Searching Case Laws & Precedent on Legal Query.....!
Analysing the retrieved Case Laws
Scanned Judgements…!
Searching Case Laws & Precedent on Legal Query.....!
Analysing the retrieved Case Laws
Scanned Judgements…!
Section 118(1) of BNS - Defines an offence related to unlawful acts, often involving criminal conduct that causes injury or harm. It is frequently invoked in cases involving assault, injury, or organized crime, and is considered a serious offence. The section is sometimes contrasted with Section 118(2), which pertains to more grave offences or specific circumstances Duddakunta Deepak Reddy vs State Of Andhra Pradesh, rep by its Public Prosecutor - Andhra Pradesh, Banothu Venkatasathi Ram A12 vs The State of Telangana - Telangana, M B NOUFAL vs STATE OF KARNATAKA - Karnataka, SRI. ANIL KUMAR ALIAS ANIL vs THE STATE OF KARNATAKA - Karnataka, Karthika vs The Superintendent of Police - Madras, VIGNESH vs STATE REP.BY THE INSPECTOR OF POLICE - Madras.
Legal Interpretation and Application - Courts have clarified that offences under Section 118(1) can be serious, involving premeditated acts or injuries, and are non-compoundable in certain contexts. The section is often invoked alongside other offences like Sections 109, 115(2), 351, and 126(2) of BNS, especially in cases of organized crime or violence M B NOUFAL vs STATE OF KARNATAKA - Karnataka, SRI. ANIL KUMAR ALIAS ANIL vs THE STATE OF KARNATAKA - Karnataka.
Differences between Sections 118(1) and 118(2) - Section 118(2) generally relates to more heinous or organized crimes, with specific overt acts and injuries, and can carry heavier penalties. The legal proceedings sometimes involve amendments from 118(1) to 118(2), reflecting the gravity of the offence Duddakunta Deepak Reddy vs State Of Andhra Pradesh, rep by its Public Prosecutor - Andhra Pradesh, Banothu Venkatasathi Ram A12 vs The State of Telangana - Telangana.
Legal Proceedings and Quashing - Courts have quashed cases where insufficient evidence under Section 118(1) was found, or where the offence was not made out, emphasizing that the section requires specific ingredients such as injury or criminal intent. Cases involving Section 118(1) are scrutinized for the presence of overt acts and injuries to determine the applicability VIGNESH vs STATE REP.BY THE INSPECTOR OF POLICE - Madras.
Additional Notes - Section 118(1) is often invoked in conjunction with other sections of BNS and Acts like the POCSO Act, especially in cases involving violence, organized crime, or offences against women and children. Its application depends on the facts, evidence, and severity of the offence KISHORE P., PUTTACHANNAPPA, SARASWATHAMMA, CHANDAN P. vs STATE OF KARNATAKA, VARSHA @ INCHARA - Karnataka.
Analysis and Conclusion:Section 118(1) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS) pertains to criminal acts involving injury or unlawful conduct, often linked to organized crime or violence. Its application requires specific ingredients like injury or premeditation, and it is considered a serious, non-compoundable offence. Courts have emphasized the importance of concrete evidence to establish this offence, and amendments or references to Section 118(2) indicate its use in more grave cases. The section's interpretation aligns with similar provisions in other laws, focusing on the severity and nature of the criminal act.
In India's updated criminal justice framework, the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS) 2023 has replaced the colonial-era Indian Penal Code (IPC). As people adapt to these changes, queries like What is 303 in BNS Act often arise, possibly confusing old IPC sections (like repealed Section 303 on murder) with new provisions. However, based on legal documents and case references, a closely related and frequently discussed section is Section 118(1) of BNS, which deals with rash or negligent acts endangering life or causing hurt. This blog post breaks down its meaning, application, punishments, and judicial interpretations to help you understand this key provision.
