Hurt becomes grievous under BNS when it leads to lasting damage, such as fractures, disfigurement, loss of senses, or severe pain lasting 15 days. Defined in Section 116, grievous hurt involves serious bodily harm that affects health, mobility, or vital physical functions.

In criminal jurisprudence, the classification of an injury not only helps determine the offender’s moral culpability but also guides the court in imposing an appropriate punishment.

The Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita 2023 lays down clear statutory provisions delineating what constitutes “hurt” and under what circumstances such hurt may be considered “grievous.”

The differentiation is critical, as the nature, severity, and circumstances under which an injury is inflicted are all central to both the legal proceedings and sentencing.

At its very foundation, the Act defines “hurt” in section 114 simply as the act of causing bodily pain, disease, or infirmity to any person.

However, this seemingly straightforward definition belies the complex discussions that have evolved over time regarding severity, intent, and the resultant harm to the victim.

When hurt escalates to a level where the victim suffers long-term or permanent injuries, the law categorizes the harm as “grievous hurt,” thereby triggering more severe penalties.

Legal Definition of “Hurt”

Section 114 of the BNS Bare Act provides the foundational definition:

“Whoever causes bodily pain, disease or infirmity to any person is said to cause hurt.”

This inclusive definition covers not only physical pain but also extends to conditions that may arise due to the injury, such as disease or any form of infirmity.

The broad scope is designed to encompass the manifold ways in which a person’s bodily integrity can be affected.

The term “hurt” does not require that the injury be permanent or result in incapacitation. Even a transient injury that produces bodily pain, a minor infection, or even temporary discomfiture falls within the ambit of this definition.

Courts have often interpreted this provision to mean that any act, however trivial it may seem, if it causes bodily pain, even if momentary, could be deemed as causing hurt.

The term is purposefully broad so as to capture all instances of physical harm, irrespective of the magnitude or duration of the injury.

Central to the definition is the idea of causation. The mere presence of an injury is insufficient unless it is proved that the accused’s act was the direct cause of the bodily pain, disease, or infirmity.

This causal link plays a crucial role in the investigative process and the eventual legal determination of guilt.

Essential Elements of Hurt

1. Bodily Pain, Disease, or Infirmity: As per Section 114 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS), hurt involves causing bodily pain, disease, or infirmity to another person.
2. Physical Suffering: The most basic component—physical pain resulting from an external act such as hitting, injury, or any physical contact causing discomfort.
3. Voluntariness (Mens Rea): Under Section 115 BNS, the act must be done intentionally or with knowledge that it is likely to cause hurt.
4. Actus Reus (Guilty Act): There must be a physical act or omission leading to the result of hurt—such as striking, poisoning, or otherwise causing harm.
5. Direct or Indirect Causation: The hurt may be caused directly (e.g., assault) or indirectly (e.g., giving contaminated food that causes illness).
6. No Requirement of Grievousness: The injury need not be severe; even minor physical discomfort or illness qualifies as hurt under the law.
7. Intent or Knowledge Required: The offender must have the intention or knowledge that his act could likely cause hurt.
8. Absence of Lawful Justification: The act must not be covered by legal defense like self-defense or medical necessity.

Voluntarily Causing Hurt

Section 115 introduces the concept of “voluntarily causing hurt.” The clause is bifurcated into two parts.

The first defines the offense in relation to the intention or knowledge of the potential consequences.

An offender who acts with the intention of, or knowing that his conduct is likely to, cause hurt is deemed to have voluntarily caused hurt.

Punishment for Voluntarily Causing Hurt

Under section 115(2), if a person is found guilty of causing hurt voluntarily, the law prescribes imprisonment which may extend to one year, a fine that may extend to ten thousand rupees, or both.

The Exception Clause

It is crucial to note that section 115 also implicitly recognizes that not every instance where bodily pain is caused falls under this punitive umbrella.

The section makes a critical distinction concerning the “case provided for by subsection (1) of section 122,” a provision that deals with acts done under grave and sudden provocation, thereby offering a potential mitigating circumstance.

What is “Grievous Hurt”?

The legal concept of “grievous hurt” is provided in section 116 and represents a categorization of injuries that are severe and potentially life-altering. The legal system makes a clear demarcation: while all grievous hurt is hurt, not every hurt can be legally considered grievous.

