BNS

UNIT III
ADA CHANDNA
ASST. PROF.
BMSCL
OF OFFENCES AGAINST
HUMAN BODY
CULPABLE HOMICIDE (SEC. 100)

• Whoever causes death by doing an act with the intention of causing death, or with the intention of
causing such bodily injury as is likely to cause death, or with the knowledge that he is likely by such
act to cause death, commits the offence of culpable homicide.
• Explanation 1.—A person who causes bodily injury to another who is labouring under a disorder,
disease or bodily infirmity, and thereby accelerates the death of that other, shall be deemed to have
caused his death.
• Explanation 2.—Where death is caused by bodily injury, the person who causes such bodily injury
shall be deemed to have caused the death, although by resorting to proper remedies and skilful
treatment the death might have been prevented.
• Explanation 3.—The causing of the death of a child in the mother’s womb is not homicide. But it
may amount to culpable homicide to cause the death of a living child, if any part of that child has
been brought forth, though the child may not have breathed or been completely born
• LANDMARK CASES
• Nara Singh Challan v. State of Orissa (1997)
• Section 299 of the Indian Penal Code is the genus and Section 300 of the Indian
Penal Code is the species. Hence, there are no independent sections regarding
culpable homicide not amounting to murder it is the part of Section 300 of IPC
which defines Murder.
• Shanmugam v. State of T.N
• A quarrel between the accused and the deceased In course of the quarrel the
accused stabbed the deceased with a spear in the abdomen and the chest resulting
in the death of the victim because of septicemia. The accused was sentenced to life
imprisonment under part I of Section 304 of IPC.
 MURDER (SEC. 101)
• Except in the cases hereinafter excepted, culpable homicide is murder, if the act by which
the death is caused is done with the intention of causing death, or—
• 2ndly.—If it is done with the intention of causing such bodily injury as the offender knows
to be likely to cause the death of the person to whom the harm is caused, or—
• 3rdly.—If it is done with the intention of causing bodily injury to any person and the bodily
injury intended to be inflicted is sufficient in the ordinary course of nature to cause death, or
—
• 4thly.—If the person committing the act knows that it is so imminently dangerous that it
must, in all probability, cause death, or such bodily injury as is likely to cause death, and
commits such act without any excuse for incurring the risk of causing death or such injury as
aforesaid.
 LANDMARK CASES
• Hidayatullah J. in Anda (1966), Said; “Murder is an aggravated form of culpable homicide.”
• State v. Rayavarapee Punnayya, 1977 “In the cases of culpable homicide, the punishment varies
not according to acts but according to mind”
• Reg. v. Govinda, 1876 The accused had knocked down his wife, kept a knee on her chest and
gave two to three violent blows with the closed fist on her face. This act produced extraversion
of blood on her brain and afterwards, the wife died due to this. The act was not committed with
the intention of causing death and the bodily injury was not sufficient to cause death in the
ordinary course of nature. The accused was liable to culpable homicide not amounting to
murder.
• The difference between murder and culpable homicide is intention. If the intention is present
the crime is said to be committed under Section 300 of IPC. If the intention is absent, then the
crime is dealt under section 300 of IPC.
Section 299 IPC Section 300 IPC
Subject to certain exceptions culpable homicide is
A person commits culpable homicide if the act by
murder if the act by which the death is caused is done
which the death is caused is done –
–

Intention
With the intention of causing death; or with the
Intention intention of inflicting physical injury that the
With the intent to cause death; or with the intention to offender knows will result in the death of the person
cause physical damage that is likely to result in death; to whom the harm is inflicted; or with the intention to
or inflict bodily damage on any person and the physical
injury intended to be inflicted is sufficient to cause
death in the ordinary course of nature, or

