Unit v – offences affecting body

Introduction
‘Offences against the human body’ encompasses a wide range of criminal offences
that typically entail bodily violence, the fear of bodily harm, or other actions taken
against an individual’s will. Section 100 to 146 lays down several offences relating
to the human body. The most important ones are discussed in this article.
According to sec 2 (26) of the BNS (1860), the word ‘person’ includes any company
or association or body of persons, whether incorporated or not. These crimes are
usually perpetrated by inflicting physical harm or using force on another person. The
nature of such offences is usually divided into four categories, they are:
1. fatal,
2. non-fatal,
3. sexual, and
4. non-sexual.
Culpable homicide and murder, assault and criminal force, deprivation of liberty,
are some of the instances of crimes against the human body. Offences against the
human body

Culpable homicide (Section 100)

 The word ‘homicide’ is a combination of two Latin
words: homo and cido. Homo signifies human, and cido denotes human
killing. Homicide is defined as the killing of a person by another person.
Homicide might be lawful or unlawful. Lawful homicide refers to instances
in which a person who has caused the death of another person cannot be
held responsible for that person’s death. For example, when exercising
one’s right to private defence (Section 38) or in other cases described
in Chapter III of the General Exceptions of the BNS, viz Section 14 to 44.
 In English law, culpable homicide is referred to as manslaughter. Second-
degree murder is the legal term in the United States, whereas murder is
referred to as first-degree murder.
 There are two types of culpable homicide:
1. Culpable homicide that does not rise to the level of murder (Section 100).
2. Culpable homicide amounting to murder (Section 101).
  Culpable homicide, as defined in Sections 100 and 101, refers to the extra
elements that render culpable homicide a murder. The definition
emphasises both the physical and mental elements of an act committed with
the aim of causing death, or with the knowledge that the act he or she is
about to do will kill someone, or will cause such bodily or physical injury
that will result in a person’s death.
 Culpable homicide and murder are both cognizable offences that are not
bailable or compoundable. Both can only be tried in a court of session.

Definition
As per Section 100 of the BNS, “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”.
The following basic characteristics of culpable homicide are discerned from the
examination of Section 100:
1. The accused must have done an act.
2. The act must have been done with one or more of the following intentions
or knowledge:
 The intent to kill someone.
 The intention to cause bodily injury that is likely to result in death.
 The knowledge that death is likely to result.
3. The victim must have died as a result of the actions of the accused.
Illustration: A is aware that Z is hiding behind a bush. B is completely unaware of
this. A causes B to fire at the bush with the intent of causing, or knowing that it is
likely to cause, death. Z is killed by B’s fire. In this case, B may have committed no
crime, but A has committed culpable homicide.

Murder (Section 101)

Culpable homicide amounting to murder

Culpable homicide amounting to murder is dealt with under Section 101. In other
words, the Section stipulates that in some circumstances, culpable homicide
constitutes murder. As a result, in order to be categorised as murder, an act must first
meet all of the criteria for culpable homicide.
Section 101 stipulates that, unless in the following circumstances, culpable homicide
constitutes murder:
 When an act is committed with the intent to kill someone. For murder, a
high level of intention is required. There must be intent present, and that
desire must be to cause the person’s death, not just injury or serious harm
without the intent to kill.
 Causing physical harm that the criminal knows would result in death. The
second scenario involves an offender who has particular knowledge of the
victim’s health and utilises that knowledge to damage the victim in such a
way that the person dies. For this, one can refer to Section 101 which states
that the perpetrator ‘knows to be likely to cause the death,’.
 Bodily harm that results in death in the natural course of things. These
instances include acts involving bodily injury that, in the normal course of
events, would result in the person’s death.
 Committing an impending risky act for no valid reason would result in
death or physical damage that would result in death. This category includes
acts that are so dangerous that if they are committed, they will result in
death or bodily injury that will result in the death of a person, and they are
done without any legal justification.

When culpable homicide doesn’t amount to murder

1. In the following situations, culpable homicide would not be considered murder:
 Culpable homicide would not be considered murder if it did not meet the
additional standards of the corresponding clause of Section 101.
 If a culpable homicide occurs within one of the five exceptions to Section
101, it is not considered murder.
2. The exceptions to Section 101 are listed below.
 Grave and sudden provocation.
 Exceeding in the exercise of the right of private defence.
 Public servant exceeding powers given to him by law.
 Causing death in a sudden fight, without premeditation.
 Consent of the deceased above the age of 18.

