Hurt, Grievous Hurt, Wrongful Restraint, Assault & Kidnapping (BNS) — Criminal Law I Notes

Hurt and grievous hurt

A slap that leaves a red mark is hurt; a blow that shatters a jaw is grievous hurt; acid flung at a face that destroys it forever is the gravest of all. The law grades bodily harm by its severity and permanence — and in 2013, after a wave of acid attacks, added the acid offences that the BNS now carries.

Hurt — s.114, BNS [old s.319 IPC]. Whoever causes bodily pain, disease or infirmity to any person is said to cause hurt. This is the base offence — any physical harm, however slight.

Grievous hurt — s.116, BNS [old s.320 IPC]. Certain serious kinds of hurt are singled out as “grievous”. The section gives an exhaustive list:

Emasculation;
Permanent loss of sight of either eye;
Permanent loss of hearing of either ear;
Loss of any member or joint (limb);
Destruction or permanent impairment 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 that endangers life or causes the sufferer to be, for twenty days, in severe bodily pain or unable to follow his ordinary pursuits.

The dividing line. The difference is severity and permanence — grievous hurt involves lasting or life-threatening harm, or one of the specific listed injuries. Simple hurt is anything less.

Acid attack — s.124, BNS [old ss.326A/326B IPC]. After the 2013 reforms, the BNS specifically punishes voluntarily causing grievous hurt by use of acid (s.124(1)) — imprisonment of not less than ten years up to life and fine to be paid to the victim for treatment — and the attempt to throw acid (s.124(2)). (s.125 is a separate offence — an act endangering life or personal safety.) Acid attacks were made a distinct, grave offence because of their devastating, permanent, disfiguring effect, usually on women.

Voluntarily causing hurt / grievous hurt. The offences are graded by intention and means: s.115 (voluntarily causing hurt), s.117 (voluntarily causing grievous hurt), with enhanced punishment where dangerous weapons are used (s.118) or the hurt is caused to extort or to deter a public servant (ss.119–122).

🧩 Worked example. A, intending to permanently disfigure B’s face, throws acid on it, destroying it. This is grievous hurt — it causes “permanent disfiguration of the face” (s.116, item 6) — committed by acid, so the specific and grave offence of acid attack (s.124(1)) applies, punishable with ten years to life and compensation to B. Contrast: had A thrown a cup of hot tea causing a temporary redness, it would be simple hurt (s.114/s.115) only.

s.116, BNS: “The following kinds of hurt only are designated as ‘grievous’ — (a) Emasculation; (b) Permanent privation of the sight of either eye; … (f) Permanent disfiguration of the head or face; (g) Fracture or dislocation of a bone or tooth; (h) Any hurt which endangers life or which causes the sufferer to be during the space of twenty days in severe bodily pain…”

In Simple Terms: all bodily harm is “hurt”; only the serious, lasting kinds on this fixed list — losing an eye, a broken bone, a disfigured face, a life-endangering wound — are “grievous hurt”, which the law punishes far more heavily. Acid attacks get their own, still graver section.

flowchart TD
    H["HURT s.114 — bodily pain/disease/infirmity"] --> Q{"Serious & lasting? (s.116 list)"}
    Q -->|no| SH["Simple hurt — s.115"]
    Q -->|yes| GH["GRIEVOUS HURT s.116/117 — lost eye, fracture, disfiguration, 20-day/ life-endangering"]
    GH --> ACID["By ACID → s.124 acid attack: 10 yrs–life + compensation to victim"]

Case Laws

Laxmi v Union of India (2014) — the acid-attack PIL: directed regulation of acid sale and compensation; the backdrop to ss.124–125.
State v (grievous-hurt cases) — an injury is grievous only if it falls within the s.116 list; the list is exhaustive.

Wrongful restraint and wrongful confinement

Stop a man from walking down one road, and you have committed wrongful restraint. Lock him in a room so he cannot leave in any direction, and you have committed the graver wrongful confinement. The difference is a boundary: restraint blocks one way, confinement encloses on all sides.

Wrongful restraint — s.126, BNS [old s.339 IPC]. Whoever voluntarily obstructs any person so as to prevent him from proceeding in any direction in which he has a right to proceed commits wrongful restraint. Punishment: simple imprisonment up to one month or fine. Exception: a person who in good faith believes he has a lawful right to obstruct a private way over land or water does not commit the offence.