Knowledge
With the knowledge that the conduct is so
Knowledge immediately harmful that it must almost certainly
Knowing that the conduct is likely to result in death. result in death or bodily injury that is likely to result
in death and without any justification or risk of
causing death or injury as described above.
Exceptions to Murder under Section 101 of BNS:
1. SUDDEN AND GRAVE PROVOCATION
However, this exception has specific criteria.
• the provocation must not have been sought voluntarily by the offender as an excuse
for causing harm.
• it should not be a result of an act done in obedience to the law or by a public servant
exercising lawful powers.
• it should not arise from anything done in the exercise of the right of private defense.
2. RIGHT OF PRIVATE DEFENCE- where an individual exceeds their right of private
defense, resulting in the death of another person.
3. PUBLIC SERVANT ACTING IN GOOD FAITH- by exceeding their lawful powers
in the discharge of their duties. To qualify for this exception, certain conditions must
be met:
• the act must have been committed in the discharge of official duties,
• the public servant must have exceeded their lawful powers,
• the act must have been done in good faith,
• the public servant must have believed the act was necessary, and
• there should be no ill-will toward the deceased.
4. Acts done without premeditation in a sudden fight.
This exception applies to situations where a homicide occurs in the heat
of passion during a sudden quarrel, provided certain conditions are met.
To qualify under Exception 4:
• The murder must be committed without premeditation.
• It must occur in the course of a sudden fight.
• It must be committed in the heat of passion.
• It must arise upon a sudden quarrel.
• The offender must not have taken undue advantage or acted in a cruel or
unusual manner.
5. It states that culpable homicide is not murder when the person whose
death is caused, being above the age of 18 years, suffers death or takes
the risk of death with their own consent.
To qualify under Exception 5:
• The death must be caused with the consent of the deceased.
• The deceased must have been above 18 years of age at the time.
• The consent given must be free and voluntary, not induced by fear or
misconception of facts.
This exception recognizes situations where individuals willingly agree to
their own death or take the risk of death under certain circumstances.
 CULPABLE HOMICIDE BY CAUSING DEATH OF PERSON
OTHER THAN PERSON WHOSE DEATH WAS INTENDED.
(SEC. 102)
• If a person, by doing anything which he intends or knows to be likely to cause death, commits culpable
homicide by causing the death of any person, whose death he neither intends nor knows himself to be likely
to cause, the culpable homicide committed by the offender is of the description of which it would have been
if he had caused the death of the person whose death he intended or knew himself to he likely to cause.
• Based on DOCTRINE OF TRANSFERRED MALICE: It is expressly not defined in the Indian Penal Code. Rather it
is inferred from this section.
• LANDMARK CASES
Abdul Ise Suleman v. State of Gujarat, 1994
In this case, the accused persons had freely fired on the fleeing complainant party in a commercial locality in
the course of an altercation. In the first shot, the person was injured, while a ten-year-old son of a complainant
was dead in the 2nd shot. It was held by the Supreme Court that the child death was intentional and hence
applies Section 300 read with Section 301 of IPC.
PUNISHMENT FOR MURDER (SEC.
103)
• Whoever commits murder shall be punished with death or imprisonment for life
and shall also be liable to fine.
• When a group of five or more persons acting in concert commits murder on the
ground of race, caste or community, sex, place of birth, language, personal belief
or any other similar ground each member of such group shall be punished with
death or with imprisonment for life and shall also be liable to fine.
• Punishment for murder by life-convict (Sec.104)
• Whoever, being under sentence of imprisonment for life, commits murder,
shall be punished with death.

• Punishment for culpable homicide not amounting to murder.(Sec. 105)

