Section 384 of the Indian Penal Code : Extortion

Section 384 IPC defines the punishment for extortion as

Whoever commits extortion shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to three years, or with fine, or with both.

In other words, if someone is found guilty of extortion, he might get imprisoned for a term extending up to 3 years, or might have to pay a fine, or both. For a better understanding of Section 384, we first need to understand what extortion exactly is.

Section 383 of the IPC defines Extortion as-

Whoever intentionally puts any person in fear of any injury to that person, or to any other, and thereby dishon­estly induces the person so put in fear to deliver to any person any property or valuable security, or anything signed or sealed which may be converted into a valuable security, commits “extor­tion”.

For an action to be considered as extortion, the following conditions should be satisfied-

1. Intentionally putting the person in fear of any injury
2. for the purpose of dishonestly inducing the person
3. to deliver to any other person any valuable security.

The fear of injury does not necessarily have to be of bodily harm, it could be fear of injury to a person’s reputation or property, it could be fear of injury to his loved ones. This fear is inflicted to the extent that the person agrees to deliver valuable security. The element of free and voluntary action (which constitutes consent) is absent.  Section 44 of the IPC defines Injury as, any harm whatever ille­gally caused to any person, in body, mind, reputation or proper­ty. Extortion is considered a serious or criminal offense.

For instance, A threatens to kill the son of B, if he fails to provide him with a blank signed stamp paper. A has induced B to give him the blank signed stamp paper. A has committed extortion. A could be punished with imprisonment for a term up to three years, or with fine, or with both. Another example could be, A threatens to fire B from his job if he doesn’t cast his vote for the CEO position to A. A has committed extortion.

The offense under section 384 of the IPC is a cognizable offense, which means that the police has the authority to arrest the person without a warrant. It is also a non-bailable offense i.e bail is a matter of discretion of the court. The offense of extortion is also non-compoundable. Compounding is a process where the victim and the accused agree to some compromise in order to avoid trial. There are some offenses which are so grave and serious in nature that they can not be compounded, except in certain situations where the case can be quashed by the supreme court or any high court. Since these cases are filed by the state i.e. police, the question of entering into a compromise doesn’t even arise. A full trial is conducted in the respective court and judgment is provided at the end of the trial.

Case laws-

In the case of Chander Kala v. Ram Kishan [AIR 1985 SCC 1268], the complainant (Smt. Chander Kala) was working as a teacher in a Govt. Middle School and the respondent (Ram Kishan) was the headmaster of the same school. The accused, after a series of events, called the complainant to his house and threatened to attack her modesty if she refused to sign three blank papers. And when she did, he threatened that he will use those signed papers to blackmail her by recording any statement on the papers, if she refused to act according to his wishes. The Supreme Court held that the accused had committed an offense under Section 384.

In the case of State Of Karnataka vs Basavegowda Alias Chandra [1997 CriLJ 4386], the accused husband took her wife (the complainant) to the forest under the pretext of going for the wedding of a friend. He then threatened to kill her if she didn’t hand all of her ornaments to him. After she handed him all her ornaments, he assaulted her with a big stone and his fists and ran away when saw two men coming. Though he wasn’t held guilty for robbery, he was punished for the offense of extortion under section 384.

References-

1. Indian Penal Code
2. Code of Criminal Procedure
3. AIR 1985 SCC 1268
4. 1997 CriLJ 4386

Section 147 of the IPC – Rioting

Introduction to Section 147 IPC

Section 147 of the IPC (Indian Penal Code) provides Punishment for rioting. It states that whoever is guilty of rioting, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to two years, or with fine, or with both.

What constitutes to rioting has been defined in section 146 of the IPC as whenever force or violence is used by an unlawful assembly, or by any member thereof, in the prosecution of the common object of such assembly, every member of such assembly is guilty of the offense of rioting. Which simply means that when a group of people come together unlawfully and perform anything (in order to achieve a common goal) using force and violence, every member of that group is guilty for committing the offence of rioting and they could be punished with a term extending to two years, or with fine, or with both. Though the word ‘force’ is defined under section 349 of IPC, violence has not been defined specifically in the Indian Penal Code. But violence is a much wider concept than force because it includes force not only against other people but also against inanimate objects like property.

