Difference b/w Hurt and Grievous Hurt for CLAT - Practice Questions & MCQ

Passage 

Read the following passage and answer the question

Hurt may be described as the bodily pain that is resulting from real contact with the frame by an aggravated assault. There’s no radical difference between assault and harm. Section 319 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (hereinafter “IPC”) defines hurt as: “whoever reasons bodily pain, disorder or disease to any man or woman is said to have caused harm.” The section does not outline the offence of inflicting harm. It defines the time period hurt and does not describe the situations underneath which it can be brought on. 

To constitute any one or more of the essentials of simple hurt must be present: (1) Bodily Pain, (2) Infirmity to another, (3) Disease.

According to Section 319 of the Indian Penal Code, whoever causes bodily ache, disorder or disease to any individual is said to cause hurt. The expression ‘physical pain’ means that the pain must be physical instead of mental pain. So mentally or emotionally hurting anyone will no longer be ‘harm’ inside the meaning of Section 319. However, to be covered under this section, it isn’t always important that any visible injury should be precipitated at the sufferer. All that the section contemplates is the inflicting of bodily pain. The diploma or severity of the ache or pain isn’t a fabric element to decide whether Section 319 will apply or not. The duration of the ache or pain is immaterial. Pulling a girl with her hair would amount to hurt

Infirmity denotes the bad state of frame of mind and a state of transient intellectual impairment or hysteria or terror would constitute disease inside the meaning of this expression inside the section. An organ cannot carry out its everyday function, whether temporarily or completely. It may be delivered through the administration of a toxic or poisonous substance or by means of taking alcohol administered by way of any other person.

A communication of ailment or disease from one individual to another through the way of touch would constitute hurt. But, the idea is unclear with respect to the transmission of sexual sicknesses from one individual to another. 

Question

A knows that B has a weak heart. He deliberately goes to B in the early morning and gives him news that his son E, has committed suicide. And B, in consequence of this shock, faces a heart attack. Whether E can take legal action against A?

Passage 8

Read the passage and answer the question that follow. 

After the finding that the four assailants one armed with lathi and the others by fists gave a beating to the victim and that the injuries including the grievous injury of the thumb were caused during this beating the bare fact that there was also an admitted fall during the beating cannot justify the finding that the thumb fracture under a lacerated wound was caused by the fall and not by the lathi. This finding is based on mere surmises and conjecture. The witnesses did not have to specifically say that the thumb injury was caused by a lathi until a specific question about the source of the thumb injury was put to the victim. This apparently was not done. Therefore, the finding should have been that the injury was caused in the course of the beating. But apart from this even if it is taken that it was caused while the man fell during the beating that does not dissociate it from the beating to such an extent as to destroy the causal connection. Considering the number and nature of the injuries, the fall and immediate and natural consequences of the fall would remain the result of the beating as much as direct injuries resulting from the blows inflicted. The argument about the thumb injury being unlikely from the lathi blow as the right hand is generally used defensively against a lathi attack ignores the position that in this case not less than 5 injuries are on the left leg, foot, and elbow joint. If the blow is coming from the left even a right-handed man may very well stick out the left hand to ward off the blow. It was held that the finding of the lathi injury not being caused by the assailants is palpably erroneous and legally perverse finding that it was so caused.

The question would then arise whether on this injury the accused should be convicted under Section 325/34, I.P.C. There is no doubt that common intention is necessary. But where one accused carries a lathi and the others are using their fists, the finding is of joint beating and the number of injuries is as indicated earlier of the order of 15 a common intention to cause hurt through use of lathi can be safely imputed. Under Section 322, I.P.C. As described under the Indian Penal Code, grievous hurt can be caused in six forms namely, emasculation, permanent privation of the sight of either eye, permanent privation of the hearing of either ear, the privation of any member, or joint destruction or permanent impairing of the powers of any member or joint, permanent disfiguration of the head or face, fracture or dislocation of a bone or tooth, and any hurt which endangers life or which causes the sufferer to be during the space of twenty days in severe bodily pain, or unable to follow his ordinary pursuits.

