Offences Against the Human Body under BNS | A Legal Framework

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 for these crimes protects individuals’ physical integrity. It upholds their fundamental rights to safety and life.

Types of Crimes Against the Human Body

Crimes against the human body include murder, culpable homicide, assault, and various forms of bodily harm.

Murder, the most severe offence, involves the intentional and unlawful killing of a person. It carries the harshest penalties due to its irreversible nature. Culpable homicide is similar to murder but differs in intent and circumstances. This results 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 for these offences serve multiple purposes. They deter such acts, provide justice for victims, and maintain societal order by penalizing violent behaviors. By enforcing laws against offences targeting the human body, the legal system protects individuals. It also promotes public safety and upholds the rule of law.

Section : 100 CULPABLE HOMICIDE

Authorities define culpable homicide as an act where an individual causes another person’s death under specific conditions. To establish culpable homicide, the following elements must be present:

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

Illustration

The legal provisions for these offences serve multiple purposes. They deter such acts, provide justice for victims, and maintain societal order by penalizing violent behaviors. By enforcing laws against offences targeting the human body, the legal system protects individuals. It also promotes public safety and upholds the rule of law.

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

• Facts: In this case, the accused possessed weapons but attacked the deceased with kicks and fists. The death occurred due to shock and hemorrhage. The weapons were not utilized in the assault.
• Court’s Ruling: The Supreme Court determined that the accused knew their actions could cause death. However, there was no direct intention to kill.

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

• Facts: Authorities convicted the accused, a naval officer, 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 culpable homicide. However, the case also discussed the distinction between culpable homicide and murder. It considered factors like provocation and the accused’s mental state.

Explanatory Notes:

1. Explanation 1: If someone’s actions worsen the condition of a person already suffering and lead to their death, authorities deem them responsible for the resultant death.
2. Explanation 2: If timely medical treatment could have saved the deceased, it does not absolve the offender. The individual remains liable if the lack of treatment contributed to the death.
3. Explanation 3: The death of a fetus within the womb is not classified as culpable homicide. If any part of the fetus emerges from the womb and death occurs, it may be culpable homicide. This applies if the criteria in Section 100 are met. Authorities treat the death of a pregnant woman as a single instance of homicide rather than multiple.

Section 101 : MURDER

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

1. The act causing death was done with the intention to kill.
2. The act causing death was done with the intention to inflict injury likely to cause death.
3. The act causing death was done with the intention to inflict injury that would likely cause death.
4. The act was extremely dangerous and likely to cause death or serious injury. The person had no 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:

1. 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.
2. 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:

D attacks C, prompting C to use a weapon in self-defense. Although C intends to protect himself, he causes D’s death. If C uses excessive force without premeditation and genuinely believes such force is necessary, authorities might not classify it as murder.

1. 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.
2. 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 ruled that if death occurs during a sudden fight without premeditation and cruelty, authorities may reduce the charge from murder to culpable homicide not amounting to murder.

1. 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 drives a child to commit suicide, authorities consider it murder because the child cannot legally consent.

Section 103: Punishment for murder

If someone commits murder, authorities can sentence them to death or life imprisonment and may also impose 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 faces life imprisonment or a minimum of five years’ imprisonment.

Authorities may extend the sentence to ten years and impose a fine if the offender intends to cause death or inflict bodily injury likely to cause death. If the offender acts with knowledge that their actions may cause death but without intent to kill or inflict fatal injury, the punishment may still extend to ten years’ imprisonment along with a fine.

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 it could kill someone but causing no deaths, authorities may imprison them for up to ten years and impose a fine. However, if the gunshot injures someone, the offender may face life imprisonment.

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

 

Section : 110 Attempt to commit culpable homicide

The law states that if a person acts with intent or knowledge that their actions could cause death, but the death qualifies as culpable homicide not amounting to murder, authorities may punish them with up to three years’ imprisonment, 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). Authorities classify the act as culpable homicide not amounting to murder if they find that the offender, in the heat of the moment, pushed someone and caused their death without premeditated intent to kill. The offender could face up to three years’ imprisonment or a fine.

Section 114: 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. The offender does not need to cause any visible injury to the victim’s body.

‘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:

1. 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 to cause harm, authorities consider it voluntary hurt.
2. 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 causes injury, authorities hold them liable for voluntarily causing hurt.
3. 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 holds individuals accountable for actions that cause harm, even if they did not intend the injury but could have foreseen the consequences. 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:

1. Emasculation: Depriving a man of his masculine strength or function.
2. Loss of sight: Permanent loss of vision in one or both eyes.
3. Loss of hearing: Permanent loss of hearing in one or both ears.
4. Loss of a body part: Losing any body part or joint.
5. Permanent damage: Permanent damage to the function of any body part or joint.
6. Disfigurement: Permanent disfigurement of the head or face.
7. Bone or tooth injury: Fracture or dislocation of any bone or tooth.
8. 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 “voluntarily causes grievous hurt” if they intentionally inflict harm, knowing it is likely to be severe, and the injury is grievous.

“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 completely restricts a person’s movement within a certain area, preventing them from leaving or crossing set boundaries, authorities consider it 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.

Wrongful confinement means holding a person in a confined space, restricting their movement beyond certain limits.

Illustrations

(a) A causes Z to go within a walled space, and locks Z in. A is guilty of wrongful confinement as Z is restricted from leaving the enclosed area.

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 distinguishes between intentional and unintentional harm, addressing different injury severities to ensure justice based on each case’s circumstances.

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.