Exception I
Grave and sudden provocation
Culpable homicide will not amount to murder if the offender loses his or her ability
to control himself or herself as a result of the grave and sudden provocation and kills
the person who provoked him or her or any other person by mistake or accident. It
just lowers the risk of being charged with a crime. There is no absolute immunity
from criminal culpability.
In the KM Nanavati vs. State of Bombay (1961), also known as the Nanavati case,
the Supreme Court held that-
 In India, certain words and actions might provoke serious and unexpected
provocation.
 When the plea is for grave and abrupt provocation, the mental backdrop
produced by the victim’s earlier acts may be considered.
 The nature of the victim’s act must also be taken into account. The court
must determine whether a reasonable man from the same social class as the
accused, if placed in the same situation, would be subjected to natural
provocation to the point of losing his self-control.
 The fatal blow should be clearly traceable to the provocation-induced rage.
After the passion has died down, a lethal blow cannot be used as the basis
for a sudden and grave provocation. The advantage of exception 1 cannot
be awarded when there was time and scope for premeditation and
calculation.

Exception II

Exceeding the limits prescribed by law in the exercise of the right of private
defence in good faith
Culpable homicide will not amount to murder if the offender, in the exercise of a
right of private defence of person or property in good faith, exceeds the power
granted to him by law and kills the person against whom he exercises the right.
The benefit of the exception can be obtained if it is also demonstrated that the
criminal caused the death in question without premeditation or with the aim to cause
more harm than is required.

Exception III
Public servant exceeding powers given to him by law
 Culpable homicide will not amount to murder if the perpetrator while
acting as a public servant or assisting a public servant in the pursuit of
public justice, exceeds the authority granted to him by law and causes
death.
 The benefit of the exception can only be claimed if the act was done in
good faith and in the belief that it was legal and essential in the proper
discharge of his duties. It must also be demonstrated that the criminal had
no enmity against the deceased.

Exception III

Death caused as a result of a sudden fight

1. Culpable homicide will not amount to murder if it is performed in the heat
of passion during a sudden quarrel and without the offender taking
advantage of the situation or acting in a cruel or unusual manner.
2. It makes no difference who provokes or conducts the assault in this case.

Exception V

Consent of the deceased above the age of 18

Culpable homicide will not amount to murder if the person who is killed is over the
age of 18 and suffers or risks death with his or her own consent.

Distinction between murder and culpable homicide

1. The degree of criminality is the main distinction between murder and
culpable homicide. In the instance of murder, the level of criminality is
higher than in the case of culpable homicide.
2. Every homicide is first and foremost a responsible homicide. However, not
every culpable homicide is murder. To put it another way, responsible
homicide is a genus, whereas murder is simply a species.
3. The term ‘murder’ has been defined under Section 101. It is illegal
under Section 103 of the Criminal Code. Culpable homicide is a less
serious crime that is penalized under Section 105 of the BNS.
4. There is a narrow line between culpable homicide and murder, yet it is
discernible. The important words contained in the separate clauses of
Section 101 must be noted in order to identify the two offences.
 5. In the State of Andhra Pradesh vs. R. Punnayya (1975), it was held that-
 There are three degrees or types of culpable homicide recognised by the
Code.
 In Section 101, culpable homicide in the first degree is defined as murder.
It is the most serious type of culpable homicide.
 Second-degree culpable homicide is known as culpable homicide. It is
penalised under Section 105,
 The lowest level of culpable homicide is a culpable homicide in the third
degree. It is penalised under Section 105,
 The courts must first determine whether the death in question was caused
by the accused’s actions. If the accused’s actions are affirmative, Section
101 should be considered.

Culpable homicide by causing the death of a person other than the person whose

death was intended

Under Section 102 of the BNS-
 The accused must have planned or known that his or her actions were likely
to result in death.
 The act must have resulted in the death of a person, even if the offender
had no intention or knowledge that the act would result in the death of a
person who was actually murdered.
 In the foregoing situation, the accused would face the same punishment as
if he had killed the person whose death he intended, knew, or was likely to
kill.
 The Doctrine of transferred malice is the broad name for the notion
enshrined in Section 102. According to this doctrine, when a person does
injury to a different object than the one he intended due to an accident or
error, thereby causing death, he is criminally liable for the offence.
 A person whose case falls under Section 102 will be penalised under
Sections 103 or 105, depending on the situation.

Hurt (Section 114 to 125)

Hurt, which may be simple or grievous, is one of the many offences against the
human body.
Simple hurt
Section 114 defines simple hurt according to which whoever causes bodily pain,
disease or infirmity to any person is said to cause hurt.
The term ‘bodily pain’ indicates that the pain must be physical rather than mental.
As a result, inflicting mental or emotional harm on someone will not be considered
‘injury’ under Section 114. However, there is no requirement that the victim suffers
any visible injuries in order to fall under this clause. Anyone who causes bodily
discomfort, sickness, or disability to another person is considered to inflict injury,
according to Section 114 of the BNS.