• Intention of causing death- MAX- LI, MIN 5 EXTEND UPTO 10 YEARS + FINE
• KNOWLEDGE LIKELY TO CAUSE DEATH- EXTEND UPTO 10 YEARS + FINE
• Causing death by negligence(Sec. 106)
GENERAL NEG.- UPTO 5 YEARS + FINE
MEDICAL NEGLIGIENCE- UPTO 2 YR+FINE
NEGLIGIENT DRIVING (ESCAPE)- UPTO 10 YR+ FINE
ESSENTIALS-
1. THERE MUST BE DEATH OF ANY PERSON
2. ACCUSED MUST HAVE CAUSED DEATH
3. SUCH ACT OF ACCUSED WAS RASH AND NEGLIGIENT.
• LANDMARK CASES
B. P. Ram vs. State of M. P. (1991)
Even passive negligence might amount to a tortious negligence. Whereas in IPC, an active negligence has to be seen.
Direct or proximate cause and not remote cause of death: Cherubin Gregory vs. State of Bihar (1962) The accused set live
electric naked wire on the passage to his latrine so that no trespasser should come and use the latrine, there was no warning
that the wire was live. The deceased, a trespasser, managed to pass into the latrine without contracting the wire and while she
was coming out, her hand happens to touch the wire and she got a shock as a result of which she died soon after. It was held
by the Supreme Court that the knowledge was not direct and proximate, and therefore not liable for culpable homicide but
liable under Section 304 A.
• Hussain S. N. vs. State of A. P. (1972)
• The appellant; a bus driver, had tried to pass through a level-crossing on finding the
gates open, but before he could clear the crossing, a goods train had come and
dashed against the rear side of the bus with the result that the bus was thrown off
causing serious injuries to passengers, of whom some died. It was held that where a
level-crossing was protected by a gate-man as in this case, and a gate-man had
negligently kept the gates open at a time when an unscheduled train was passing by,
there was no duty cast upon the driver to stop the vehicle and look out before
crossing the level crossing. The knowledge constituting negligence or rashness was
too remote and is not direct cause for death. So, the driver was held not liable.
• Abetment of suicide of child or insane person(Sec. 107)
• If any person under eighteen years of age, any insane person, any delirious person,
any idiot, or any person in a state of intoxication, commits suicide, whoever abets
the commission of such suicide, shall be punished with death or imprisonment for
life, or imprisonment for a term not exceeding ten years, and shall also be liable to
fine.
• Abetment of suicide (Sec. 108)
• If any person commits suicide, whoever abets the commission of such suicide, shall
be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend
to ten years, and shall also be liable to fine.
• LANDMARK CASES
• M. Mohan v State
• The Apex Court held that there should be a close link between the act of the accused and
the act of committing suicide. If the link is not present, it cannot be said that the accused
has instigated, or intentionally aided the commission of suicide. Meagre threats of
involving the family in false and frivolous cases cannot be held to equivalent to
instigation. Abetment thus essentially means some active proposition or support to the
commission of the offence.
• Gurcharan Singh v. the State of Punjab
• It is mentioned that the necessary ingredients of this provision are suicidal death and the
abetment thereof. To encompass abetment, the meaning and involvement of the accused
to aid or bring about the commission of suicide is very important. Any severance or
deficiency of any of these constituents would militate against this condemnation.
• Attempt to murder (Sec -109)
• Whoever does any act with such intention or knowledge, and under such circumstances that, if he by that act caused death, he
would be guilty of murder, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to ten years,
and shall also be liable to fine; and if hurt is caused to any person by such act, the offender shall be liable either to imprisonment
for life, or to such punishment as is hereinbefore mentioned. some overt act in its execution. Hence, the accused should not be
acquitted of the charge under Section 307 merely because the injuries on the victim were in the form of a simple hurt.
• LANDMARK CASES
• Sarju Prasad v. State of Bihar, 1965
• On 23 February 1961, Madan Mohan Saha and Shankar Prasad Shrivastava were attacked by Sunil Prasad while they were passing
through the Dhaime chowk at about 1 PM. They sustained grievous hurts and these injuries were inflicted upon them by Sushil
with such intention or knowledge and under such circumstances that if they had resulted in death the offence would have been
that of murder. In this case, the Supreme Court held that the state of mind of the accused has to be deduced from the
circumstances and the motive would be relevant to consider in those circumstances. Thus, the accused was held guilty under
Section 307.
• Vasant V. Jadhav v. State of Maharashtra, 2004 The Supreme Court had observed the same as that in State of Maharashtra v.
Balram Bama Patil, 1983, that Section 307 does not say that bodily injury capable of causing death should be inflicted. However,
the nature of the injury may assist the Court in finding the intention of the accused. A conviction under Section 307 is easy to
justify if the intent is coupled with
• Attempt to commit culpable homicide (Sec. 110)
• Whoever does any act with such intention or knowledge and under such circumstances that, if he by that act caused death, he
would be guilty of culpable homicide not amounting to murder, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a
term which may extend to three years, or with fine, or with both; and, if hurt is caused to any person by such act, shall be
punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to seven years, or with fine, or with both.
• LANDMARK CASES
• Ali Zaman v. State (1963)
• Facts: The accused used a handgun, but no one was killed as a consequence. The question here was whether the act would have
constituted murder if any of the people injured by the revolver rounds had died.
• Judgement: The accused’s conviction was changed to Section 308 IPC, and his sentence was lowered to two years of harsh
imprisonment after all the facts were considered. The Hon’ble Court determined that if one of the people shot died as a result of
the shooting, the crime would have been culpable homicide rather than murder. The accused was found guilty of attempting to
commit culpable murder. However, the act would have been culpable homicide under Section 304 of the Indian Penal Code if the
shot had killed any of the people.
• CASE LAWS-
1. REG VS GOVINDA (1876)
2. KM NANAVATI VS STATE OF MAHARASHTRA (1961)
3. MUTHU VS STATE OF TN (2007)
4. NATHAN VS STATE OF MADRAS (1972)
5. SUKHBIR SINGH VS STATE OF HARYANA (2002)
 SEC. 111- ORGANIZED CRIME
• Any continuing unlawful activity including kidnapping, robbery, vehicle theft, extortion, land
grabbing, contract killing, economic offences, cyber-crimes having severe consequences,
trafficking in people, drugs, illicit goods or services and weapons, human trafficking racket for
prostitution or ransom by the effort of groups of individuals acting in concert, singly or jointly,
either as a member of an organized crime syndicate or on behalf of such syndicate, by use of
violence, threat of violence, intimidation, coercion, corruption or related activities or other
unlawful means to obtain direct or indirect, material benefit including a financial benefit, shall
constitute organized crime.
• Organized Crime: Defined as continuous unlawful activities carried out by groups for material
or financial gain using violence and other illegal methods.

