shown by the injuries on the body of the victim. The means by which the injury was cause is not the true criterion. The answer really depends on the nature of the injury caused and the manner in which the blows were administered, whether by fists and slaps or by a weapon.

Difference between punishments for “hurt” and “grievous hurt” Section 323- Punishment for voluntarily causing hurt – “Whoever, except in the case provided for by section 334, voluntarily causes hurt, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to one year, or with fine which may extend to one thousand rupees, or with both.” When the injury is not serious and there was no intention to cause death or grievous hurt, nor did th...