The offense under section 147 of IPC is cognizable (the police has the authority to arrest the person without a warrant), bailable (bail is a matter of right) and non-compoundable (the Victim and the accused can not reach a compromise to settle the case, a full trial has to be conducted in the court). Accused persons can exclusively be punished under this section even if they could not be convicted for the offense they committed while pursuing the common purpose.

This is the case with simple rioting, but when deadly weapons are used in riots, the punishment varies. Punishment under section 147 relates to only the cases of simple rioting, punishment for rioting with deadly weapons has been separately prescribed under section 148 of the IPC. Section 148 of IPC states that whoever is guilty of rioting, being armed with a deadly weapon or with anything which, used as a weapon of offense, is likely to cause death, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to three years, or with fine, or with both.

Merely the use of force by a group of people does not render them liable for rioting. If the common purpose is not illegal, then the use of force by the assembly will not amount to rioting. And if force was being used by the assembly for a lawful purpose but a sudden quarrel broke out without any pre-planned manner and eventually led to violence, it would not amount to rioting. Generally, it happens that people or spectators gather around the place where the rioting is happening. These spectators should not be considered to be the members of the unlawful assembly. However, if someone is found to be marching with the assembly for quite a distance, they would have to prove their innocence under section 106 of the Evidence Act.

England’s King Bench of the High Court of Justice  defined in the decision of Field v Receiver of Metropolitan Police, [1907]2 KB 859, the 5 elements of rioting to be:

1. The group should have a minimum of three people
2. There should be a common purpose
3. The Inception of that common purpose
4. The intent to help one another by force against any person who opposes them in the execution of their common purpose
5. At least one person of reasonable firmness should be alarmed by the display of this force or violence

Case laws

In Vijay Singh Mankotia v. State of Himachal Pradesh, more than 200 people of a political party were gathered on a public highway for a ‘dharna’ against the state government.  This caused unlawful restraints to others who were supposed to travel on that highway. The Himachal Pradesh High Court observed that it amounted to public nuisance and rioting. A prima facie case was made out against the petitioners for the commission of offenses that are punishable under section 147 of the IPC.

References-

1. Indian Penal Code
2. Code of Criminal Procedure
3. The Evidence Act
4. http://www.duhaime.org/LegalDictionary/R/Riot.aspx

All About Section 188 of Indian Penal Code

Introduction To Section 188 of the Indian Penal Code

In the scheme of the Indian Penal Code (IPC), Section 188 imposes punishment on whoever disobeys an order duly promulgated by a public servant. It prescribes the punishment for disobedience of the lawful orders of a public servant, especially when the disobedience results in obstruction, annoyance or injury to any person lawfully employed or;

• danger to human life, health or safety.

However, in Bharat Raut v State[1], it was held that mere disobedience of an order of a public servant is not punishable. The disobedience must lead to the consequences of narrated in the section. A conviction cannot sustain if the disobedience does not cause or is not intended to cause obstruction, annoyance or injury or risk of obstruction, annoyance or injury to any person lawfully employed there.

The orders must also be made by public servants in public interest and cannot pertain to orders made by such officers in civil proceedings between two parties. This is also in tandem with the word ‘promulgated’ mentioned in the section. The word ‘promulgated’ means making an order known publicly. It can take various mediums from newspaper publishing to media announcements. The exception to the same is when the public servant is not lawfully empowered to promulgate an order, this section will not apply.

Section 188 IPC and Section 144 CrPC 

On the other hand, when orders under Section 144, Criminal Procedure Code (CrPC), have been passed, any disobedience of the same will result in the commission of an offense under Section 188, IPC. Similarly, in Ram Samujh v State[2] the Allahabad High Court held that Section 188 includes within its ambit orders passed under Section 144 as also Section 145 also.

In all cases involving the section, it is essential to prove that the accused had knowledge of the orders passed, for which violation, he was being prosecuted. As held in Re Sundara Mudaliar[3], the question of knowledge is generally a matter of inference from the evidence brought on record.