• Penalties: Severe penalties including imprisonment (from five years to life) and significant
fines for committing, conspiring, assisting, or being a member of organized crime. Additional
penalties apply for harboring offenders or handling property derived from such crimes.
• 111(1)- DEFINITION
• 111(2)- PUNISHMENT- DEATH CAUSED- DP/LI + MIN 10 LAKHS
OTHER CASE-5 YEARS UPTO LI + MIN 5 LAKHS
• 111(3)ABETS/ATTEMPTS/CONSPIRES/KNOWINGLY FACILITATES COMM. OF
ORG. CRIMES- MIN 5 YEARS MAX LI +5 LAKHS
• 111(4)- MEMBER OF ORG. CRIME SYNDICATE- MIN 5 YEARS MAX LI + 5
LAKHS
• 111(5)- INTENTIONALLY HARBOURS/ CONCEALS ANY PERSON WHO
COMM. OC- 3 YEARS MAX LI + 5 LAKHS FINE
• 111(6)- POSSESS ANY PROPERTY DERIVED/ OBTAINED FROM
COMMISSION OF OC- PUNISH- 3 YEAR MAX LI + 2 LAKHS
PETTY ORGANISED CRIME -SEC. 112

• (1) Whoever, being a member of a group or gang, either singly or jointly,

commits any act of theft, snatching, cheating, unauthorized selling of tickets,
unauthorized betting or gambling, selling of public examination question papers
or any other similar criminal act, is said to commit petty organized crime.
• Explanation.- For the purposes of this sub-section "theft" includes trick theft,
theft from vehicle, dwelling house or business premises, cargo theft, pick
pocketing, theft through card skimming, shoplifting and theft of Automated
Teller Machine.
• (2) Whoever commits any petty organized crime shall be punished with
imprisonment for a term which shall not be less than one year but which may
extend to seven years, and shall also be liable to fine.
 SECTION 113 – TERRORIST ACT
• 'Terrorist act' has been formally criminalized within the general criminal statute Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023,
thereby broadening the legal framework addressing terrorism. This marks a shift from earlier practices where
'terrorist acts' were mainly prosecuted under specific laws such as the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act of
1967.
• The definition of a terrorist act in Section 113 BNS has been formulated similarly to the UAPA. Additionally, it
has been stipulated that in cases involving a terrorist act, an officer not lower in rank than a Superintendent of
Police will determine whether to file charges under the provisions of the BNS, 2023 or the UAPA, 1 967.
• Section 113 of the BNS, which is a new provision in the BNS modelled after the Unlawful Activities
(Prevention) Act of 1967 (UAPA), specifically focuses on acts of terrorism. In contrast to the UAPA,
Section 113 BNS specifies particular punishments for various offences, which are elaborated upon in its
sub-sections.
• The BNS has broadened the definition of terrorism to encompass any act aimed at compromising the unity,
integrity, sovereignty, security, or economic stability of India, with the intention of instilling fear in the
population, whether within India or in other countries.
• The BNS has updated its definition by eliminating the focus on the intention to intimidate the public or
disrupt public order. Instead, it now emphasizes the goal of instilling terror in the general population and
includes threats to economic sovereignty as part of its criteria for identifying terrorism. Additionally, the
BNS added causing harm to India's monetary stability through counterfeit currency to the terrorism
provisions. The newly revised definition of terrorism in the BNS closely resembles the one outlined in the
Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act of 1967.
According to Section 113(1) of the BNS, a person is considered to have engaged in a terrorist act if they
undertake any action in India or abroad with the intent to threaten the unity, integrity, and security of India, to
intimidate the general public or any part thereof, or to disrupt public order by engaging in the following activities:
• Utilizing bombs, dynamite, or any explosive materials, flammable substances, firearms, lethal weapons, poison,
noxious gases, or other hazardous chemicals (whether biological or not) in a manner that creates a climate of
fear, inflicts death or serious bodily harm on any individual, or jeopardizes someone's life;
• Causing damage or loss through the destruction of property, disrupting essential supplies or services critical to
community life, or damaging government or public facilities, public spaces, or private property;
• Inflicting extensive interference, damage, or destruction to critical infrastructure;
• Provoking or influencing government organizations through intimidation in a way that may lead to death or
injury to any public official or individual, detaining someone and threatening to harm them to compel the
government to take or refrain from specific actions, destabilizing or dismantling the country's political,
economic, or social structures, creating a public emergency, or undermining public safety;
• Falling within the categories outlined in any of the treaties listed in the Second Schedule of the Unlawful
Activities (Prevention) Act, 1967.