When does Hurt Become Grievous Hurt?

Section 116 categorically lists the types of injuries that are considered “grievous.” These include:

• Emasculation: The complete or partial loss of sexual organ function.
• Permanent privation of the sight of either eye: Loss of vision in one irreversible eye.
• Permanent privation of the hearing of either ear: Permanent loss of hearing in one ear.
• Privation of any member or joint: Loss of a limb or joint in functional terms.
• Destruction or permanent impairing of the powers of any member or joint: Injury that destroys or irreversibly impairs the function of a limb or joint.
• Permanent disfiguration of the head or face: Injuries that leave lasting scars or deformities.
• Fracture or dislocation of a bone or tooth: Serious bone or dental injuries.

Any hurt which endangers life or which causes the sufferer to be during the space of fifteen days in severe bodily pain, or unable to follow his ordinary pursuits: This clause captures injuries that, although not falling in the other enumerated categories, still have a profound impact on the victim’s life.

Each of these types of hurt has been deliberately chosen to indicate injuries that not only have physical ramifications but also lasting consequences on the victim’s quality of life.

The classification of an injury as grievous hurt is not merely a semantic or terminological issue; it has significant legal ramifications.

The punishment for causing grievous hurt is markedly more severe than that for causing simple hurt. Moreover, the classification can have consequences in related civil litigation, including claims for compensation for personal injuries.

The judiciary has long observed that while “hurt” may often be a transient condition, “grievous hurt” is characterized by its severity and the long-term implications for the victim.

Courts have thus taken a stringent view when evaluating injuries that permanently impair bodily functions or result in life-endangering circumstances.

Voluntarily Causing Grievous Hurt

Section 117 consolidates the legal position on the offense of voluntarily causing grievous hurt. The provision requires that two conditions must be simultaneously satisfied:

1. First, the offender must intend or know that his actions are likely to cause grievous hurt.
2. Second, the actual hurt inflicted must indeed fall within the ambit of “grievous hurt.”

In other words, the offender cannot be charged with causing grievous hurt unless there is both a demonstrable intention (or at least a knowledge) and a resultant injury that qualifies as grievous as per section 116.

This “double requirement” is crucial in ensuring that individuals are only subjected to the higher punitive threshold when both elements are present.

A unique aspect of section 117 is that it allows for a divergence between the intended form of injury and the injury inflicted.

For example, if an offender intends to permanently disfigure but instead causes an injury that leads to prolonged severe pain for fifteen days, the law still considers this an instance of voluntarily causing grievous hurt.

This flexibility in the legal understanding underscores the emphasis on the seriousness of the injury’s impact rather than the precise nature of the intended harm.

Punishment for Voluntarily Causing Grievous Hurt

The punitive framework under section 117 is rigid. It specifies that an offender who voluntarily causes grievous hurt (except in cases falling under specified exceptions) is liable to an imprisonment term that may extend to seven years along with a fine.

In situations where the injury results in permanent disability or a persistent vegetative state, the punishment escalates significantly. In such cases, the offender faces a minimum of ten years of rigorous imprisonment, which may extend to life imprisonment, underscoring society’s condemnation of acts that not only inflict harm but also curtail the quality of life of the victim permanently.

Hurt or Grievous Hurt by Dangerous Weapons or Means

Section 118 expands the scope of the legal framework by addressing situations where hurt or grievous hurt is caused by the use of dangerous weapons or methods.

This section is indicative of the law’s attempt to deal with modern methods of inflicting harm, particularly where the potential for fatality or severe bodily injury is significantly increased.

The following are the instruments and methods specified under Section 324 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) and its analogous provision, Section 118(1) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS), 2023, for voluntarily causing hurt by dangerous weapons or means:

1. Instruments for shooting
2. Instruments for stabbing
3. Instruments for cutting
4. Any instrument that, used as a weapon of offence is likely to cause death
5. Fire
6. Any heated substance
7. Any poison
8. Any corrosive substance
9. Any explosive substance
10. Any substance which is deleterious to the human body to inhale, swallow, or receive into the blood
11. Any animal

The punishments provided under section 118 are stringent. For causing hurt, the maximum punishment may extend to three years’ imprisonment along with a fine of up to twenty thousand rupees.