Elements of Section 188 

Thus, Section 188 contains the following elements for a conviction to be secured[4]:

1. There must be an order promulgated by a public servant;
2. The public servant must be lawfully empowered to promulgate such order;
3. The accused must have disobeyed such order;
4. Such disobedience must have caused or tend to have caused: Obstruction, injury, annoyance or risk to any person lawfully employed; or danger to human life, health or safety; or riot or affray.

It has been held that no conviction under Section 188 can be made unless the likely consequences of the breach of the order are proved positively[5]. In Ratlam Municipality v Vadirchand[6], a trendsetter in the field of pollution control cases in India, the Supreme Court held a municipal council through its officers liable under Section 188 IPC for disobeying and non-compliance with an order passed by a magistrate under Section 133 CrPC, to close certain pits, repair the drains, remove dirt and construct public bathrooms. Further emphasis was put on the fact that lack of funds cannot be a valid ground for passiveness on the part of the municipality. The municipality was expected to utilize the funds that the received from the State Government properly for the maintenance of public areas.

Another case is of Bhagirathi Srichandan v Damodar, where the magistrate issued an order under Section 145 CrPC for attaching standing crops and then subsequently reaping a removing them. It was held by the Orissa High Court that since such disobedience had a tendency to cause a riot or affray, Section 188 IPC could be invoked.

Classification of Offence 

The punishment under this Section is classified under two heads. Under Part 1, the punishment extends to imprisonment for 1 month, or fine of 200 rupees or both. It is a cognizable, bailable and non-compoundable offense. Under Part 2, the punishment extends to imprisonment for 6 months, or fine of 1000 rupees or both. This head too makes the offense a cognizable, bailable and non-compoundable one.

[1] AIR 1953 Pat 376

[2] AIR 1967 All 579

[3] AIR 1937 Mad 535

[4] PSA Pillai, Criminal Law (Lexis Nexis 2017) 476

[5] State v Tugla, AIR 1955 All 423

[6] AIR 1980 SC 1622

Everything About Section 506 Indian Penal Code

Introduction to Section 506 IPC

Section 506 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) deals with the punishment when the accused has committed the offense of criminal intimidation. Criminal intimidation has been defined under Section 503 IPC. The offense of criminal intimidation constitutes the threat of injury to a person’s person, reputation or property or to another person’s person, reputation or property in which that person is interested with the intention to cause alarm or cause him to do an act which he is not legally bound to do.

Section 506 – Punishment for Criminal Intimidation – Whoever commits, the offense of criminal intimidation shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to two years, or with fine, or with both;

If threat be to cause death or grievous hurt, etc – And if the threat be to cause death or grievous hurt, or to cause the destruction of any property by fire, or to cause an offense punishable with death or imprisonment for life, or with imprisonment for a term which may extend to seven years, or to impute unchastity to a woman, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to seven years, or with fine, or with both.

At first reading of Section 506, it can be seen that the punishment prescribed in this section falls in two categories:

1. In simple cases of criminal intimidation, the punishment is imprisonment for a term up to two years or fine or both.
2. If the threat be to cause death of the threatened person, or grievous hurt, or destruction of property by fire, or to cause an offense to be committed which is punishable with death or life imprisonment or with imprisonment for a term up to seven years, or to impute unchastity to a woman; then the prescribed punishment is simple or rigorous imprisonment for a term up to seven years or fine or both.

Part II deals with more graver forms of criminal intimidation, and in that sense, requires a higher threshold to be brought into play. To warrant Part II of the section, it is necessary for the prosecution to prove that the threat to cause death or grievous hurt was accompanied by some act of the accused in pursuance of the threat.

Case Law

In the case of Rajinder Datt v State of Haryana[1], it was held that mere outburst of the accused at the time of the assault that he will kill the injured, will not attract Section 506. This is particularly so when the injuries caused are not grievous and are not caused to any vital part of the body of the injured.