• 114(2)- PUNISH. CAUSING DEATH- DP/LI + F
• OTHER CASE- MIN 5 YR MAX LI + FINE
• 114 (3)- PUNISH. FOR ADVICE/ CONSPIRE/ ATTEMPT/ ADVOCATE/
KNOWINGLY FACILITATE- MIN 5 YEAR MAX LI + FINE
• 114(4)- ORG. / IMPART TRAINING IN AMPS FOR TERRORIST ATTACKS/
RECRUITS FOR COMM. OF TA- MIN 5 YEARS MAX LI + FINE
• 114(5)- BEING A MEM. OF ANY ORG. THAT IS INVOLVED IN TA- LI + FINE
• 114(6)- VOL. HARBOURS/ CONCEALS ANY PERSON COMM. TA- 3 YEARS/
LI + FINE
• 114(7)- KNOWINGLY POSSES ANY PROPERTY- OBTAINED FROM COMM.
OF TA- LI + FINE
Of hurt, (SECTION 114-136)
Of wrongful restraint and wrongful
confinement,
Of criminal force and assault,
Of kidnapping, abduction, slavery
and forced labour
Hurt
Pain that is experienced by the body as a result of actual physical contact caused by an
aggressive attack is referred to be hurt.
It includes minor injuries such as scratches or bruises. Under Section 114 of the
Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023, ‘hurt’ is defined as “Whoever causes bodily pain,
disease or infirmity to any person is said to cause hurt.” There are three important
elements of hurt:
• Body Pain
• Illness or Disease
• Infirmity to another
If a person does any act with the intention of causing hurt to any person or with the
knowledge that he is likely to cause hurt to any person and does cause hurt to any
person then the person is said ‘voluntarily to cause hurt’.
Grievous Hurt
• Grievous hurt is a more severe form of injury and typically includes injuries that cause
severe physical or mental pain, endanger life, or result in permanent disfigurement or
disability.
• The Indian Penal Code, 1860, illustrated certain types of hurts as grievous hurt
because it was difficult to distinguish between physical hurts that could be addressed
as severe and moderate. Section 320 of IPC or Section 116 of the BNS highlighted
different kinds of hurt that can only be designated as ‘grievous hurt’, these include:
•“Emasculation.
•Permanent privation of the sight of either eye.
•Permanent privation of the hearing of either ear.
•Privation of any member or joint.
•Destruction or permanent impairing of the powers of any member or joint.
•Permanent disfiguration of the head or face.
•Fracture or dislocation of a bone or tooth.
•Any hurt which endangers life or which causes the sufferer to be during the
space of fifteen days in severe bodily pain, or unable to follow his ordinary
pursuits.”
Section 115- VOLUNTARY CAUSING HURT
1. INTENTION OR
2. KNOWLEDGE
3. AND SUCCEEDS IN DOING
PUNISHMENT- MAX 1 YEAR OR UPTO 10 K OR BOTH EXCEPT 122(1).
► 117. Voluntarily causing grievous hurt.—
(1)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.
Eg- A, intending of knowing himself to be likely permanently to disfigure Z’s face,
gives Z a blow which does not permanently disfigure Z’s face, but which causes Z
to suffer severe bodily pain for the space of fifteen days. A has voluntarily caused
grievous hurt.
2) PUNISH- UPTO 7 YEARS AND FINE.
► 118. Voluntarily causing hurt or grievous hurt by dangerous
weapons or means.—
Whoever, except in the case provided for by sub-section (1) of
section 122, voluntarily causes hurt by means of any instrument
for shooting, stabbing or cutting, or any instrument which, used
as a weapon of offence, is likely to cause death, or by means of
fire or any heated substance, or by means of any poison or any
corrosive substance, or by means of any explosive substance, or
by means of any substance which it is deleterious to the human
body to inhale, to swallow, or to receive into the blood, or by
means of any animal, shall be punished with imprisonment of
either description for a term which may extend to three years, or
with fine which may extend to twenty thousand rupees, or with
both.
IN CASE OF VOLUNTARY CAUSING GH- LI/ MIN 1-10 YEARS+ FINE.
119. Voluntarily causing hurt or grievous hurt to extort property,
or to constrain to an illegal act.—
►If hurt is caused to someone to extort property or to force
someone to do something illegal- PUNISH- UPTO 10 YEARS +
FINE.
►IF GH- LI/UPTO 10 YEARS + FINE.
120. Voluntarily causing hurt or grievous hurt to extort
confession, or to compel restoration of property.—
1. INDICATES TO CUSTODIAL TORTURE – IF HURT IS CAUSED TO
EXTORT A CONFESSION OR INFORMATION LEADING TO THE
DETECTION OF AN OFFENCE OR TO FORCE RESTORATION OF
A PROPERTY OR SATISFACTION OF A CLAIM- PUNISH- UPTO 7
YEARS+ FINE
2. IF CAUSED GH- UPTO 10 YEARS + FINE
(a) A, a police officer, tortures Z in order to induce Z to confess that he
committed a crime. A is guilty of an offence under this section.
(b) A, a police officer, tortures B to induce him to point out where certain
stolen property is deposited. A is guilty of an offence under this section.
(c) A, a revenue officer, tortures Z in order to compel him to pay certain
arrears of revenue due from Z. A is guilty of an offence under this section.
121. Voluntarily causing hurt or grievous hurt to deter public servant from his duty- IN
DISCHARGE OF HIS DUTY- IF HURT- UPTO 5 YR/ FINE/ BOTH.
► IF GH- MIN 1 YR MAX 10 YR + FINE