Wrongful confinement — s.127, BNS [old s.340 IPC]. Whoever wrongfully restrains any person in such a manner as to prevent that person from proceeding beyond certain circumscribing limits commits wrongful confinement. Punishment: imprisonment up to one year or fine (graver forms — secret confinement, confinement for extortion, etc. — carry higher punishments, ss.128 onwards).

The distinction (the marks are here):

Direction v enclosure. Wrongful restraint stops a person going in one (or some) direction(s) — he is free to go others. Wrongful confinement stops him going beyond a boundary in every direction — he is enclosed.
Confinement is a species of restraint. Every wrongful confinement is also a wrongful restraint (total, in all directions); but not every restraint is a confinement.
Gravity. Confinement is graver (up to one year) than restraint (up to one month), because total loss of liberty is worse than partial obstruction.
A “boundary” is essential to confinement — but the boundary need not be a wall; a threat, a guard, or the sea on three sides can supply it. And the confinement must be total within those limits: leaving a reasonable means of escape means it is only restraint, not confinement.

🧩 Worked example. A locks B inside a room and takes the key. B cannot leave in any direction — he is enclosed within the four walls — so this is wrongful confinement (s.127). Now change the facts: A merely stands across the one footpath B has a right to use, so B cannot go that way but is free to turn back or take another route. That is wrongful restraint (s.126) only — B is stopped in one direction, not enclosed.

s.127(1), BNS: “Whoever wrongfully restrains any person in such a manner as to prevent that person from proceeding beyond certain circumscribing limits, is said ‘wrongfully to confine’ that person.”

In Simple Terms: blocking someone’s path in a particular direction is restraint; boxing them in so they cannot get past a boundary in any direction is confinement. Confinement is the more serious of the two because it takes away all freedom of movement.

flowchart TD
    L["INTERFERENCE WITH LIBERTY"] --> R["WRONGFUL RESTRAINT s.126 — blocked in a DIRECTION he may proceed; up to 1 month"]
    L --> C["WRONGFUL CONFINEMENT s.127 — enclosed within LIMITS, no way out; up to 1 year"]
    C --- N["Every confinement is a restraint; not every restraint is a confinement"]

Case Laws

State of Gujarat v Keshavlal Maganbhai Gujoyan (1993) — for wrongful restraint, the obstruction must be of a direction the person has a right to proceed in.
Vijay Kumari v S.M. Rao (1996) — the essence of confinement is total restraint within circumscribing limits.

Force, criminal force and assault

Raise a clenched fist at a man and you commit assault — before you have touched him. Actually strike him, and you have used criminal force. The law separates the threat (assault) from the contact (criminal force), and punishes both — because the fear of a blow is itself a wrong.

Force — s.128, BNS [old s.349 IPC]. A person uses force on another if he causes motion, change of motion, or cessation of motion to that person, or brings a substance into contact with him, etc. “Force” in the bare sense is neutral — it becomes criminal only with a wrongful intent.

Criminal force — s.129, BNS [old s.350 IPC]. Whoever intentionally uses force on any person, without that person’s consent, in order to commit an offence, or intending or knowing it likely to cause injury, fear or annoyance, uses criminal force. The least touching in anger, pushing, spitting, throwing water on someone — all are criminal force. Punishment (s.131): up to three months or fine.

Assault — s.130, BNS [old s.351 IPC]. Whoever makes any gesture or preparation intending or knowing it likely that it will cause any person present to apprehend that criminal force is about to be used on him, commits assault. Two points:

Assault needs no contact — it is the apprehension of imminent force that is the offence. (If contact follows, it becomes criminal force.)
Mere words are not assault, but words may give a gesture its meaning, or take it away. Shaking a fist while advancing is assault; the same gesture with words showing no intention to strike (“if it weren’t a holy day, I’d hit you”) is not.

The relationship. Assault is the threat of force; criminal force is the actual application of force. Assault usually precedes criminal force but can exist without it (the missed blow) — and criminal force without prior apprehension (a blow from behind) is criminal force without assault.

🧩 Worked example. A shakes his fist at B, advancing as if to strike, causing B to fear an immediate blow. This is assault (s.130) — no contact, but B reasonably apprehends imminent force. If A then actually strikes B, that added blow is criminal force (s.129). Now the animal case: A incites his dog to spring at B without B’s consent, intending to frighten him — A has used criminal force through the dog, and the menacing approach is assault.

s.130, BNS: “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.”

