Offences Against Human Body: A Legal Analysis

This Article is Written by Yashi Gupta, a student of KCC Institute of Legal and Higher Education.

Introduction

The sanctity of human life and bodily integrity occupies a paramount position in every civilised legal system. The Indian criminal jurisprudence, rooted historically in the Indian Penal Code (IPC), and more recently revamped by the Bhartiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 (BNS), treats offences against the human body with stringent seriousness. These offences range from minor assaults to the gravest form of bodily harm—murder. Their regulation is not only essential for maintaining public order and individual safety but also reflects the moral and ethical foundation of a democratic society that upholds human dignity. This article explores various categories of offences against the human body, analyses relevant legal provisions, and examines the evolving judicial and legislative approach in light of constitutional principles and international human rights frameworks.

Conceptual Understanding and Classification

Offences against the human body are those that cause physical harm, endanger life, or infringe upon bodily autonomy. The BNS 2023, which replaces the colonial-era IPC, categorises such offences with slight reorganisations but retains the core structure. These offences can broadly be classified into the following heads: homicide, hurt, wrongful restraint and confinement, assault and criminal force, sexual offences, and kidnapping and abduction. Each of these categories encompasses a range of crimes with varying degrees of severity and legal consequences.

Culpable Homicide and Murder

The gravest of offences against a human being are culpable homicide and murder. The word homicide has been derived from the Latin word “homo”, which means a man, and “caedere” which means to cut or kill. Thus, homicide means the killing of a human being, by a human being. A homicide may, therefore, be either lawful and unlawful. Unlawful homicide may be classified into different categories depending on it nature in order to fix a suitable punishment.

These are:

• Culpable (blameworthy/homicide) (section-100)
• Murder (101)
• Causing Death by Negligence (Section 106)
• Dowry Death (section 80)

The distinguish features of these different categories of unlawful homocides are the degree of intention, knowledge, or recklessness with which a particular homicide is committed. If the probability of death resulting from a bodily injury is of a high degree (i.e. where death is a certainty), it is murder (Narayanan Nair v State of Travancore-Cochin, AIR 1956 SC 99), and if the probability is not of that order, it is culpable homicide (Inder Singh Bagga Singh vs State of Pepsu AIR 1955).

 SECTION 100 OF BNS defines whoever causing death by doing an act with the intention of causing death, or with the intention of causing such bodily injury as is likely to cause death, or with the knowledge that he is likely by such act to cause death, or with the knowledge that he is likely by such act to cause death, commits the offences of culpable homocides.

(A lays sticks and turf over a pit, with the intention of thereby causing death, or with the knowledge that death is likely to be thereby caused. Z has committed the offence of culpable homicide.)

SECTION 101 OF BNS defines except in the case hereinafter excepted, culpable homicide is murder,-

1. if the act by which the death is caused is done with the intention of causing death; or
2. if the act by which the death is caused is done with the intention of causing such bodily injury as the offender knows to be likely to cause the death of the person to whom the harm is caused; or
3. if the act by which the death is caused is done with the intention of causing bodily injury to any person and the bodily injury intended to be inflicted is sufficient in the ordinary course of nature to cause death; or
4. if the person committing the act by which the death is caused, knows that it is so imminently dangerous that as is likely to cause death, or such injury as aforesaid.

(A shoots Z with the intention of killing him. Z dies in consequence. A commits  murder.)

The distinction between culpable homicide not amounting to murder and murder has been a subject of extensive judicial interpretation. The Supreme Court in State of Andhra Pradesh v. Rayavarapu Punnayya (1976 AIR 1027) clarified that all murders are culpable homicides, but not all culpable homicides are murders. This nuanced distinction depends upon the intention and knowledge of the offender and the circumstances of the act. Further in Reg v Govinda (1876), Melville, J stated weather the offence is murder or culpable homicide depends upon the degree of risk to human life. If death is a likely result, it is culpable homicide; if it is the most probable result, it is murder.

The punishment for murder under Section 103(1) BNS is death or life imprisonment, along with a fine, whereas Section 105 prescribes a lesser penalty for culpable homicide not amounting to murder as imprisonment for life, or imprisonment for term 5 years which may extends to 10 years, along with fine.

