Offences Against the Human Body: Legal Framework and Provisions

INTRODUCTION TO OFFENCES AGAINST THE HUMAN BODY

Offences against the human body are among the most serious and morally reprehensible crimes within any legal system. These offences encompass a range of violent acts that cause physical harm, suffering, or death to individuals. The legal framework addressing these crimes is designed to protect individuals’ physical integrity and uphold their fundamental rights to safety and life.

Crimes against the human body include murder, culpable homicide, assault, and various forms of bodily harm. Murder, the most severe of these offences, involves the intentional and unlawful killing of another person, carrying the harshest penalties due to its irreversible nature. Culpable homicide, while similar to murder, differs in the level of intent and circumstances surrounding the act, resulting in varying degrees of punishment.

Assault and bodily harm offences cover acts that cause injury or pain without necessarily resulting in death. These include physical attacks, grievous hurt, and any form of violence that compromises an individual’s bodily autonomy and health.

The legal provisions addressing these offences serve multiple purposes: they act as a deterrent against such acts, provide justice and recompense for victims, and maintain societal order by condemning and penalizing violent behaviors. By rigorously enforcing laws against offences targeting the human body, the legal system seeks to protect individuals, promote public safety, and uphold the rule of law.

Section : 100 CULPABLE HOMICIDE

Culpable homicide is defined as an act where an individual causes the death of another person under specific conditions. To establish culpable homicide, the following elements must be present:

The individual causes the death of another person.
The death is caused by an act performed by the individual.
The act was done with the intention of causing death, or
The act was done with the intention of causing such bodily injury as is likely to result in death, or
The individual had knowledge that the act was likely to cause death.

Illustration

A, deliberately conceals a dangerous pit by covering it with sticks and turf, with the intent to cause harm or with the awareness that such a concealment could likely result in death. If another person, Z, unknowingly steps on this concealed pit, falls in, and dies, A would be considered to have committed culpable homicide.

“Ramesh Kumar vs. State of Bihar” (AIR 1993 SC 2317):

Facts: In this case, the accused, despite being armed with weapons, attacked the deceased with kicks and fists, resulting in death due to shock and hemorrhage. The weapons were not utilized in the assault.
Court’s Ruling: The Supreme Court determined that the accused possessed knowledge that their actions (kicks and fists) were likely to cause death, even though there was no direct intention to kill.

“K. M. Nanavati v. State of Maharashtra” (AIR 1962 SC 605)

Facts: The accused, a naval officer, was convicted of culpable homicide for killing his wife’s lover. He found his wife in an adulterous relationship, went home, retrieved a revolver, and shot the lover.
Court’s Finding: The Supreme Court held that the killing was done with the intention of causing death, making it a case of culpable homicide. However, the case is also noted for its discussion on the distinction between culpable homicide and murder, considering factors like provocation and the mental state of the accused.

Explanatory Notes:

Explanation 1: If an individual’s actions exacerbate the death of someone who is already suffering from a disorder, disease, or bodily infirmity, the individual is deemed responsible for the resultant death.
Explanation 2: The fact that the deceased might have survived with timely and appropriate medical treatment does not absolve the individual who inflicted the injury from liability if the lack of treatment contributed to the death.
Explanation 3: The death of a fetus within the womb is not classified as culpable homicide. However, if any part of the fetus emerges from the womb and death occurs, it may be classified as culpable homicide if the criteria outlined in section 100 are met. The death of a pregnant woman is treated as a single instance of homicide rather than multiple.

Section 101 : MURDER

Except in the cases hereinafter excepted, culpable homicide is murder,––

The act causing death was done with the intention to kill.
The act causing death was done with the intention to inflict injury likely to cause death.
The act causing death was done with the intention to inflict injury that would likely cause death.
The act was done in a way that is so dangerous it would likely cause death or serious injury, and the person did not have a valid excuse for taking that risk.

Illustration:
A and B are in a heated argument. B suddenly and seriously insults A, leading A to lose control and attack B, causing B’s death. Since A acted in a fit of rage due to grave provocation, this may not be considered murder.

Exceptions to murder are:

Grave Provocation: If the offender was provoked suddenly and severely, leading to a loss of self-control, and they cause death in that state, it may not be considered murder.
Excessive Defense: If someone exceeds the necessary force in self-defense, causing death, it may not be considered murder if done without premeditation and without intending to do more harm than necessary.

Illustration : C is attacked by D and uses a weapon in self-defense. Although C’s actions were meant to protect himself, he ends up causing D’s death. If C’s actions were beyond what was necessary for self-defense, it might not be murder if done without premeditation and with the belief that such force was necessary.

Public Servant’s Duty: If a public servant exceeds their powers while acting in good faith to advance public justice and causes death, it may not be considered murder if done without malice.
Sudden Fight: If death occurs during a sudden fight in the heat of passion without premeditation or undue advantage, it may not be considered murder.

Illustration:
F and G engage in a sudden and fierce altercation. During the fight, F unintentionally kills G. If F did not take undue advantage or act cruelly, the act may not be considered murder.