Essential Ingredients
i. Bodily pain, disease, or infirmity must be inflicted
Bodily pain is a type of harm with the exception of minor harm for which no one
would object. Pricking someone with a pointed item such as a needle, hitting
someone in the face, or pulling a woman’s hair are some examples of bodily pain. It
makes no difference how long the suffering lasts. When anybody’s organ is unable
to operate regularly, it is referred to as infirmity. It might be either transitory or long-
term. It also encompasses mental states like hysteria or panic.
ii. It must be the result of the accused’s own free will
The accused, in Marana Goundan vs. Unknown (1940), wanted money from the
deceased, which he owed him. The deceased stated that he would pay later. The
accused then kicked him in the abdomen, causing the victim to collapse and die. The
accused was found guilty of causing bodily harm since there was no evidence that
he intended or understood that kicking on the abdomen would risk life.

Grievous hurt (Section 116)

The following kinds of hurt only are designated as grievous:
1. Emasculation (making a person sexually incapable or weak).
2. Loss of vision in one eye for the rest of one’s life.
3. Permanent loss of hearing in one or both ears.
4. Any member or joint being prIIIatised.
5. Destruction or permanent impairment of the powers of any member or
joint.
6. Permanent disfiguration of the head or face.
 7. Fracture or dislocation of bone or tooth
8. Any injury that puts the sufferer’s life in jeopardy or renders him unable to
pursue his normal activities for a period of Fifteen days due to significant
bodily pain.

Voluntarily causing hurt (Section 115)

1. As per Section 115, anyone who does anything with the intent of inflicting
harm to another person and succeeds in doing so voluntarily commits hurt.
2. Such an act must have been committed:
 with the intent of causing harm; or
 with the intent of causing harm to anyone.
The offence under Section 115 is punishable under Section 114 (either one year in
prison or a fine of up to Rs. 10,000/-, or both). It’s non-cognizable, bailable,
compoundable, and a Magistrate can try it.

Hurt or Grievous hurt (Section 122) on provocation

Section 122 describes the circumstances in which harm is produced as a result of
provocation. If the voluntary causation of harm is related to the grave and abrupt
provocation, the penalty may extend to one month of jail or a fine of Rs. 5000/-, or
both.
1. Anyone who does anything with the goal of causing grievous harm to
another person and succeeds in doing so freely causes grievous harm.
2. A person who knowingly causes terrible harm to another person and then
causes grievous harm to that person is said to have freely caused grievous
harm.
1. The accused must have committed some sort of crime.
2. Such an act must have been committed:
 With the intent to cause grievous harm; or
 Knowing that harm was likely to result; and
 Must have caused serious harm to any person as a result.
Under Section 122 of the BNS, if the voluntarily giving of serious harm is related to
the grave and abrupt provocation, the penalty will be reduced to either five years of
imprisonment or a fine of Rs. 10000/-, or both.

Wrongful confinement (Section 127)

According to Section 127 of the 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.

Illustration
1. A moves Z into a walled location and locks him there. As a result, Z is
unable to move beyond the wall’s circumscribing line in any direction. Z
is wrongly imprisoned by A.

Essential ingredients
 Unlawful restraint of a person, and
 The restraint must be aimed at preventing that person from going beyond
specific circumscribing bounds beyond which (s)he has the legal right to
go. There must be complete restraint, not partial restraint.
Section 127(2) discusses the punishment for wrongful confinement. Under Section
127(2), whoever wrongfully confines any person, shall be punished with
imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to one year, or with
fine which may extend to five thousand rupees, or with both.

Wrongful restraint (Section 126)

As per Section 126, wrongful restraint is defined as, 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.

Illustration
A blocks a path that Z has the right to use, despite A’s good faith belief that he has
the right to do so. As a result, Z is unable to pass. Z is illegally restrained by A.

Punishment for wrongful restraint

Section 126(2)– Whoever wrongfully restrains another person shall be punished by
simple imprisonment for a period not exceeding one month, or a fine not exceeding
five thousand rupees, or both.

Essential ingredients
Wrongful restraint is defined under Section 126. The following are the basic
elements of wrongful restraint:
 A person’s voluntary obstruction, and
  the obstruction must be such that it prevents the person from advancing in
any direction in which he has a right to proceed.

Criminal force (Section 129)

According to Section 129, anyone who intentionally uses force against another
person without that person’s consent in order to commit an offence, or intends or
knows it is likely that by using such force, he will cause injury, fear, or annoyance
to the person to whom the force is applied, is said to use criminal force against that
other.
Illustration
(a) Z is seated in a moored riverboat. A purposely loosens the moorings, causing the
boat to wander down the stream. Here A causes the motion to Z on purpose, and he
does so by disposing of chemicals in such a way that the motion is produced without
the involvement of anyone else. A has so knowingly used force against Z; and if he
has done so without Z’s agreement, in order to commit any offence, or intending or
knowing that this use of force will likely cause hurt, fear, or irritation to Z, A has
used criminal force against Z.