Causing Death by Negligence

Causing death through negligence, such as in cases of rash driving or medical negligence, is criminalised under Section 106 BNS. This provision underscores that a lack of intent to cause death does not absolve liability when gross negligence leads to fatal consequences. To impose criminal liability under this section, it must be a causa Causans (immediate or operating cause); it is not enough that it may have been the causa Causa Sine qua non (a necessary or inevitable cause). That is to say, there must be a direct nexus between the death of a person and the rash or negligent act of the accused. In Jacob Mathew v. State of Punjab (2005) 6 SCC 1, the Supreme Court held that mere error of judgment by a medical professional does not amount to criminal negligence unless it is of a gross and reckless nature.

(The punishment for the same is imprisonment which may extend to 5 years along with fine and if such act is done by a registered medical practitioner, shall punished with imprisonment which may extended to two years, along with fine.)

Attempt to Murder and Abetment of Suicide

Section 109 BNS criminalises attempt to murder, recognising the seriousness of actions that fall short of actual homicide but reflect clear intent and preparation to kill. In Kedar Nath v. State of West Bengal (AIR 1953 SC 404), the Court observed that an attempt, even if unsuccessful, demonstrates dangerous proximity to the commission of the offence.
(punishment- imprisonment which my extended to 10 years along with fine, and if hurt is caused to any person by such act, shall be punished with life imprisonment)

Section 108 BNS addresses abetment of suicide. If any person commits suicide, whoever abets the commission of such suicide shall be punished under this section. The legal system has gradually become sensitive to the complex socio-psychological dimensions of suicide. In Gian Kaur v. State of Punjab (1996) 2 SCC 648, the Supreme Court upheld the constitutionality of penalising abetment of suicide while simultaneously recognising the sanctity of life under Article 21 of the Constitution.

(punishment- death or imprisonment for life or imprisonment for a term not exceeding 10 years, along with fine)

Hurt and Grievous Hurt

The concepts of “hurt” and “grievous hurt” are defined under Sections 114 to 116 BNS. Hurt is the causing of bodily pain, disease, or infirmity. Grievous hurt includes more serious forms of harm such as permanent loss of sight, fracture or dislocation, emasculation, privation of any member or joint, permanent disfiguration of the head or face, permanent privation of the hearing of either ear, or any hurt endangering life.

Voluntarily causing hurt (sec-115) or grievous hurt (sec-117) is treated with varying degrees of punishment depending on the intent, weapon used, and consequences. The law also recognises specific aggravated forms of hurt, such as acid attacks (Section 124), which are treated as grievous hurt with harsher punishments.

(Punishment (115,(2)) – imprisonment for a term not exceeding 1 year or 10k Fine or both)

The 2013 Criminal Law Amendment Act, influenced by the Nirbhaya case, added special provisions for acid attacks, which was retained under BNS with stricter liability for both attempted and actual attacks. Penalizes causing grievous harm through acid attacks with imprisonment of 10 years to life and a fine. The section provides that the fine shall be just and reasonable to meet the medical expenses of the treatment of the victim and any fine imposed under this section shall be paid to the victim. 

Laxmi v. Union of India (2015) have established robust standards for victim assistance and restitution. However, in order to eliminate this threat from society, extensive rehabilitation efforts, public awareness campaigns, and the efficient application of legislation are essential. This case brought in difference and amendment to laws regulating harsh punishment to the wrongdoer and has also paved a way so as to register new cases of such crime. The amendment brings with it protection for women by the new guidelines of the case.

(Punishment- imprisonment for 10 years to life imprisonment and fine that is reasonable to meet the medical expense of the treatment of the victim.)

Wrongful Restraint and Confinement

Wrongful restraint and wrongful confinement, defined under Sections 126 and 127 BNS, relate to unlawfully restricting a person’s movement. While restraint implies obstruction from proceeding in any direction, confinement involves a more serious curtailment of liberty. These offences infringe upon the constitutional right to personal liberty under Article 21.

The punishment is proportionate to the severity of the act and increases if the confinement exceeds a certain period or involves aggravating circumstances. The courts have also expanded the interpretation of these provisions to cover illegal detentions by authorities, thus ensuring that state power is exercised within constitutional limits.