However, if the act results in grievous hurt, the penalty is even harsher, with the minimum imprisonment term being one year and the maximum extending to ten years, or in some cases, even life imprisonment.

These enhanced provisions reflect a legal recognition that certain methods of causing injury carry with them an augmented potential for devastation.

In Vinil vs State of Kerala (2024:KER:77152), the Kerala High Court briefly discussed Section 114 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS), 2023, which defines voluntarily causing hurt. The court noted that Section 114 BNS is analogous to Section 319 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC), covering acts that cause bodily pain, disease, or infirmity to a person with intent or knowledge. The court referenced this section in the context of the petitioner’s argument to limit the trial to an offence akin to Section 323 IPC (voluntarily causing hurt, punishable under Section 115 BNS). However, the court upheld the applicability of Section 324 IPC (Section 118(1) BNS) due to the allegation of hurt caused by a stone, which could qualify as a dangerous weapon, subject to trial evidence.

Hurt or Grievous Hurt in the Context of Extortion and Coercion

Sections 119 and 120 of the BNS Bare Act specifically deal with scenarios where hurt or grievous hurt is inflicted for the purpose of extorting property or compelling illegal acts.

These sections recognize that the infliction of bodily harm for such ulterior motives disrupts not only the physical integrity of the victim but also the societal order by introducing an element of coercion and criminal intimidation.

Sec. 119: Extortion and Coercion for Property

Section 119 stipulates that whoever inflicts hurt with the intention of extorting property or valuable security, or to force a person to commit an illegal act, is liable for punishment which may extend to ten years’ imprisonment along with a fine.

The gravity of the offense is underscored by the fact that such an act is not merely criminal but also undermines the victim’s autonomy and financial security.

In the case of Rupineni Venkata Krishna Rao vs State of Telangana (March 17, 2025) the Telangana High Court, in a judgment by Justice K. Sujana, partially quashed proceedings in Crime No. 305 of 2024, focusing on allegations of extortion (Section 386, IPC) involving hurt and grievous hurt. The complainant alleged that in 2018, he was kidnapped and coerced into transferring shares under threats of grievous hurt or death using guns and sticks. The court found no evidence of actual hurt or grievous hurt, nor credible proof of threats inducing fear to obtain shares, as the complainant voluntarily transferred shares for Rs. 1.7 crores. The settlement agreement allegedly signed under threat was unused and unregistered, and inconsistent statements weakened the claim. Consequently, the extortion charge under Section 386 was quashed due to the absence of evidence of fear of grievous hurt or death. However, allegations of kidnapping (Section 365), wrongful restraint (Section 341), and conspiracy (Section 120B), potentially involving threats, warranted further investigation.

Sec. 120: Extorting Confession or Compelling Restoration of Property

Moving a step further, section 120 deals with the use of bodily harm to compel a confession or to enforce the restoration of property.

This is particularly significant because it targets official misconduct, where the very agents of the law may be implicated.

For instance, the section explicitly illustrates scenarios where a police officer or revenue officer might inflict hurt with the intent of extracting a confession or compelling financial restitution.

In these instances, the law mandates a punishment of imprisonment that may extend to seven years for causing hurt and even more severe penalties if grievous hurt is inflicted.

Deterring Public Servants

Section 121 is devoted to protecting public servants from harm while they discharge their lawful duties. It criminalizes acts intended to deter, or actually prevent, public servants from performing their responsibilities.

Whether it is a mere scare tactic or an actual physical assault, both scenarios invite stringent punishment.

This special protection reflects the critical importance of ensuring that those entrusted with the welfare of society are not unduly inhibited by fear or coercion.

Provocation and the Exception of Grave and Sudden Provocation

The Act recognizes that there may be instances where an individual causes hurt or grievous hurt as a result of “grave and sudden provocation.”

Section 122 provides a limited exception by specifying that if the offender inflicts injury on the person who initiated the provocation, and does so without the intention to harm any others, the resulting punishment may be less severe.

Legal Rationale

This provision is reflective of a broader legal principle that seeks to account for the psychological and emotional factors that may momentarily override an individual’s capacity for reason.

Though the law does not condone violence, it does acknowledge human fallibility in extreme circumstances.

As such, if an act of violence is committed solely in response to the immediate provocation by the instigator, the imposition of punishment is tempered relative to other forms of intentional harm.