122- VOLUNTARY CAUSING HURT / GH ON PROVOCATION (PART OF EXCEPTION)

NO INTENTION TO CAUSE HURT TO ANYONE OTHER THAN THE PERSON WHO PROVOKED
( DUE TO SUDDEN AND GRAVE PROVOCATION)
IF HURT- UPTO 1 MONTH OR UPTO 5K OR BOTH
IF GH- UPTO 5 YR OR UPTO 10K OR BOTH
123. Causing hurt by means of poison, etc., with intent to commit an offence- the
offence of causing hurt by means of poison or any stupefying,
intoxicating, or unwholesome drug, with intent to commit an
offence- IMP- UPTO 10 YEARS + FINE.

124. Voluntarily causing grievous hurt by use of acid, etc.- to cause permanent/ partial
damage, deformity, burns, maiming.
PUNISH- MIN 10 YR, MAX LI + FINE TO RECOVER MEDICAL EXPENSES.
ATTEMPT- 5 TO 7 YEARS + FINE.
Permanent damage need not be irreversible.
125. Act endangering life or personal safety of others- deals with act of any person who
causes grevious injuries to someone by doing act so rashly or negligently which endangers
Of wrongful restraint and wrongful
confinement
Difference between wrongful restraint and wrongful confinement:
Wrongful restraint
1.Discussed in section 126
2.It is a partial restraint of personal liberty of person
3.Wrongful confinement implies wrongful restraint but vice-versa is not correct.
4.No circumscribing limits or boundaries are required Movement in only one direction is
obstructed.
5.Choice for the victim to move in any other direction.

Wrongful confinement
6.define in sec 127
7.it is an absolute or total restraint or obstruction of personal liberty.
8.wrongful confinement is a form of wrongful restraint.
9.certain circumscribing limits are always necessary.
10.Movement in all directions
Wrongful restraint (IPC 126) is obstructed. Wrongful confinement (IPC 127)
Restraining a person proceeding in a Confining a person so as to prevent him
particular direction, in which he has a legal from proceeding beyond certain
right to proceed.Partial restraint circumscribing limits.Total restraint
Decisions