(Punishment- for wrongful restraint he/she shall be punished with simple imprisonment for 1 month or with fine that may extend to 5000 or with both, under sec 127(2)).

Assault and Criminal Force

Sections 128 to 130 BNS define assault as a threat or attempt to apply force, while criminal force involves the actual application of force without consent. These are considered preparatory acts which may escalate to more serious crimes.

In cases of assault or criminal force used with intent to outrage modesty (Section 67-69 BNS, dealing with sexual offences), the punishment becomes more severe. This category of offences often overlaps with gender-based violence, necessitating a sensitive legal approach.

Sexual Offences and Offences Against Women

The law on sexual offences in India has undergone significant reforms post the 2012 Delhi gang rape case. Section 63 of the BNS defines rape comprehensively, including penetration under various circumstances without consent. The age of consent is fixed at 18 years. One of the most debated issues remains the exception for marital rape, which continues under Section 63(2), despite widespread criticism. While some High Courts have questioned its constitutionality, the issue remains unresolved at the national level.

Sexual harassment, voyeurism, stalking, and disrobing are criminalised under various sections following the recommendations of the Justice Verma Committee. The BNS consolidates these offences while ensuring more victim-centric definitions.
In State of Karnataka v. Krishnappa (2000) 4 SCC 75, the Court affirmed that sexual violence amounts to a violation of a woman’s fundamental rights under Articles 21 and 14.

Kidnapping, Abduction, and Human Trafficking

Sections 137 to 143 BNS address kidnapping and abduction. Kidnapping typically involves minors or persons of unsound mind, while abduction refers to taking away any person by force or deceit. These are often preliminary steps leading to offences like trafficking, slavery, or sexual exploitation.

Trafficking is explicitly dealt with under Section 143 BNS, in line with India’s obligations under the Palermo Protocol and the Immoral Traffic (Prevention) Act, 1956. The Supreme Court in Bachpan Bachao Andolan v. Union of India (2011) emphasized the state’s duty to prevent child trafficking and protect victims through rehabilitation measures.

Constitutional and Human Rights Perspective

The protection against bodily harm is intrinsically linked to Article 21 of the Constitution, which guarantees the right to life and personal liberty. The judiciary has consistently expanded its scope to include the right to dignity, privacy, health, and safety.
In Maneka Gandhi v. Union of India (1978), the Court held that the “procedure established by law” must be just, fair, and reasonable. This judicial activism has influenced the interpretation of criminal statutes to make them more humane and rights-oriented.
India is also a signatory to various international instruments such as the Universal Declaration of Human Rights (UDHR), International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR), and Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination Against Women (CEDAW). These treaties obligate the state to protect individuals from physical harm and violence.

Challenges in Implementation

• Despite a robust legal framework, several challenges persist. These include:
• Delay in trials and conviction
• Under-reporting of offences due to societal stigma
• Lack of victim support mechanisms
• Police inaction or misuse of authority
• Gender-insensitive investigation and judicial processes

Additionally, with the advent of technology, new forms of bodily offences—such as digital stalking, online harassment, and non-consensual image sharing—pose complex legal dilemmas. While the Information Technology Act addresses cybercrime, a holistic framework is needed to link these offences with physical and psychological harm.

Suggestions for Reform

To strengthen the protection against offences to the human body, the following reforms are essential:

• Recognition of marital rape as a punishable offence
• Gender-neutral laws for sexual offences to protect all genders
• Enhanced training of police and judiciary on victim-centric approaches
• Speedy trial mechanisms and establishment of fast-track courts
• Expansion of forensic infrastructure to ensure timely evidence collection
• Comprehensive victim compensation schemes under Section 357A of CrPC

Moreover, legal education and public awareness must be enhanced to prevent such offences and ensure societal support for victims.

Conclusion:

Offences against the human body strike at the core of human dignity and social order. The legal system, through the BNS and constitutional guarantees, provides a detailed and evolving framework to address these offences. However, laws alone cannot suffice. Their effective implementation, coupled with a compassionate and rights-based approach, is imperative. As society evolves, so must the law—responsive not only to the letter of justice but also to its spirit. A just society must ensure that every individual can live free from fear, harm, and violence, protected by both the law and conscience of the nation.