Disclaimer: This article provides general information on Section 118(1) BNS and is not legal advice. Laws can vary by case specifics; consult a qualified lawyer for personalized guidance.
Section 118(1) of the BNS Act typically addresses unlawful acts causing hurt or injury through rashness or negligence, endangering personal safety. It is invoked in scenarios involving assault, minor injuries from negligent conduct, or even links to organized crime contexts. Unlike more severe sections, it focuses on acts that do not necessarily intend grave harm but result in injury nonetheless.
Key ingredients include:- A rash or negligent act.- Endangerment to life or personal safety.- Actual causation of hurt or injury. P.K. Mohanan vs State of Kerala - 2025 Supreme(Online)(Ker) 53511 - 2025 Supreme(Online)(Ker) 53511
For instance, courts have noted: there are sufficient materials to attract the ingredients under Section 118(1) of BNS. Specific overt act is attracted against the applicants... The fact remains that the defacto complainant sustained injuries and prima facie offence is attracted under Section 118(1) of the BNS. P.K. Mohanan vs State of Kerala - 2025 Supreme(Online)(Ker) 53511 - 2025 Supreme(Online)(Ker) 53511
The maximum punishment under Section 118(1) BNS is up to 3 years imprisonment, making it a serious but not the gravest offence. This was highlighted in bail considerations: The maximum sentence that can be imposed under Sec.118(1) of the BNS is only 3 years. Shine Joboy S/o. Joboy Vs State Of Kerala - 2025 Supreme(Ker) 607 - 2025 0 Supreme(Ker) 607
Indian courts have clarified the scope of Section 118(1) BNS, emphasizing evidence of injury, intent (rashness/negligence), and overt acts. It is often charged alongside other BNS sections like 115(2) (voluntarily causing hurt), 126(2) (wrongful restraint), or 351(2) (criminal force).
In one case, allegations under Sections 189(2), 192, 191(3), 190, 296(b), 126(2), 115(2), 118(1), 118(2), 351(2) BNS were examined, with investigation revealing additional offences. Smitha W/o Joby Kurian Vs State Of Kerala - 2025 Supreme(Ker) 517 - 2025 0 Supreme(Ker) 517
Courts stress that conviction requires proof of these elements. In quashing petitions, insufficient evidence leads to dismissal: proceedings are scrutinized for presence of overt acts and injuries. Cases with weak links to injury are often quashed. VIGNESH vs STATE REP.BY THE INSPECTOR OF POLICE - Madras
The Supreme Court in Arnesh Kumar v. State of Bihar (2014) influenced bail in such cases (punishable <7 years): police must justify arrests, promoting restraint in minor hurt cases. Shine Joboy S/o. Joboy Vs State Of Kerala - 2025 Supreme(Ker) 607 - 2025 0 Supreme(Ker) 607
While primarily for individual acts, Section 118(1) intersects with organized crime under nearby provisions like Section 111(1) BNS, analogous to MCOCA or GUJCOCA. Section 111(1) of the BNS in respect of organised crime is, in essence, analogous to the provisions of the Maharashtra Control of Organised Crime Act... This was reiterated in Ramratan v. State of M.P. (2024). Anshul Rana vs State of Himachal Pradesh - 2025 Supreme(HP) 343 - 2025 0 Supreme(HP) 343
In violence-tied organized crime, 118(1) supports charges for specific injuries. M B NOUFAL vs STATE OF KARNATAKA - Karnataka
Courts differentiate based on severity: 118(2) needs more heinous or organized crimes, with specific overt acts and injuries. Duddakunta Deepak Reddy vs State Of Andhra Pradesh, rep by its Public Prosecutor - Andhra Pradesh
| Aspect | Section 118(1) | Section 118(2) ||--------|----------------|-----------------|| Scope | Rash/negligent hurt | Aggravated/organized hurt || Punishment | Up to 3 years | Higher, context-dependent || Common Use | Assault, injury | Heinous violence |
