Whoever causes bodily pain, disease or infirmity to any person is said to cause hurt
IPC Section 319: Simplified Explanation
IPC Section 319 of the Indian Penal Code defines the offence of causing “hurt.” This section is foundational in understanding what constitutes hurt in legal terms. It states that whoever causes bodily pain, disease, or infirmity to any person is said to cause “hurt.” This definition is crucial for subsequent sections that deal with offences involving causing harm to others.
Key elements of this section include:
- Bodily Pain: Any form of physical pain inflicted on another person.
- Disease: Transmitting a disease or causing a condition that leads to disease in another person.
- Infirmity: Causing any kind of physical or mental infirmity or disability.
Is IPC Section 319 Bailable?
IPC Section 319 itself is not a chargeable offence but a definition used to characterize other offences related to causing hurt, which may be bailable or non-bailable depending on the specific section under which charges are pressed. For example, charges under Section 323 (simple hurt) are bailable, while those under Section 326 (grievous hurt with dangerous weapons) are non-bailable.
IPC Section 319 Punishment
Since Section 319 is a definitional clause and not a penal provision, it does not carry a specific punishment. The applicable Punishment would depend on the specific section applied in conjunction with this definition, such as IPC Section 323 for simple hurt or IPC Section 325 for grievous hurt.
Example of IPC Section 319
A real-life example that applies the definition of “hurt” under IPC Section 319 occurred in a workplace altercation where one employee slapped another, causing temporary redness and pain but no serious injury. The incident led to the aggressor being charged under IPC Section 323 (Punishment for voluntarily causing hurt), which uses the definition of hurt from Section 319. The court considered the act causing hurt due to the physical pain inflicted, and the accused received a penalty accordingly. This case illustrates how the broad definition of hurt is applied in different scenarios involving physical harm.