In Keshav Baliram Naik v State of Maharashtra[2], the accused was alleged to have touched the hand of the prosecutrix, a blind girl, when she was asleep, removed the quilt and put his hand in her dress. He threatened to kill her if she disclosed his name. However, the prosecutrix shouted due to which her parents woke up. The High Court convicted the accused.

In the case of Ghanshyam v State of Madhya Pradesh, which also involved entering a house by the accused in the night armed with a knife, and threatening the inmates with death, the conviction under Section 506 Part II was held applicable and proper.

Where criminal intimidation was committed by threatening X and his daughter with injury to their reputation by having the indecent photographs of the daughter published, the appellant was held guilty of criminal intimidation. The intent was to cause alarm to X and his daughter[3].

In the case of Manik Taneja and Anr v State of Karnataka, the appellant and his wife met with an auto-rickshaw accident. They paid all the hospital expenses of the injured and met the Constable present at the time of the accident who they allege behaved with them in a rude manner. Thereafter, they posted comments on the Bangalore Traffic Police Page on Facebook, about the officer’s misbehavior. Their conviction was set aside as it was said that this act cannot constitute as one that would make up the offense of criminal intimidation.

Classification Of Offence

Part I of the offense of criminal intimidation is a non-cognizable, bailable and compoundable offense. Part II, on the other hand, is a non-cognizable, bailable and non-compoundable offense.

Conclusion 

To conclude, the punishment for criminal intimidation is duly given. The standard for ascertaining the offense of criminal intimidation is that of a reasonable person and hence, prevents any discrepancy or ambiguity in the law. The Supreme Court has applied the substance of this offense without vagueness. This can be seen through the various judgments discussed above. The standard of a reasonable person is that standard defining how a person should behave when placed in similar situation and circumstances. Punishment for criminal intimidation will only be attracted when the accused does not adhere to this standard of accepted behavior in society.

[1] (1993) Cr LJ 1025 (P&H)

[2] (1996) Cr LJ 1111 (Bom)

[3] Romesh Chandra v State, AIR 1960 SC 154

You Will Never Thought That Knowing 5 Top White Collar Crime Cases In India You Never Know Could Be So Beneficial!

What is White Collar Crime?

White–collar crime or a corporate crime refers to financially motivated, nonviolent crime committed by government and businesses professionals. Below are some of the top 5 white collar crime cases in India.

1. Harshad Mehta Securities Fraud (1988-1995)  

Protagonist – Harshad Mehta 

Harshad Mehta was a stockbroker, and he established his security firm in 1990, “ Grow More Research & Asset Management Limited”. He was a reputed name in the stock market, and is considered the ‘Sultan of Dalal Street’, investors blindly followed Mehta’s footsteps.[1] He took a loan of huge amount from the bank and purchased the scrips at high prices, thereby creating a false market. He misused his status and manipulated the stock prices of certain scrips for his gain.[2] This resulted in unnatural pumping of money in the stock markets causing an abnormal rise in the price of these shares. This act of Harshad Mehta though being immoral was not illegal. The problem arose when Mehta obtained capital to invest in the stock market by misappropriating bank’s money. This misappropriation of money falls in the purview of money laundering. He earned approximately ₹ 5000 crores.[3] The then renowned journalist Sucheta Dalal exposed this scam. This unabated selling caused the market to loose ₹ 0.1 million in a day. This was the biggest ever crash which the Indian stock market had ever experienced. To curtail such transaction various changes were brought in SEBI rules and regulations.

2. Satyam Scandal: biggest ever corporate accounting fraud

Protagonist – B. Ramalingam Raju

This scam came into light on 7^th January, 20009 by way of confession letter written by B. Ramalingam Raju (Founder and chairman of Satyam Computers Services Limited) published in Times of India. The letter confessed about manipulating his books of account by overstating the assets and understating liabilities.[4]

The books of accounts are the reflection of the company’s financial standing. They act as an important tool on which investors can rely on before investing their money. Accounts books were manipulated to cheat investors and shareholders.

