Report No. 42

16.60. Sections 324 and 32.-causing hurt by corrosive substance.-

With reference to sections 324 and 326, we considered the question whether there is any need for laying down a minimum punishment where the hurt or grievous hurt is caused by a corrosive substance. In a private member's Bill1 introduced in the Rajya Sabha in 1968 it was proposed that a minimum sentence of three years' rigorous imprisonment should be prescribed in the case of simple hurt, and life imprisonment in the case of grievous hurt. The Statement of Objects and Reasons attached to the Bill said.-

"Of all the offences affecting human body, throwing of acids is the most heinous. It not only destroys the happiness of the human being against whom such offence is committed, but also ruins the entire family. Of late, an increase in the incidence of such crime is being noticed. Only a highly deterrent punishment can check such crimes."

We have carefully considered the suggestion. In our view, however, the mode of inflicting the injury should not be the main criterion for prescribing a heavy minimum punishment. The nature of the injury, the result of the assault and many other factors enter into the picture in determining the proper punishment. The reasons given by the Member for singling out, for minimum punishment, hurt or grievous hurt caused by throwing acid are not, in our view, convincing. The general question of providing minimum punishment for some of the offences under the Penal Code was discussed by us with the judges of the various High Courts and leading members of the Bar.

The majority opinion was against the provision of such minimum punishment (except for a few offences), on the ground that they would unnecessarily fetter the discretion of the trying court. We are of the view that it should be left to the convicting court to impose a severe sentence where hurt or grievous hurt has been caused by a corrosive substance, if the circumstances of the case justify a severe punishment.

1. Indian Penal Code (Amendment) Bill 1968, introduced in the Rajya Sabha by Shri G.R. Patil Bill No. 12 of 1968).

16.62. Section 325.-

It was suggested that, for the offence under section 325, the court should have a discretion to award fine, and that imprisonment should not be mandatory, but we do not favour any such change.

16.63. Section 326--Recommendation to remove life imprisonment.-

Section 326 punishes the offence of voluntarily causing grievous hurt by dangerous weapons or means, the maximum punishment being imprisonment for life or for ten years. We consider imprisonment for life to be unnecessary for this offence and recommend its omission.

16.64. Section 32.-recommendation to reduce the period of imprisonment.-

Section 327 punishes the offence of voluntarily causing hurt to extort etc. with imprisonment upto ten years. We recommend that the imprisonment should be reduced to seven years, so as to maintain a distinction between this section and the corresponding offence under section 329 as proposed to be amended.

16.65. Section 32.-Amendments proposed.-

Section 328 punishes a person who administers to any person any "stupefying, intoxicating of unwholesome drug or other thing" with intent to cause hurt or to commit or facilitate an offence or knowing it to be likely that he will thereby cause hurt. We recommend that the expression 'substance' should be substituted for the words 'drug or other thing'. This will make it clear that the 'other thing' must also have the effect of 'stupefying, etc. and that it need not be a 'drug' as normally understood.

We considered the question whether an offence under section 328 can be committed in the absence of the requisite intent or knowledge. It was felt that the language of the section was clear on the point. Intent to cause hurt etc. or intent to commit an offence etc. or knowledge that hurt is likely, is an essential ingredient. The Allahabad case,1 cited in some of the commentaries as raising a doubt on the point, is concerned with the quality of intent. The section could be re-arranged to deal first with (i) intent to cause hurt or knowledge that hurt is likely, and then with (ii) the other type of intent, so that there would be less scope for an argument on this point. But the deletion of a portion of the section as recommended below renders a re-arrangement unnecessary.

Administration of poison with intent to cause hurt or with the knowledge that hurt is likely to be caused, is covered by section 324 if hurt is caused, and by section 324 read with section 511 (attempt) if hurt is not caused. The punishment under section 324 (three years) is adequate. That portion of section 328 should, therefore, be deleted, as unnecessary.

We considered the question whether knowledge that commission of an offence will be facilitated, should be added in section 328. But this did not find favour with us. If a person administers poison etc., the connection between that act and another offence will invariably be one of intent and not of mere knowledge that an offence will be facilitated.

The marginal heading to section 328 is inaccurate even on the wording of the present section, and requires modification. It begins with the words "causing hurt" but the act punished is the administration of poison, etc. ..

In the light of the above discussion, we recommend that section 328 may be revised as follows.-.

"328. Administering poison etc. with intent to commit an offence.- Whoever administers to or causes to be taken by any person any poison or any stupefying intoxicating unwholesome substance with intent to commit or to facilitate the commission of an offence, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to ten years, and shall also be liable to fine."

1. Aniz Khan, ILR 46 All 77: AIR 1924 All 215.

16.66. Section 32.-

Section 329 punishes the offence of voluntarily causing grievous hurt to extort property or to constrain to an illegal act. The maximum punishment is life imprisonment or imprisonment up to ten years. Life imprisonment for this offence appears to be unnecessary and should be omitted.

A question was raised whether the section should not extend to all cases of coercion by causing grievous hurt, e.g., to compel a person to do or omit something what he is not legally bound to do or omit. Causing hurt in order to compel a person to withdraw a suit1 or to extract a promise of marriage, is not within section 329. We think, however that such an amendment would unduly widen the section, and raise difficult questions of motives etc. Such widening may bring in many cases not fit to be regarded as aggravations of grievous hurt. We do not, therefore, recommend any such change.

1. See Jorubha v. State, AIR 1951 Sau 40 (DB).

16.67. Sections 330 and 331.- No change is needed in sections 330 and 331.

16.68. Sections 332 and 33.-Recommendation regarding the word "lawful".-

As regards sections 332 and 333; we note that its wording differs from that of sections 186, 332 and 353 and we considered the question whether the verbal diversity represented by the words "discharge", "execution", etc. could be avoided. We, however, think that since no difficulty has arisen in practice, no such change is necessary.

We also considered a suggestion to include persons acting under the directions of a public servant. But such cases could be adequately dealt with under the general provision punishing hurt or grievous hurt, and no enhanced punishment is needed.

The word "lawful" in the latter part of sections 332 and 333 should be omitted, since it does not occur in the earlier part.

16.69. Section 33.-Recommendation regarding punishment.-

Imprisonment for one month which is provided in section 334 is unnecessary. Short term sentences serve no purpose. The maximum amount of fine should be increased. The punishment provision may be amended to read "punished with fine which may extend to one thousand rupees".

1. See Jorubha v. State, AIR 1951 Sau 40 (DB).

16.70. Section 33.-Recommendation regarding punishment.-

Imprisonment under section 335 should be reduced from four years to three years, which is the usual period in the Code, but the fine may be unlimited.

Back

Index

Next