Criminal Law

Section 115 of BNS 

The Section 115 of BNS speaks about voluntary causing hurt and Section 114 speaks about Hurt.

Section 115(1) of BNS

“Whoever does any act with the intention of thereby causing hurt to any person, or with the knowledge that he is likely thereby to cause hurt to any person, and does thereby cause hurt to any person, is said “voluntary to cause hurt”.

115(2) BNS

Being bailable offence A judicial magistrate will grant bail to the accused. Although this offence has less punishment but may affect police record for verification of Passport.

Whoever, except in the case provided for by sub-section (1) of section 122 voluntarily causes hurt, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to one year, or with fine which may extend to ten thousand rupees, or with both.

115 (2) BNS Bailable or Not

The section 115(2) of BNS is Non-Cognizable and Bailable Offence. Means, Judicial Magistrate has to grant bail on application.

Punishment for Section 115(2) BNS

The punishment for Section 115(2) BNS is imprisonment for 1 year or fine or 10,000 rupees, or both.

Section 323 IPC versus Section 115 BNS

This section and Section 323 IPC do not differ specifically, as both define and punish voluntary causing of hurt.

Case Laws related to 115 BNS

The accused, a shopkeeper, in a sudden quarrel hit his wife on the head with an iron weight of 200 grams which resulted in her death.

The medical evidence showed that the injury was of a simple nature and there was no evidence that the deceased died of shock caused by the injury.

The Court found the accused liable only under section 323 IPC, 1860 and not under section 304 IPC, 1860

Case Reference : PP v NS Murthy, 1973 Cr LJ 1238 (AP)

The wife attacked her husband with a brick and caused multiple injuries, which led to his death.

However, medical evidence showed that the injuries were simple and not sufficient to cause death in the ordinary course of nature.

Therefore, the court did not convict her under Section 302 IPC and instead convicted her under Section 323 IPC.

Case Reference: Sridevi, 1974 Cr LJ 126 (All)

If an accused pushed the victim. She fell down and sustained injuries of simple nature. This act of the accused was held to fall under section 323 IPC.

Case Reference: Sellamuthu v State of TN, (1995) 2 Cr LJ 2143 (Mad)

Every Act Causing Death is not Murder  

Where the accused gave a push on the chest of the deceased and the victim fell on a stone resulting in death, Court recorded conviction under section 323.

Case Reference: Pichapillai v State of TN, 1996 Cr LJ 3634 (Mad)

Where in a quarrel the accused kicked the deceased on his testicles but as the victim could not get  medical treatment for two days, the injured died due to Toxaemia caused by gangrene.

The injury to the testicles was not the direct cause of his death. The Supreme Court set aside his conviction under section 304 Part II and convicted him under section 323 instead.

Case Reference: Nasiruddin vs. State of Bihar AIR 2008 SC 3198

Fair police investigation is necessary to find the truth from allegation. Accused cannot file Anticipatory Bail Application before Session Court or High Court.

Frequently Asked Questions

1. What does Section 115 of BNS define?

Answer: Section 115 of BNS defines the offence of voluntarily causing hurt. It applies when a person does any act with the intention or knowledge that hurt is likely to be caused, and actually causes hurt to someone.

2. What does Section 114 of BNS deal with?

Answer: Section 114 of BNS deals with the general definition of hurt, which involves causing bodily pain, disease, or infirmity to another person.

3. Who is said to voluntarily cause hurt under Section 115(1)?

Answer: A person is said to voluntarily cause hurt if he does an act intending or knowing it would likely hurt someone, and it actually causes hurt.

4. What is the punishment under Section 115(2) of BNS?

Answer: Under Section 115(2), whoever voluntarily causes hurt shall be punished with imprisonment up to one year, or with fine up to ten thousand rupees, or with both.

5. Is Section 115(2) of BNS a bailable offence?

Answer: Yes, Section 115(2) is a bailable offence. The judicial magistrate has the authority to grant bail to the accused.

6. Is Section 115(2) cognizable or non-cognizable?

Answer: Section 115(2) is a non-cognizable offence, meaning the police cannot arrest the accused without prior permission from the Magistrate.

7. Can an offence under Section 115(2) affect passport verification?

Answer: Yes, even though the offence under Section 115(2) carries a lighter punishment, it may negatively affect police records and thus impact passport verification.

8. Is there any difference between Section 115 of BNS and Section 323 of IPC?

Answer: There is no significant difference between Section 115 of BNS and Section 323 of IPC, as both deal with voluntarily causing hurt and provide similar punishments.

Question Answers on Case Laws 

1. What was the decision in PP v NS Murthy, 1973 Cr LJ 1238 (AP)?

Answer: In this case, the accused hit his wife with an iron weight, leading to her death. The Court held that the injury was simple and there was no evidence of death by shock, so the accused was convicted under Section 323 IPC, not under Section 304 IPC.

2. What did the Court decide in the case of Sridevi, 1974 Cr LJ 126 (All)?

Answer: The wife attacked her husband with a brick causing multiple injuries. Although he died, the medical evidence showed the injuries were simple. The Court held that she could not be convicted under Section 302 IPC and instead convicted her under Section 323 IPC.

3. What happened in Sellamuthu v State of TN, (1995) 2 Cr LJ 2143 (Mad)?

Answer: The accused pushed the victim, who sustained simple injuries. The Court ruled that the act fell under Section 323 IPC and not under a more serious offence.

4. What is case law of Pichapillai v State of TN, 1996 Cr LJ 3634 (Mad)?

Answer: In this case, the accused pushed the deceased, and the deceased fell on a stone and died. The Court held that the accused had not intended to cause death and therefore convicted him under Section 323 IPC.

5. What was the Supreme Court's ruling in Nasiruddin vs. State of Bihar, AIR 2008 SC 3198?

Answer: The accused kicked the deceased on his testicles during a quarrel. Due to delayed treatment, the victim died of Toxaemia. The Supreme Court set aside the conviction under Section 304 Part II and instead convicted him under Section 323 IPC, as the injury was not the direct cause of death.

Questions on Investigation Process 

6. Can an accused apply for anticipatory bail during police investigation in such cases?

Answer: The law does not allow the accused to directly file an anticipatory bail application before the Sessions Court or High Court during an ongoing police investigation related to such allegations.

7. Why is a fair police investigation important in hurt cases?

Answer: The police must investigate fairly to uncover the truth behind the allegations and ensure they serve justice appropriately.