Specific Provisions Addressing Unique Circumstances

Hurt through Poison or Intoxicants (Section 123)

Section 123 pertains to the administration of substances such as poison, stupefying drugs, or any intoxicating or unwholesome items to another person.

The focus is on the intent behind the act, particularly if it is to:

• Cause bodily harm,
• Commit or facilitate the commission of another offence, or
• Do so with the knowledge that such harm is likely.

Nature of Harm:

The insidious nature of poisoning makes it particularly dangerous. Unlike physical violence, the harm may not manifest immediately, making the act deceptive yet potentially fatal.

Punishment:

• Imprisonment: May extend up to 10 years.
• Fine: Imposed additionally.
• This is a serious offence due to its covert and potentially life-threatening impact.

Hurt by the Use of Acid (Section 124)

Section 124 is dedicated to penalizing acid attacks and other similar forms of grievous hurt involving corrosive substances. It recognizes the permanent physical and psychological trauma suffered by victims of such acts.

Includes acts of throwing acid, administering it, or attempting to use any corrosive substance that results in:

• Permanent or partial damage,
• Deformity,
• Burns, maiming, disfigurement, or disability,
• Causing a person to enter a permanent vegetative state.

Definition of Acid:

For legal clarity, “acid” includes any substance that is acidic, corrosive, or has a burning nature capable of causing bodily injury leading to disfigurement or disability.

Punishment:

1. If injury is caused (Section 124(1)):

• Imprisonment: Not less than 10 years, which may extend to life imprisonment.
• Fine: Mandatory, and must be sufficient to cover medical expenses of the victim. The fine is to be paid directly to the victim.

2. If only attempt is made (Section 124(2)):

• Imprisonment: Not less than 5 years, which may extend to 7 years.
• Fine: Imposed additionally.

Legal and Social Objective:

The punishment serves a dual purpose:

• Deterrence: Sending a strong message against premeditated, targeted violence.
• Restitution: Providing direct support to victims for long-term medical and psychological treatment.

Endangering Life or Personal Safety (Section 125)

This section criminalizes acts done with rashness or negligence that endanger human life or personal safety. It covers situations where:

• There may be no intention to cause harm,
• But the act is so careless that it puts others at significant risk.

Examples of Covered Acts:

• Negligent driving,
• Mishandling of dangerous machinery or substances,
• Any careless behavior that leads to injury or risk to others.

Punishment Based on Severity of Consequence:

Case Laws on Hurt and Grievous Hurt

Mathai v. State of Kerala: In the case of Mathai v. State of Kerala, the accused assaulted the victim using a large stone, resulting in severe injuries. The Supreme Court of India upheld the conviction under Section 326 of the IPC for voluntarily causing grievous hurt by dangerous weapons or means. The court found that the injuries caused were grievous, as they included a fracture, which falls under Section 320 of the IPC. The evidence from the victim (PW1) was corroborated by another witness (PW2), confirming the use of a stone and the severity of the harm, justifying the application of Section 326.

Dalapati Majhi v. State: In Dalapati Majhi v. State, the accused was prosecuted for causing grievous hurt during an altercation. The victim claimed injuries from an assault, but the defense argued that the injuries resulted from an accidental fall. The courts below convicted the accused under Section 325 of the IPC for voluntarily causing grievous hurt, finding sufficient evidence of intent and severe injury, such as a fracture. The case emphasized that voluntarily causing grievous hurt, as defined under Section 322, requires intent or knowledge that the act is likely to cause grievous harm, which was established through witness testimony.

Naib Singh v. State of Punjab: In the case of Naib Singh v. State of Punjab, the accused inflicted fist blows on the victim, resulting in injuries that were alleged to be grievous. The trial court convicted the accused under Section 325 of the IPC, determining that the injuries, including a head injury, constituted grievous hurt under Section 320. However, the defense challenged the medical evidence, particularly an X-ray report suggesting a fracture. The court upheld the conviction, noting that the accused’s knowledge of likely causing grievous hurt was sufficient, even if the intent was not explicitly proven, highlighting the thin line between hurt and grievous hurt.