The whole scam cost approximately ₹14,000 crore and is considered to be an important factor which contributed to the recession of 2009.[5]

In this scandal, SEBI hit back strongly, holding Ramalinga Raju and nine major associates and guilty of insider trading, indulging in fraudulent and unfair trade practices. SEBI directed accused to pay approximately ₹3000 crore within 45 days and also debarred them from accessing the security markets in any way for 14 years.[6] SEBI managed to lash back strongly to ensure such a scam never happened again.

3. Ketan Parekh Security Scam

Protagonist – Ketan Parekh  

Parekh was involved in circular trading and stock manipulation through 1999-2001. He borrowed from banks like Global trust Bank and Madhavpura Mercantile Co-operative bank and manipulated a host of stocks known as K-10 stocks.[7] The scandal amount was approximately ₹ 1,250 Crore. He has spent only one year in jail, but he has been debarred from trading in the Indian Stock market till 2017.

Although his name continues to haunt the street as he has been accused of playing from backstage. An Intelligence Bureau Report alleged Parekh and his associates to be engaged in circular and insider trading through front entities.

4. Saradha chit fund case

Protagonist- Sudipta Sen  

Saradha Group financial Scandal was a major financial scam and alleged political scandal caused by the collapse of Ponzi scheme run by Saradha Group, a consortium of 200 private companies that were believed to be running collective investment schemes popularly and wrongly referred to as Chit Fund.[8] This group collected around ₹200 to ₹300 billion from over 1.7 million depositors, promising a multiplied hefty sum in return in the form of cash or real estate and other assets.[9]

At least 10 Saradha group entities were alleged for committing fraud through public money-pooling activities. Amidst continuing public protest against the group’s alleged fraudulent activities, SEBI barred Saradha Realty India and its managing director Sudipta Sen from the securities market till it winds up all the Collective Investment Schemes (CIS) and makes the refund, as the same amounts to CIS Violation.[10]

The central government through income tax department and Enforcement Directorate launched a multi-agency probe to investigate the Saradha Scam and similar Ponzi scheme. Later, in May 2014 Supreme Court of India, alleging possible international money laundering, severe regulatory failures an alleged political nexus, referred this case to CBI, India’s federal investigation agency.[11] Many prominent personalities were arrested for their involvement in the scam including two Members of Parliament- Kunal Ghosh, Srinjoy Bose, former West Bengal director general of police- Rajat Majumdar, a top football club official Debabrata Sarkar, Sports and Transport minister in the Trinamool Congress government Madan Mitra.

This scam is often compared to the Sanchayita investment scam, a multi-crore rupees scam that occurred in West Bengal in the 1970s, complaints related to the same have to lead to the formation of Prize Chits and Money Circulation Schemes (Banning) Act, 1968.[12]

5. Punjab National Bank Fraud

Protagonist- Nirav Modi  

Nirav Modi is a diamantaire, elite jewelry designer and India’s 85^th richest person.

Bank said that Modi and the companies linked to him colluded with its officials to get guarantees or Letter of Undertaking to help fund buyer’s credit from other overseas banks.[13]

PNB’s preliminary investigation showed that two officials of the bank had fraudulently issued Lou’s to the said firms without following the due procedure. These Los were then transmitted across the SWIFT messaging system, based on which the credit was offered to the said firms.[14]

PNB alleged that the funds ostensibly so raised for the purchase and sale of diamonds were not used for the purpose.

PNB issued to the stock exchange, about the detection of the fraudulent and unauthorized transaction. PNB has incurred $1.8 billion fraud, one of the largest to be detected in Indian Banking Sector.[15]

Read Also: Taxpayers Don’t Fall For These Types of Tax Scams in India

[1] “THE GROWTH OF SEBI – FROM HARSHAD MEHTA TO SUBRATA ROY” (PDF) <https://lawsdocbox.com/Legal_Issues/73899378-The-growth-of-sebi-from-harshad-mehta-to-subrata-roy.html> accessed May 13, 2019.

[2] Ibid.

[3] Ibid.

[4] Datta D and Datta D, “Ramalinga Raju And The Incredible Story Of India’s Greatest White Collar Crime” (HuffPost India July 15, 2016) <https://www.huffingtonpost.in/devangshu-datta/ramalinga-raju-and-the-in_b_7032688.html> accessed May 13, 2019.