► One important decision related to this provision was made by the Supreme
Court in the case of State of Maharashtra v. Chandraprakash Kewalchand
Jain. In this case, the accused had wrongfully restrained the victim and
caused him grievous hurt. The court held that the offence of wrongful
restraint is complete as soon as the restraint is imposed, and it is not
necessary for any other act to be done by the accused. The court also clarified
that the restraint need not be physical; it can also be mental or emotional.
► Another crucial decision was made by the Supreme Court in the case of State
of Punjab v. Balbir Singh. In this case, the accused had wrongfully
restrained a woman with the intention to outrage her modesty. The court held
that if a person is wrongfully restrained with the intention to commit any
other offence, then it would not fall under the ambit of Section 341 IPC, but
under the specific offence intended to be committed.
► 126. Wrongful restraint.—(1) Whoever voluntarily obstructs any person so as to prevent that person
from proceeding in any direction in which that person has a right to proceed, is said wrongfully to
restrain that person.
► Exception.—The obstruction of a private way over land or water which a person in good faith believes
himself to have a lawful right to obstruct, is not an offence within the meaning of this section.
Illustration.
► A obstructs a path along which Z has a right to pass, A not believing in good faith that he has a right to
stop the path. Z is thereby prevented from passing. A wrongfully restrains Z.
► Whoever wrongfully restrains any person shall be punished with simple imprisonment for a term
which may extend to one month, or with fine which may extend to five thousand rupees, or with both.
► 127. Wrongful confinement.—(1) Whoever wrongfully restrains any person in such a manner as to
prevent that person from proceedings beyond certain circumscribing limits, is said “wrongfully to
confine” that person.
Illustrations.
(a) A causes Z to go within a walled space, and locks Z in. Z is thus prevented from proceeding in any
direction beyond the circumscribing line of wall. A wrongfully confines Z.
(b) (b) A places men with firearms at the outlets of a building, and tells Z that they will fire at Z if Z
attempts to leave the building. A wrongfully confines Z.
Of criminal force and assault
(128-136)
► 128. 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 following three ways, namely:—
(a) by his own bodily power;
(b) 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;
(c) by inducing any animal to move, to change its motion, or to cease to move.
► 129. Criminal force.—Whoever intentionally uses force to any person, without that
person’s consent, in order to the committing of any offence, or intending by the use of
such force to cause, or knowing it to be likely that by the use of such force he will
cause injury, fear or annoyance to the person to whom the force is used, is said to use
criminal force to that other.
Illustrations.
(a) 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. A has therefore
intentionally used force to Z; and if he has done so without Z’s consent, in order to the
committing of any offence, or intending or knowing it to be likely that this use of force
will cause injury, fear or annoyance to Z, A has used criminal force to Z.
(b) A intentionally pulls up a woman’s veil. Here A intentionally uses force to her,
and if he does so without her consent intending or knowing it to be likely that
he may thereby injure, frighten or annoy her, he has used criminal force to
her.
► 130. Assault.—
Whoever makes any gesture, or any preparation intending or knowing it
to be likely that such gesture or preparation will cause any person present
to apprehend that he who makes that gesture or preparation is about to
use criminal force to that person, is said to commit an assault.
Explanation.—Mere words do not amount to an assault. But the words
which a person uses may give to his gestures or preparation such a
meaning as may make those gestures or preparations amount to an
assault.
Illustrations.
(a) A shakes his fist at Z, intending or knowing it to be likely that he may
thereby cause Z to believe that A is about to strike Z. A has committed
an assault.
(b)A begins to unloose the muzzle of a ferocious dog, intending or
knowing it to be likely that he may thereby cause Z to believe that he is
about to cause the dog to attack Z. A has committed an assault upon Z.
► 131. 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 one
thousand rupees, or with both.
► Explanation 1.—Grave and sudden provocation will not mitigate the
punishment for an offence under this section,—
(a) if the provocation is sought or voluntarily provoked by the offender as an
excuse for the offence; or
(b) 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
(c) if the provocation is given by anything done in the lawful exercise of the
right of private defence.
► Explanation 2.—Whether the provocation was grave and sudden enough
to mitigate the offence, is a question of fact.
► PUNISHMENTS