Hansa v. State of Punjab: In Hansa v. State of Punjab, the accused was charged with voluntarily causing grievous hurt using a stick, injuring the victim, Mst. Rao. The trial court convicted the accused under Section 325 for grievous hurt and Section 323 for causing simple hurt to another person. On appeal, the High Court set aside the conviction for simple hurt but upheld the grievous hurt charge, as medical evidence confirmed a fracture. The case clarified that grievous hurt requires specific injuries listed under Section 320, and the court relied on medical testimony to establish the nature of the injury.

Gurmeet Ram Rahim v. Central Bureau of Investigation: In Gurmeet Ram Rahim v. Central Bureau of Investigation (2018), the Punjab-Haryana High Court dealt with a case involving grievous hurt under Section 326 of the IPC. The accused was alleged to have caused grievous hurt using dangerous weapons, resulting in severe injuries. The court emphasized that for an offense under Section 326, three elements must be proven: voluntarily causing hurt, the hurt being grievous as per Section 320, and the use of a dangerous weapon. The conviction was upheld based on evidence showing permanent impairment of a body part, aligning with the definition of grievous hurt.

State v. Gaurav Sharma: In State v. Gaurav Sharma (Delhi District Court, 2025), the accused was tried for causing grievous hurt under Sections 325 and 34 of the IPC. The prosecution established that the accused voluntarily inflicted injuries that resulted in a fracture and permanent disfiguration, qualifying as grievous hurt under Section 320. The court convicted the accused, emphasizing that the intent to cause grievous hurt was evident from the nature of the attack and the medical evidence, which showed the victim’s inability to pursue ordinary activities for over 20 days.

State v. Smt. Maya: In State v. Smt. Maya (Delhi District Court, 2024), the accused was charged with causing grievous hurt to Ms. Sunita and simple hurt to others under Sections 325, 323, and 34 of the IPC. The court found that the accused’s actions led to a fracture in the victim’s arm, constituting grievous hurt, while other injuries were minor, falling under simple hurt. The conviction under Section 325 was based on medical reports and witness statements, reinforcing that grievous hurt requires specific severe injuries as outlined in Section 320.

State v. Anjali Khurana: In State v. Anjali Khurana (Delhi District Court, 2022), the accused was prosecuted for voluntarily causing grievous hurt. The court clarified that grievous hurt under Section 320 requires both the act of causing hurt and the intent or knowledge that the hurt is likely to be grievous. The accused’s actions resulted in a permanent disfiguration of the victim’s face, meeting the criteria for grievous hurt. The conviction under Section 325 was upheld, with the court noting that the result and intent must correspond for a grievous hurt charge.

Kailas v. State of Maharashtra: In Kailas v. State of Maharashtra (MANU/SC/0011/2011), the Supreme Court addressed a case where the accused caused hurt during an assault on a member of the Bhil Community. The injuries were minor, falling under simple hurt as per Section 319, and the accused was convicted under Section 323. The court distinguished between simple and grievous hurt, noting that the injuries did not meet the criteria of Section 320, such as permanent impairment or life endangerment, highlighting the importance of injury severity in determining the offense.

Gopal v. State of M.P.: In Gopal v. State of M.P. (MANU/SC/0648/2011), a free fight led to the accused inflicting a knife blow on the victim’s chest, causing a grievous injury that resulted in death. The Supreme Court convicted the accused under Section 325 for grievous hurt rather than murder, as the post-mortem report indicated death due to hemorrhage from a stab injury, but there was no intent to cause death. The case underscored the distinction between grievous hurt and culpable homicide, focusing on the nature of the injury and intent.

State of Maharashtra v. Mahadev Ramu Takkekar: In State of Maharashtra v. Mahadev Ramu Takkekar (2022 SCC OnLine Bom 274), the accused assaulted the complainant with a khurpi (a farming tool) during a land dispute, causing a fracture. The trial court convicted the accused under Section 325 instead of Section 326, as the khurpi was not deemed a dangerous weapon in this context, and the injury, while grievous, did not involve life-threatening means. The Bombay High Court upheld the conviction, emphasizing that the medical evidence and intent to cause grievous hurt were sufficient.

Prithvi v. State of Haryana: In Prithvi v. State of Haryana, the accused kicked the victim in the testicles during a quarrel, leading to the victim’s death due to toxaemia from gangrene. The court held that the injury to the testicles constituted simple hurt under Section 323, not grievous hurt, as the death was not directly caused by the injury but by subsequent complications. This case highlighted that emasculation or severe injury to reproductive organs must be permanent to qualify as grievous hurt under Section 320.