Essential ingredients
In English law, criminal force is analogous to ‘battery,’ which refers to the
intentional infliction of force by one person on another without their assent.
 The use of force as defined by Section 128;
 such force must be used purposefully;
 the force must be used in order to commit an offence against a person; and
 the force must have been used without the will of the person against whom
it is used.
 the force must be used with the intention to cause injury, fear or annoyance
to the person against whom it is used.

Assault
By Section 130, whoever makes any gesture or preparation with the intent or
knowledge that such gesture or preparation will lead any person present to suspect
that he or she is about to use criminal force against that person is said to have
committed an assault.

Illustration
 1. A shakes his fist at Z, intending or knowing that doing so will likely lead
Z to assume A is preparing to strike Z. In this case, A has committed an
assault.

Essential ingredients
The following are the essential elements of assault:
 the accused makes a gesture or preparation to use criminal force;
 such gesture or preparation is made in the presence of the person in respect
of whom it is made;
 the accused has the intention or knowledge that such gesture or preparation
will cause apprehension in the victim’s mind that criminal force will be
used against him; and
 such a gesture or preparation has a physical effect on the victim.

Difference between criminal force, assault and hurt

In the BNS, the terms ‘assault,’ ‘criminal force,’ and ‘injury’ have different
meanings and definitions. An assault is nothing more than a threat of violence that
demonstrates a willingness to use unlawful force and the potential to do so. When
force is used, it transforms into criminal force. Now, criminal force is defined as the
act of creating motion, change of motion, or stoppage of motion without the
agreement of the person in order to commit an offence or with the intent to cause or
knowledge that it will cause injury, fear, or irritation. For instance, a man who
inappropriately wraps his arms around a lady’s waist, squirts water at a person, or
orders a dog to attack a person uses illegal force without really inflicting bodily harm
or injury is said to have committed the offence of criminal force. However, if the use
of such unlawful force results in the infliction of bodily suffering or injury, it will be
considered a ‘hurt’, which is an offence under Section 114 of the BNS.

Kidnapping (Section 137to 146)

Kidnapping, in any form, restricts an individual’s freedom. It essentially infringes
on the right to life given by Article 21 of the Indian Constitution as well as human
rights. It instils fear in people’s minds and has a negative impact on civilized society.
As per Section 138 of the BNS, kidnapping is of two kinds: kidnapping from India,
and kidnapping from lawful guardianship.
As per Section 137, kidnapping from India is said to be committed when one person
conveys any person beyond the limits of India without the consent of that person, or
of some person legally authorised to consent on behalf of that person.
As per Section 137, kidnapping from lawful guardianship is said to be committed
when one person takes or entices any minor under sixteen years of age if a male, or
under eighteen years of age if a female, 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.

Essential ingredients
 Taking or enticing away a child or a person of unsound mind;
 such taking or enticing away must be without the consent of the guardian.
In S Varadarajan vs. State of Madras (1964), a girl approaching majority willingly
left her father’s house, made plans to meet the accused at a specific location, and
went to the sub-office of the registrar where the accused and the girl signed a
marriage agreement. There was no proof that the accused had taken her out of her
parents’ legal care because the accused had played no active role in persuading her
to leave the residence. It was decided that there was no evidence of an offence under
this Section.

Abduction (Section 139)

Under Section 139 of the BNS, whoever by force compels, or by any deceitful means
induces, any person to go from any place, is said to abduct that person.

Essential ingredients
 Forcible compulsion, or inducement by deceptive means, and
 The intention of such compulsion or inducement must be the removal of a
person from any location.

Force
The term ‘force’, as defined in Section 128, BNS, refers to the use of actual force,
not just the threat or display of force. As per this Section, it would be kidnapping if
an accused threatened the prosecutrix with a pistol to force the victim to accompany
him.
Deceitful means
Inducing a person to leave a location through deception is also a crime under this
provision. As an alternative to ‘use of force,’ deception is deployed. As a result, a
person can use force to compel, or alternatively, deceive, another person to leave a
location. In either case, it is regarded as kidnapping.

To go from anywhere
Compelling or convincing a person to leave any location is an important part of
abduction. It does not have to be from a lawful guardian’s custody, as in the case of
kidnapping. Abduction, unlike kidnapping, is a continuous crime. When a person is
removed from India or from the legitimate custody of a guardian, the crime of
kidnapping is committed. However, in the instance of abduction, a person is
abducted not only when he is taken from one location to another, but also when he
is transported from one location to another.
The punishment for kidnapping is covered under 137 of the BNS. It states that
anyone who kidnaps any person from India or from lawful guardianship will suffer
imprisonment of a term which may extend to seven years, and shall also be liable to
pay a fine.