Section 324- Voluntarily causing hurt by dangerous weapons or means.
In the realm of legal definitions, "hurt" pertains to causing bodily injury to an individual. Section 319 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (IPC) defines the term 'hurt' as any action that causes physical pain, disease or infirmity to a person. Various facets of hurt are delineated from Section 319 to Section 338 of the IPC, each addressing distinct aspects of bodily harm. One such facet is encapsulated within Section 324 of the IPC, which pertains to the voluntary causing of hurt by dangerous weapons or means. In this article, we delve into the punishment prescribed under Section 324, elucidating relevant details through judgments handed down by courts across India.
An offence under Section 324 IPC:
Section 324 of the IPC delineates that when an individual is voluntarily hurt through the use of a dangerous weapon or means, it falls within the ambit of voluntarily causing hurt by dangerous weapons or means. The Section further elucidates that voluntary hurt may be inflicted by various means, including but not limited to:
- Instruments for shooting, stabbing, or cutting.
- Instruments utilized as weapons of offence likely to cause death.
- Fire or heated substances.
- Poisons
- Corrosive substances
- Explosive substances
- Substances harmful to human health if inhaled, ingested, or introduced into the bloodstream.
Essentials of an Offence under Section 324 IPC:
The commission of an offence under Section 324 IPC necessitates the fulfilment of specific prerequisites, including:
Voluntary causing of hurt;
Employment of dangerous weapons or means;
Infliction of bodily pain, disease, or infirmity.
Exceptions to Section 324:
An exception to Section 324 IPC is delineated in Section 334 of the IPC. Under Section 324, if an individual sustains voluntary hurt from another person using a dangerous weapon or means, the injured party is safeguarded by the provision of Section 334, which pertains to voluntarily causing hurt on provocation. This provision stipulates that if an individual inflicts hurt voluntarily in response to grave and sudden provocation, and the provocateur possesses the intention and knowledge of their actions, the perpetrator may be subject to imprisonment for a term extending up to one month, a fine of up to Rs. 500, or both. Crucially, the individual causing the hurt must lack awareness or intention regarding their actions.
Essentials of Section 324:
- Voluntary infliction of hurt;
- Provocation by another party;
- Absence of intention and knowledge regarding the act.
Punishment under Section 324 IPC:
An individual found guilty of an offence under Section 324 IPC is liable to face imprisonment for a term extending up to three years, a fine, or both.
Nature of Offence under Section 324 IPC:
The offence delineated in Section 324 IPC is characterized by the following attributes:
Cognizable Offences categorized as cognizable empower law enforcement officers to effect arrests without a warrant or prior judicial authorization. Therefore, police personnel can apprehend offenders under this Section without necessitating a warrant or judicial consent.
Non-bailable offences preclude the grant of bail to the accused, typically reserved for severe crimes or transgressions. Hence, individuals causing voluntary hurt through dangerous weapons or means may be subject to arrest under a non-bailable offence.
Non-compoundable offences preclude the possibility of settlement or withdrawal of charges by the victim, as these offences are deemed grave and severe. Given the severity of offences under this Section, they are categorized as non-compoundable.
Adjudication by any Magistrate: Cases falling under Section 324 IPC can be heard by a Magistrate who has jurisdiction over cases arising from Section 190 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, which is a provision in the Indian legal system that deals with the powers of the Magistrate to take cognizance of offences. This jurisdiction may be invoked upon receipt of a complaint, police report, or information from any individual besides law enforcement personnel.
Compoundable or Non-compoundable Offence:
An offence perpetrated under Section 324 IPC is classified as non-compoundable. To delineate, a compoundable offence permits the victim or complainant to reach a compromise with the accused, resulting in the withdrawal of charges. However, such a compromise must be genuine and devoid of ulterior motives. Section 320 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 delineates the framework for compounding offences. Conversely, non-compoundable offences preclude the possibility of compromise, with charges persisting regardless of the victim's inclination. In non-compoundable offences, the state, represented by law enforcement authorities, initiates proceedings.
Judicial Pronouncements:
Anwarul Haq v. State of Uttar Pradesh (2005): The Supreme Court opined that individuals causing voluntary hurt, as defined under Section 324 IPC, shall be convicted. The Court further underscored the necessity to interpret the phrase "an instrument used as a weapon of offence likely to cause death" in alignment with the nature and manner of the instrument's usage.
Pravat Chandra Mohanty v. State of Odisha (2021): The Supreme Court elucidated that bamboo lathis and wooden battens utilized as weapons of offence fall within the purview of "weapons of offence", as delineated in Section 324 IPC. The Court rejected assertions challenging the likelihood of these weapons causing death, emphasizing that the potential lethality hinges on the manner of their usage.
Ramesh alias Dapinder Singh v. State of Himachal Pradesh (2021): The accused in this case were convicted for offences punishable under Sections 302, 323, and 324 IPC. The trial court sentenced the accused to life imprisonment under the first count and to rigorous imprisonment for one and three years under the subsequent counts, along with fines. The conviction was upheld by the High Court and subsequently by the Supreme Court.
Rekha Faldessai v. State of Goa (2023): The Bombay High Court held that using physical force, sans malicious intent, for disciplinary purposes in a school setting does not constitute an offence under Section 324 IPC. The accused, a teacher, was convicted by the Children's Court under Section 324 IPC and Section 2(m) of the Goa Children's Act, 2003, for striking two children aged approximately 6 and 9 years. The accused was fined Rs. 10,000 under Section 324 IPC.
Conclusion:
Inflicting intentional harm through the use of dangerous weapons constitutes a grave transgression, as such instruments pose significant threats to human life. Within the framework of the Indian Penal Code, individuals perpetrating voluntary hurt with dangerous weapons are subject to imprisonment, fines, or both. It is imperative to enact stringent laws to safeguard individuals from such acts of violence. Inflicting harm to the point of fatality warrants severe repercussions, as it inflicts irreparable losses upon the victim and their kin.