Mutukdhar Singh v. Emperor: In Mutukdhar Singh v. Emperor, the court examined whether a cut on a bone constituted grievous hurt. The evidence showed only a minor scratch on the bone, which did not amount to a fracture under Clause 7 of Section 320. The court ruled that the injury was simple hurt under Section 319, emphasizing that a fracture requires a break or splintering of the bone to qualify as grievous hurt, demonstrating the strict interpretation of Section 320.

Shahe Rai: In the case of Shahe Rai, the accused inflicted injuries on an infant, which the court found to be severe enough to constitute grievous hurt under Section 320. The injuries caused significant aggravation, including a fracture, and the court held the accused liable under Section 325. The case underscored the need to assess the nature and extent of injuries, particularly in vulnerable victims, to determine whether they fall under grievous hurt.

Government of Bombay v. Abdul Wahab: In Government of Bombay v. Abdul Wahab, the court recognized the thin line between grievous hurt and culpable homicide not amounting to murder. The accused caused severe injuries, including a fracture, but without intent to kill. The court convicted the accused under Section 325 for grievous hurt, noting that the injuries endangered life but were not likely to cause death, illustrating the nuanced distinction between these offenses.

In Re Guruvulu: In In Re Guruvulu (1945 Mad 73), the accused cut both nostrils of the victim and stole jewels. The court found no intention or knowledge to cause death, convicting the accused under Section 325 for grievous hurt. The injury was deemed grievous under Section 320 due to permanent disfiguration of the face, demonstrating that specific injuries listed in Section 320 are exhaustive and strictly interpreted.

Mansharam v. State of M.P.: In Mansharam v. State of M.P. (1990 Cr. LJ 35), the accused delivered a single lathi blow, causing a skull fracture that led to the victim’s death. The court convicted the accused under Section 325 for grievous hurt, as the injury was grievous under Section 320, but there was no intent to cause death. The case highlighted the distinction between grievous hurt and culpable homicide, focusing on the accused’s intent and the injury’s severity.

Kure and Ors. v. Emperor: In Kure and Ors. v. Emperor (1918), the court addressed injuries caused to a girl, Kesi, during an assault. The injuries included a fracture, qualifying as grievous hurt under Section 320. The accused were convicted under Section 325, with the court emphasizing that the intent to cause grievous hurt was inferred from the nature of the attack, reinforcing the importance of medical evidence in such cases.

Mohammad Rafi v. Emperor: In Mohammad Rafi v. Emperor, the accused inflicted a neck injury from behind, causing the victim’s death. The Lahore High Court convicted the accused under Section 322 for voluntarily causing grievous hurt, as the injury was grievous but lacked the intent for culpable homicide. The case illustrated the fine distinction between grievous hurt that endangers life and injuries likely to cause death, affecting the charge applied.

Durga Prasad v. State of Uttar Pradesh: In Durga Prasad v. State of Uttar Pradesh (2024), the Allahabad High Court clarified that cases lacking intent to cause death but resulting in severe injuries fall under Sections 323, 324, or 325, depending on the injury’s nature. The accused caused a fracture, qualifying as grievous hurt, and was convicted under Section 325. The court emphasized that malicious intent is assessed by the accused’s awareness of the act’s consequences, guiding the classification of hurt.

Verdict 

The BNS Bare Act provides a structured and detailed approach to differentiating between hurt and grievous hurt.

While the definition of hurt in section 114 is broad and all-encompassing, covering any act that causes bodily pain, disease, or infirmity, the Act draws a firm line when it comes to injuries that are deemed “grievous.”

The enumerated categories in section 116 ensure that injuries resulting in permanent damage, disfigurement, or significant functional loss receive appropriate legal redress.

The progression from simple hurt to grievous hurt involves an interplay of factors: the severity of the injury, the intention or knowledge of the perpetrator, and the overall impact on the victim’s life.

Sections 115 through 125 of the Act provide an intricate matrix of rules and penalties designed to address everything from intentional violence to inadvertent yet dangerous acts.

Whether it is an act committed with dangerous weapons, through poisoning, or under the influence of sudden provocation, the law is clear in its mandate to protect individuals from harm while ensuring that punishments are commensurate with the severity of the injury inflicted.

Follow The Legal QnA For More Updates…