132. Assault or criminal force to deter public servant from discharge of his duty- max 2 yr/f/b
133. Assault or criminal force with intent to dishonor person, otherwise than on grave provocation-
max 2 yr/f/b
134. Assault or criminal force in attempt to commit theft of property carried by a person- max 2
yr/f/b
135. Assault or criminal force in attempt to wrongfully confine a person-max 1 year/ fine, max
5K/b
136. Assault or criminal force on grave provocation- SI- max 1 month/ fine, max 1K/ both
CASES-
1. STEPHEN VS MYERS (1830)
2. STATE OF UP VS VIRAM SINGH (2017)
Of kidnapping, abduction, slavery
and forced labor (137-146)
► 137. Kidnapping.—(1) Kidnapping is of two kinds: kidnapping from India, and kidnapping from
lawful guardianship—
• Kidnapping from India: This involves transporting an individual beyond the
country’s borders without their consent or the consent of someone legally
authorized to act on their behalf.
• Kidnapping from Lawful Guardianship: This entails taking or enticing a
child under 18 years or a person of unsound mind away from their lawful
guardian without consent. Exceptions are made for individuals acting in good
faith, such as those who genuinely believe they are the father of an illegitimate
child or entitled to lawful custody.
Explanation.—The words “lawful guardian” in this clause include any person lawfully entrusted with
the care or custody of such child or other person.
Exception.—This clause does not extend to the act of any person who in good faith believes himself
to be the father of an illegitimate child, or who in good faith believes himself to be entitled to the
lawful custody of such child, unless such act is committed for an immoral or unlawful purpose.
(2) Whoever kidnaps any person from India or from lawful guardianship shall be punished with
imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to seven years, and shall also be
liable to fine.
1. VARADRAJAN VS STATE OF MADRAS (1965)
2. DEB PROSAD VS KING (1950)
• 138. Abduction.—Section 138: Abduction is defined as compelling or inducing a
person to move from any place through force or deceitful means. This section
punishes instances where individuals are forcibly taken against their will.
• ESSENTIALS OF ABDUCTION-
1. Use of force or deceit: Abduction involves either physical force or the use of deceitful
means to compel a person to move from one place to another. Force can include physical
violence or threats, while deceit can involve false promises or trickery that convinces the
victim to act against their will.
In the case State of Haryana v. Raja Ram[1973], the Supreme Court ruled that in
abduction cases, the means employed—whether force or deceit—are crucial to establishing
the offense. The court emphasized that even if the abducted person goes willingly, it can
still be abduction if their consent was obtained through deceit.
2. Movement from one place to another: The core aspect of abduction is the removal of a
person from one place to another, which may or may not involve crossing long distances.
Unlike kidnapping, the place of confinement or custody is not relevant in abduction.
3. Intent behind the act: The intent behind the abduction is crucial in determining the
gravity of the offense. The abduction must be carried out with some ulterior motive, such as
exploitation, forcing the victim into marriage, extortion, or committing another crime. This
intent is essential to distinguish simple abduction from other related offenses.
In the case of Sukhdev Singh v. State of Punjab[1982], involving abduction for ransom,
and the court ruled that any act of abduction with the intent to extort money or valuable
property through ransom is punishable under Section 364A of the IPC. The court upheld the
strict application of law in cases where financial gain was the motive for abduction.
4. Lack of Consent: In abduction cases involving adults, the act must be carried out without
their voluntary consent. If consent is obtained through fraud, coercion, or misrepresentation,
it is considered invalid, and the abduction remains unlawful.
►139. Kidnapping or maiming a child for purposes of begging-
►BEGGING- 10 YR- LI +FINE
►MAIMING FOR BEGGING- MIN 20 YR- LI (REMAINDER)+ FINE
►BEGGING- 1. SOLICITING IN PUBLIC/PRIVATE PLACE FOR
SINGING/DANCING..
►2. EXPOSING WOUNDS/ INJURIES TO GAIN ALMS
►3. USING A CHILD AS AN EXHIBIT TO GAIN ALMS
► 140. Kidnapping or abducting in order to murder or for ransom, etc.—
Whoever kidnaps or abducts any person in order that such person may be murdered or
may be so disposed of as to be put in danger of being murdered, punishment- LI OR UPTO
10 YRS + FINE.
Illustrations.
(a) A kidnaps Z from India, intending or knowing it to be likely that Z may be sacrificed to
an idol. A has committed the offence defined in this section.
(b)A forcibly carries or entices B away from his home in order that B may be murdered. A
has committed the offence defined in this section.
► 141. Importation of girl or boy from foreign country.—
Whoever imports into India from any country outside India any girl under
the age of twenty-one years or any boy under the age of eighteen years with
intent or knowing it to be likely, forced or seduced to illicit intercourse with
another person, shall be punishable with imprisonment which may extend
to ten years and shall also be liable to fine.
► 142. Wrongfully concealing or keeping in confinement, kidnapped or
abducted person.—
Whoever, knowing that any person has been kidnapped or has been
abducted, wrongfully conceals or confines such person, shall be punished in
the same manner as if he had kidnapped or abducted such person with the
same intention or knowledge.
► 143. Trafficking of person.—
(1) Whoever, for the purpose of exploitation recruits, transports, harbors, transfers, or
receives a person or persons, by—
(a) using threats; or
(b) using force, or any other form of coercion; or
(c) by abduction; or
(d) by practicing fraud, or deception; or
(e) by abuse of power; or
(f) by inducement, including the giving or receiving of payments or benefits, in order to
achieve the consent of any person having control over the person recruited,
transported, harboured, transferred or received, commits the offence of trafficking.
CONSENT OF VICTIM IS IRRELEVANT.
EXPLOITATION (PHYSICAL/SEXUAL/SLAVERY/FORCED ORGAN REMOVAL)
GENERAL PUNISH- RI 7-10 YR +FINE
MULTIPLE PERSONS TRAFFICKED- RI 10 YR-LI +FINE
TRAFFICKING OF CHILD- RI 10 YR-LI +FINE
MULTIPLE CHILD TRAFFICKED- 14 YR – LI + FINE
REPEATED OFFENDORS- LI (REMAINDER) + FINE
► 144. Exploitation of a trafficked person.—
(1)Whoever, knowingly or having reason to believe that a child
has been trafficked, engages such child for sexual exploitation
in any manner, shall be punished with rigorous imprisonment
MIN 5 – MAX 10 + FINE.
(2)Whoever, knowingly or having reason to believe that a person
has been trafficked, engages such person for sexual
exploitation in any manner, shall be punished with rigorous
imprisonment MIN 3 MAX 7 + FINE
► 145. Habitual dealing in slaves.—Whoever habitually
imports, exports, removes, buys, sells, trafficks or deals in
slaves- punish- LI/ upto 10 yr+ fine.
► 146. Unlawful compulsory labour—Whoever unlawfully
compels any person to labour against the will of that person,
punish- upto 1 yr/ fine/ both.
THANK YOU