In Simple Terms: assault is making someone fear they are about to be hit — no touch needed. Criminal force is actually laying hands (or water, or a dog) on them. The first punishes the threat, the second the contact.

flowchart LR
    F["FORCE s.128 (neutral — motion/contact)"] --> CF["CRIMINAL FORCE s.129 — force + wrongful intent, no consent (the CONTACT)"]
    G["Gesture/preparation"] --> AS["ASSAULT s.130 — apprehension of imminent force (the THREAT, no contact)"]
    AS -.->|"if contact follows"| CF

Case Laws

Tuberville v Savage (1669) — words may negate an assault (“if it were not assize-time…”); the gesture must cause a genuine apprehension.
Stephens v Myers (1830) — advancing with a clenched fist, stopped short, is still an assault — the apprehension of imminent force is enough.

Kidnapping and abduction

Two words that students constantly confuse — and examiners constantly test. Kidnapping is about age and guardianship; abduction is about force or deceit. One is a fixed, one-moment offence; the other is a continuing one. Keep the table straight and the marks are yours.

Kidnapping — s.137, BNS [old ss.359–361 IPC]. Two kinds:

Kidnapping from India — conveying any person beyond the limits of India without consent.
Kidnapping from lawful guardianship — taking or enticing a minor (under 18 if a girl, under 18 if a boy — the BNS uses under-eighteen) or a person of unsound mind, out of the keeping of the lawful guardian without the guardian’s consent.

Abduction — s.138, BNS [old s.362 IPC]. Whoever, by force compels, or by any deceitful means induces, any person to go from any place, is said to abduct that person.

The distinction — learn it as a table:

	Kidnapping (from guardianship)	Abduction
Victim	A minor (under 18) or person of unsound mind	Any person, of any age
Means	Simply taking/enticing out of keeping	Force or deceitful means
Consent	Consent of the minor is irrelevant; guardian’s consent matters	The person’s own consent, if free, is a defence
Nature	A substantive offence, complete once done	Not an offence by itself — only when done with a bad intent (ss.139–146)
Continuing?	Not continuing — complete the moment the minor is taken	A continuing offence — repeated at every place the person is moved to
Intent	No specific intent needed	Must be coupled with intent (murder, ransom, marriage, slavery, etc.)

Aggravated forms (ss.139–146). Kidnapping/abduction becomes far graver when done to murder (s.140), for ransom (s.140(2)), to compel marriage (s.87, Unit 2), to cause wrongful confinement, to subject to slavery, or of a child under ten to steal from it.

🧩 Worked example. A takes away a 17-year-old girl from her father’s house without his consent, even at the girl’s own request. This is kidnapping from lawful guardianship (s.137) — the girl is a minor, so her consent is irrelevant, and the offence is complete the moment she is taken from her father’s keeping. It does not matter that no force was used. Now suppose the victim is a 25-year-old woman dragged away by force to compel her to marry — that is abduction (s.138) coupled with the intent under s.87, a continuing offence graver than simple abduction.

s.137(1), BNS: “Whoever takes or entices any minor under eighteen years of age… or any person of unsound mind, out of the keeping of the lawful guardian of such minor or person of unsound mind, without the consent of such guardian… is said to kidnap such minor or person from lawful guardianship.”

In Simple Terms: kidnapping is taking a minor (or a person of unsound mind) out of a guardian’s keeping — the minor’s own willingness makes no difference. Abduction is moving anyone by force or trickery, and it only becomes a crime when done for a bad purpose.

flowchart TD
    KA["KIDNAPPING & ABDUCTION"] --> K["KIDNAPPING s.137 — minor/unsound mind, out of guardian's keeping; consent of minor irrelevant; complete offence"]
    KA --> AB["ABDUCTION s.138 — ANY person, by FORCE or DECEIT; continuing offence; only criminal with a bad intent"]
    AB --> AG["Aggravated (ss.139–146): to murder, ransom, marriage, slavery, child <10 to steal"]

Case Laws

S. Varadarajan v State of Madras (1965) — where a minor voluntarily leaves and the accused merely lets her join him (no “taking” or “enticing”), it may not be kidnapping — but active enticement is.
Thakorlal D. Vadgama v State of Gujarat (1973) — persistent inducement/allurement that leads a minor to leave amounts to “enticing” and hence kidnapping.
State of Haryana v Raja Ram (1973) — “keeping of the lawful guardian” is interpreted protectively; enticement even without physical force is kidnapping.

📄 Full notes + Question Bank (₹199) — every topic in depth, model answers to all past exam questions, in one printable PDF. Get the bundle · 10 Solved Problems · All BNS topics