“State of Madhya Pradesh v. Shyam Lal” (2003): In this case, the Supreme Court held that if death occurs in the course of a sudden fight without premeditation, and without cruelty, the charge may be reduced from murder to culpable homicide not amounting to murder.

Consent: If the person who dies is over 18 and consents to the risk of death, it may not be considered murder. For example, if someone causes a child to commit suicide, it’s considered murder because the child cannot legally consent.

Section 103: Punishment for murder

If someone commits murder, they can be sentenced to death or life imprisonment and may also face a fine.

If a group of five or more people commits murder based on factors such as race, caste, sex, place of birth, language, personal belief, or similar reasons, each member of the group can be punished with either death or life imprisonment, along with a possible fine.

Section 105 :Punishment for culpable homicide not amounting to murder: Whoever commits culpable homicide not amounting to murder, shall be punished with imprisonment for life, or imprisonment of either description for a term which shall not be less than five years but which may extend to ten years, and shall also be liable to fine, if the act by which the death is caused is done with the intention of causing death, or of causing such bodily injury as is likely to cause death; or with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to ten years and with fine, if the act is done with the knowledge that it is likely to cause death, but without any intention to cause death, or to cause such bodily injury as is likely to cause death

Section 109: Attempt to Murder

(1)Anyone who commits an act with the intent or knowledge that it could cause death, and under circumstances that would make it murder, can be imprisoned for up to ten years and may also be fined. If the act causes harm to someone, the offender can be imprisoned for life or face the same punishment.

(2) If the offender is already serving a life sentence and causes harm, they can be punished with death or life imprisonment, which will last for the rest of their life.

Illustrations: If a person intentionally fires a gun into a crowd knowing that it could kill someone, but does not actually kill anyone, they can be imprisoned for up to ten years and fined. However, if someone is injured by the gunshot, the person who fired the gun may face life imprisonment.

If the same person was already serving a life sentence for a previous crime and fired the gun, injuring someone, they could be sentenced to death or face life imprisonment without any chance of release.

Section : 110 Attempt to commit culpable homicide

The law states that if a person performs an act with the intention or knowledge that it could lead to someone’s death, but under circumstances where the death caused would be considered culpable homicide not amounting to murder, they can be punished with imprisonment for up to three years, or a fine, or both.

Illustration

(1).A person gets into a heated argument during a road rage incident and pushes another person down a staircase, knowing it could cause injury or death but without the intention to murder. The victim falls and suffers severe injuries but survives. In this case, the offender could be punished with imprisonment for up to seven years since hurt was caused by the act.

(2).During the same road rage incident, if the offender pushes the person in such a way that it leads to their death, but the court determines that the act was done in the heat of the moment without premeditated intention to kill, it would be considered culpable homicide not amounting to murder. The offender could be sentenced to a term of imprisonment of up to three years or fined.

HURT

Sec 114 of BNS defines hurt as ‘whoever causes bodily pain, disease or infirmity to any person is said to cause hurt.’

The expression ‘bodily pain’ means that the pain must be physical. It is not necessary that any visible injury should be caused on the body of victim.

‘Causing disease’ means communicating disease to another person.

‘Infirmity’ means inability of an organ to perform its normal function which may either be temporary or permanent. This infirmity may be a result of a disease or as a result of consumption of some poisonous substance, harmful drug or alcohol.

Section 115: Voluntary causing hurt

This provision refers to situations where a person intentionally or knowingly causes physical harm to another person. The key elements include:

Intention: The person committing the act has the direct objective of causing harm to someone. For example, if someone punches another person during a fight with the aim of hurting them, this is considered voluntary hurt.
Knowledge: Even if the person doesn’t intend to cause harm, but is aware that their actions are likely to result in harm, it still qualifies. For instance, if someone recklessly throws a heavy object knowing it might hit someone, and it does cause injury, they are liable for voluntarily causing hurt.
Causation of Hurt: The act must actually lead to physical injury or pain. “Hurt” includes any bodily harm that causes pain, injury, or discomfort to the victim. For example, slapping someone, even if it doesn’t leave a lasting injury, can still be considered hurt under the law.

Broader Implications

The law covers a wide range of actions that result in bodily harm, whether done intentionally or with the knowledge that harm could occur. It includes scenarios where someone deliberately causes harm, as well as situations where the person may not directly intend harm but is aware that their actions are dangerous and could hurt others.

This provision ensures that individuals are held accountable for actions that cause harm, even if the injury was not intended but was a foreseeable consequence of their conduct. It acts as a deterrent against reckless or intentional infliction of harm on others.

“Kailash Prasad vs State of Bihar” (AIR 1980 SC 106)

In this case, there was a dispute between the accused and the victim. Here the accused injured the victim by giving a blow with a bhala. From the medical evidence it appeared that the victim did not sustain any grievous injury. He has not received any serious injuries on any vital part of the body. The Doctor admits that he did not find any fracture of a serious nature. So the accused was convicted u/s 115 of BNS.