Question:

X and Y were two rivals contesting the youth election at their university. While X was giving a speech, a mob from Y’s party intruded and started to create a mess. They tore down the posters and unwired the mics. People from X’s party also came in and a fight scene was created. Amongst other people, X and Y also faced each other where X, intending or knowing himself to be likely permanently to disfigure Y’s face, gave Y a blow which caused Y to suffer severe bodily pain. While X only sustained minor injuries and nobody was in pain. Even though the blow did not disfigure Y’s face; Y was admitted for a span of 20 days in the city hospital. Decide the liability in this scenario.

Passage 8

Read the passage and answer the question that follow. 

After the finding that the four assailants one armed with lathi and the others by fists gave a beating to the victim and that the injuries including the grievous injury of the thumb were caused during this beating the bare fact that there was also an admitted fall during the beating cannot justify the finding that the thumb fracture under a lacerated wound was caused by the fall and not by the lathi. This finding is based on mere surmises and conjecture. The witnesses did not have to specifically say that the thumb injury was caused by a lathi until a specific question about the source of the thumb injury was put to the victim. This apparently was not done. Therefore, the finding should have been that the injury was caused in the course of the beating. But apart from this even if it is taken that it was caused while the man fell during the beating that does not dissociate it from the beating to such an extent as to destroy the causal connection. Considering the number and nature of the injuries, the fall and immediate and natural consequences of the fall would remain the result of the beating as much as direct injuries resulting from the blows inflicted. The argument about the thumb injury being unlikely from the lathi blow as the right hand is generally used defensively against a lathi attack ignores the position that in this case not less than 5 injuries are on the left leg, foot, and elbow joint. If the blow is coming from the left even a right-handed man may very well stick out the left hand to ward off the blow. It was held that the finding of the lathi injury not being caused by the assailants is palpably erroneous and legally perverse finding that it was so caused.

The question would then arise whether on this injury the accused should be convicted under Section 325/34, I.P.C. There is no doubt that common intention is necessary. But where one accused carries a lathi and the others are using their fists, the finding is of joint beating and the number of injuries is as indicated earlier of the order of 15 a common intention to cause hurt through use of lathi can be safely imputed. Under Section 322, I.P.C. As described under the Indian Penal Code, grievous hurt can be caused in six forms namely, emasculation, permanent privation of the sight of either eye, permanent privation of the hearing of either ear, the privation of any member, or joint destruction or permanent impairing of the powers of any member or joint, permanent disfiguration of the head or face, fracture or dislocation of a bone or tooth, and any hurt which endangers life or which causes the sufferer to be during the space of twenty days in severe bodily pain, or unable to follow his ordinary pursuits.

Question:

P, was facing a difficult time when he lost his job and was indebted. His account was frozen as he committed fraud with his clients. A few of his clients come to his house and abuse him and keep asking for their share of the money. One day, A, B and C came to P’s house and assaulted them by hitting him with hockey sticks on his legs, back, and head. C carried a knife with him which he knows to be likely to cause grievous hurt to P and gave a sharp cut on P’s head which caused P to bleed and fall unconscious. Determine liability of C.

M owed Rs 1000 to P but did not pay back though the latter made demands several times. P lastly made another demand but M as usual promised to pay later whereupon P kicked him twice on the abdomen and M collapsed and died. What offence is P guilty of? What offence, if any, has been committed?

A causes an injury to Z, which results in his death. It was never intended by A to cause his death nor in normal conditions it could have caused Z’s death. What offence A has committed? What offence have been committed?

A, a chain snatcher, forcibly pulled the ear rings from the ears of an old lady. Both the ear lobes were torn and the old lady suffered pain and suffering for over three weeks. For what offence can A be prosecuted? What offence have been committed?

A, a married woman, died within seven years of her marriage in unnatural circumstances. The dead body was recovered from a well adjacent to the family of the accused. The cause of death, as per post mortem report was not drowning but strangulation. There was witness account to the effect that since the marriage the girl was being tortured and even assaulted for dowry. She was even deserted but was taken back under the pressure of the mediator. Is the accused and his family liable for dowry death?