[5] Ibid.

[6] Ibid.

[7] Nimmi (KETAN PAREKH SCAM) <https://www.indianmirror.com/indian-industries/indian-scams/ketanparekhscam.html> accessed May 13, 2019.

[8] “Here’s Why Saradha Was Not a Chit Fund but a Ponzi Scheme” (first post-December 20, 2014) <https://www.firstpost.com/business/heres-why-saradha-was-not-a-chit-fund-but-a-ponzi-scheme-739597.html> accessed May 13, 2019.

[9] Ibid

[10] “Saradha Chit Fund Scam: Mercedes of Sudipta Sen’s Son Seized” (The Economic TimesMay 7, 2013) <https://economictimes.indiatimes.com/news/politics-and-nation/saradha-chit-fund-scam-mercedes-of-sudipta-sens-son-seized/articleshow/19937529.cms?from=mdr> accessed May 13, 2019.

[11] Reporters BS, “SC Jolt for Mamata: CBI to Probe Saradha Scam” (Business StandardMay 9, 2014) <https://www.business-standard.com/article/current-affairs/sc-jolt-for-mamata-cbi-to-probe-saradha-scam-114050900345_1.html> accessed May 13, 2019.

[12] Mukherji UP, Bandyopadhyay K, and TNN, “Sanchayita Haunts Saradha Victims | Kolkata News-Times of India” (The Times of IndiaMay 13, 2019) <https://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/city/kolkata/Sanchayita-haunts-Saradha-victims/articleshow/19656723.cms> accessed May 13, 2019.

[13] “Nirav Modi Case: How PNB Has Defrauded of Rs 11,400 Crore” (Business TodayMarch 15, 2018) <https://www.businesstoday.in/sectors/banks/nirav-modi-case-pnb-fraud-11400-crore-scam-ed-cbi-raid/story/270708.html> accessed May 11, 2019.

[14] Desk BQ, “The Nirav Modi-PNB Fraud Case: Everything We Know So Far” (BloombergQuintFebruary 17, 2018) <https://www.bloombergquint.com/law-and-policy/the-nirav-modi-pnb-fraud-case-everything-we-know-so-far> accessed May 11, 2019.

[15] Nair V, “The Nirav Modi Case: How The $1.8 Billion Fraud Detected At PNB Unfolded” (BloombergQuintFebruary 19, 2018) <https://www.bloombergquint.com/pnb-fraud/the-nirav-modi-case-how-the-18-billion-fraud-detected-at-pnb-unfolded> accessed May 11, 2019.

Original blog is published in Legodesk please read full blog for legal service

Manage your Legal practice with Legodesk helps you to manage your clients, do legal research, grow your practice and much more 

Ten Difficult Things About Voluntary Causing Hurt : Provision And Punishment

With all the progress we have made as a nation, there is also a big number of crimes happening around us in recent days. And women and children are becoming more part to such kind of crimes, and hence it is essential to be aware of the offenses or wrong which are known as voluntarily causing hurt to someone or anyone and the punishment prescribed for it in the  Indian Penal Code, 1860.

Section 323 of IPC

Section 323 is an essential part mentioned under the chapter 16th of the Indian Penal Code, 1860, titled “Offenses related to the Affecting Human Body.” Section 323 basically deals with the punishment clause for voluntary causing hurt. But before going further first, we need to understand the meaning of some technical terms, like “Hurt (defined under section 319)”, “Grievous Hurt (defined under section 320)”,  “Voluntary causing Hurt (defined under section 321)” and “Voluntary causing Grievous Hurt (which is defined under section 322)”. So basically the present article only has a relation with Section 323 read with section 321, which defines what actually “voluntary causing Hurt” mean. Though we have to discuss only the provision related to section 323, we also need to understand under this, that there is segregation of some technical terms which mentioned above and it is essential to discuss under this.