Section 116 : Grievous Hurt

Certain types of injuries are considered “grievous hurt” under the law, and they include:

Emasculation: Depriving a man of his masculine strength or function.
Loss of sight: Permanent loss of vision in one or both eyes.
Loss of hearing: Permanent loss of hearing in one or both ears.
Loss of a body part: Losing any body part or joint.
Permanent damage: Permanent damage to the function of any body part or joint.
Disfigurement: Permanent disfigurement of the head or face.
Bone or tooth injury: Fracture or dislocation of any bone or tooth.
Life-threatening or long-lasting pain: Any injury that endangers life, causes severe pain, or prevents the person from performing normal activities for 20 days or more

“E.K. Chandrasenan vs The State of Kerala” (AIR 1995 SC 1066)

In this case, the accused person had given a mixture of arrack and methyl alcohol to victims for consuming it, whereby they lost their eye sight permanently. Here the Court held that as many as 24 persons having lost their eye sights permanently, the hurt in question has to be regarded as “grievous” because of what has been stated in clause second of section 116 BNS. So the Court held the accused guilty of grievous hurt.

Section 117 : Voluntary causing grievous hurt

A person is considered to have “voluntarily caused grievous hurt” if they intentionally inflict harm, with the knowledge that the harm is likely to be severe, and the injury caused is, in fact, grievous in nature.

“N R Phadke vs State of Maharashtra” (AIR 1994 SC 978)

In this case, there was a dispute relating to the land. So the accused person gave a blow with an axe on the leg of the victim. Here the Court convicted the accused person under section 117 of BNS for voluntarily causing grievous hurt by dangerous weapon.

Section 118 Voluntarily causing hurt or grievous hurt by dangerous weapons or means

This section describes the punishment for voluntarily causing hurt or grievous hurt using dangerous means, and it applies in two parts:

1. Voluntarily causing hurt:

If someone intentionally hurts another person using any dangerous tool (like a gun, knife, or other sharp object), fire, poison, acid, explosives, or harmful substances that can injure a person’s body or by using an animal (like setting a dog to attack someone), they can be punished with:
- Imprisonment for up to 3 years, or
- A fine up to 20,000 rupees, or
- Both imprisonment and a fine.

2. Voluntarily causing grievous hurt:

If someone intentionally causes serious injury using the same dangerous means listed above, they face harsher punishment:
- Imprisonment for life, or
- Imprisonment for at least 1 year, which can extend to 10 years, and
- A fine on top of the imprisonment.

The law treats serious injuries more severely than lesser injuries, and the use of dangerous methods increases the severity of punishment.

Section 126 : Wrongful restraint and wrongful confinement

This section explains the concept of wrongful restraint, which refers to preventing someone from moving in a direction they have the right to go.

Wrongful Restraint:

If someone intentionally stops or blocks another person from moving in any direction where they have the legal right to go, it is considered wrongful restraint.
- Example: If someone blocks a road or path to prevent another person from walking or driving in that direction, it would be wrongful restraint.

Exception:

There is an exception to this rule: if someone genuinely believes they have the legal right to block a private path (such as a private road or waterway), this is not considered an offence.

Example: If a person believes they have the legal right to block access to a private road that passes through their property, they are not committing an offence, even if it turns out they were mistaken.

Wrongful confinement : Section 127

This section explains the concept of wrongful confinement, which is a more severe form of wrongful restraint.

Wrongful Confinement:

If someone not only prevents a person from moving in a certain direction but completely restricts their movement within a certain area (so the person cannot leave that space or go beyond set boundaries), it is called wrongful confinement.

Example: If someone locks another person in a room or traps them in a specific area, preventing them from leaving, that would be wrongful confinement.

In simple terms, wrongful confinement is when a person is held in a confined space and cannot move freely beyond certain limits.

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.

CONCLUSION

Offences against the human body are a crucial part of criminal law, reflecting society’s commitment to preserving life, bodily integrity, and public safety. These crimes range from the gravest offence of murder to lesser but still serious infractions like assault and grievous hurt. The law provides a nuanced framework, distinguishing between intentional and unintentional harm, addressing various degrees of severity in bodily injury, and ensuring that justice is served based on the specific circumstances of each case.

Murder, culpable homicide, and hurt represent different levels of criminal liability, with specific legal provisions governing intent, knowledge, and the means used to inflict harm. The gradation in punishments, ranging from life imprisonment and even death in cases of murder to lesser sentences for culpable homicide and hurt, emphasizes the law’s focus on proportional justice.

By detailing both the nature of offences and exceptions such as grave provocation or self-defense the legal system seeks to balance the protection of individuals with the recognition that circumstances can affect moral and legal culpability. Laws against bodily harm play a vital role in deterring violence, ensuring accountability, and maintaining social order. Through these provisions, the law seeks to uphold the fundamental rights to life and security, thus contributing to the overall well-being and stability of society.