“Hurt (which is defined under section 319) ” meaning simply that any person who causes bodily pain, disease or infirmity to any other person and if the same does happen where knowledge plays an essential role is to be understood within the meaning of “Voluntary causing Hurt (under section 321)”

“Grievous Hurt (which is defined under section 320)” is to be understood as an extended form of Hurt. Under this, there are some different kind of hurt only, which is designated as “grievous” in nature. They are,

Emasculation,

Permanent privation of the sight of any of the Eye or Ear or Permanent disfigured the face or head,

Privation of any member or joint or permanent impairing of the powers of any joint,

Fracture or Dislocation of bone or tooth

or any other type of Hurt which may endanger life or which the sufferer causes severely bodily pain up to 20 days or more or may not be able to follow their ordinary pursuits.

So basically, there are eight important types of hurt which are grievous in nature and on another aspect where knowledge gets involves in any of the hurt which is grievous in nature may amount to be “voluntary causing Grievous Hurt (under section 322).

Read Also: Key differences between IPC and CrPC

Section 323 Of Indian Penal Code 

The definition of the provision “voluntary causing hurt” defined under section 321 and their punishment clause in section 323 of the penal code 1862.  Section 321 states that if a person with pure intention is causing Hurt to any other person. And there exists a piece of knowledge that their action may likely cause hurt to another is “Voluntary Causing Hurt.”

Section 323 defines the punishment for the wrong defines under section 321, states that whoever does the same shall be punished with the 1-year imprisonment or fine of 1000 rs.  or both. Also, if a person without any intention has a knowledge that particular action may likely to cause hurt or gives to another person a “voluntary causing hurt” on the grave and sudden provocation (defined under section 334), then, he or she shall be not prosecuted under section 323, there should be applied some facts for exemption under section 323, as follows:-

1. Firstly, there was no sudden or grave provocation exist,
2. Secondly, the offender had the intention of causing hurt;
3. Thirdly, the offender had clear knowledge that his conduct will cause hurt to the other people
4. Lastly, the offender caused any bodily hurt.

So if any of the facts may going to apply, the accused punishment shifted from section 323 to section 334, and under this, the accused shall be punished with the imprisonment for a maximum of 1 month or a fine which exceed up to 500 or with both.

The offense under section 323 of the Indian Penal Code, 1862 is Non- cognizable, Bailable and Triable by any Magistrate Also, Compounded by the person to whom the hurt is caused.

Voluntarily causing hurt by dangerous weapons

 Section 324 of the Indian Penal Code further clarifies the repercussions of “voluntarily causing hurt using any dangerous weapon or instruments” such as shooting, stabbing, or cutting or any other tool which is likely to cause death and the accused has the knowledge of the same, are much severe. Some examples- fire, heated substance, poison, an explosive substance, or any substance which might be dangerous to the human body in the form of consumption.

Punishment– up to 3 years or fine or Both

Voluntarily causing hurt to extort property or to do an illegal act forcefully 

Section 327 of the Indian Penal Code, deals with the offense of “voluntarily causing hurt with the motive or intention to extort the property from the sufferer or any other person” interested in the victim. This may also include constraining the sufferer or any other person interested in the victim to make them do act illegally directly has relation to the commission of the offense.  The said offense is categorized under the meaning of “grave” in nature.

Punishment: – up to 10 years only or with the fine.

Voluntarily causing hurt to deter public servant from their duty

Section 332 of the India Penal Code defines that Any person, who deliberately causes hurt to any public servant in discharge of his duty or causing hurt with the intention of deterring him from discharging his duty is not acceptable by law and amount to some punishment.

Punishment: – up to 3 years only or with the fine.

Voluntarily causing hurt in committing robbery

Robbery (defined under section 390 of the penal code) is considered as a serious crime, and that is why Section 394 of the Indian Penal Code deals with such kind of cases where the voluntary hurt was caused during the conduction (include attempt also) of the crime of robbery. The offender or any person (involvement is necessary, directly or indirectly) jointly responsible for such offense of robbery,

Punishment: – Lifetime Imprisonment or Rigorous Imprisonment up to 10 years, sometimes fine may be included along with the punishment.