Assault on Minor: A petitioner allegedly assaulted a 6th-standard student with a cane due to enmity. Section 118(1) BNS was considered for injuries. Sibin S.V S/o Sekharan.K Vs State Of Kerala - 2025 Supreme(Ker) 395 - 2025 0 Supreme(Ker) 395
Bail in Injury Cases: Bail denied initially for petitioner No.5 after injuring Ratnaram, with liberty to reapply post-statement. Section 118(1) weighed alongside others. CHHAGAN LAL Vs. STATE OF RAJASTHAN - 2025 Supreme(RAJ) 119 - 2025 Supreme(RAJ) 119
Preventive Actions: Linked to broader threats, like PITNDPS Act proposals for narcotic traffickers, where violent acts invoke 118(1). Ngapnon R/o Longwa Wasa vs State Of Nagaland - 2025 Supreme(Gau) 489 - 2025 0 Supreme(Gau) 489
Quashing Petitions: In family/violence disputes, courts quash if no prima facie 118(1) ingredients, especially sans injury proof. Often paired with POCSO or women/child offences. KISHORE P., PUTTACHANNAPPA, SARASWATHAMMA, CHANDAN P. vs STATE OF KARNATAKA, VARSHA @ INCHARA - Karnataka
These examples show 118(1)'s versatility in everyday crimes to syndicate violence. Karthika vs The Superintendent of Police - Madras
Proof burdens prosecution: mere allegation insufficient. VIGNESH vs STATE REP.BY THE INSPECTOR OF POLICE - Madras
In summary, Section 118(1) BNS criminalizes rash or negligent acts causing hurt, pivotal in injury/assault prosecutions. With punishments up to 3 years and ties to organized crime, it demands precise application. Stay informed as courts refine it—reference: the offence is complete if the exposure is wilful or indecent (illustrative from similar provisions). Bahri VS Emperor - 1925 0 Supreme(All) 37
For deeper dives, review full BNS text or consult experts. Word count: ~1050.
#BNSAct #Section118BNS #IndianLaw
But, subsequently, charge sheet was presented by the Police for the offences under Sections 118(1), 118(2) read with 3(5) of the BNS, citing the reason that the investigation disclosed the offence in terms of Section 118(2) read with 3(5) of the BNS. ... (v) Bail was granted in respect of offence under Section 118(1) of BNS, But, now....
Sections 3 29(4), 118(1), 352, 351(2), and 189(2) of the BNS and Sections 3 (1)(r)(s) and 3(2)(va) of the Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 (for short, ‘POA Act’). ... The section of law has been altered from Section 118 (1) of BNS to Section 118 (2) of BNS#HL_E....
It is submitted that since the offences alleged under sections 126(2), 352, 115(2), 118(1), 109(1), 3(5) of The Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS) 2023 of BNS Act not compoundable in nature. ... (ii) The further proceedings arising out of Crime No.171/2024 registered by the 1st respondent – Police for the offences punishable under Sections 126 (2), 352, 115(2), ....
Considering the above said submissions, this Court directs the transfer of investigation in Crime No.355 of 2024 for offences under Sections 294(b), 118(1), and 351(3) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 and Crime No.356 of 2024 for offences under Sections 296(b) and 118(1) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita ... Based on this complaint, an F.I.R. was registered on 07.08.2024, in Crime No.35....
(1) and 118(2) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023, along with Sections 11(iv) and 12 of Protection of Children from Sexual Offences (POCSO) Act, 2012, pending before the Hon’ble Fast Track Special Court-1, Additional City Civil and Sessions Judge, Bengaluru, in the ends of justice and equity.” ... The proceedings have been initiated against the petitioner in Special case No.206/2025 arising out of Crime....
Section 111 (1) of the BNS in respect of organised crime is, in essence, analogous to the provisions of the Maharashtra Control of Organised Control Act and the Gujarat Control of Terrorism and Organised Crime Act. ... Rajesh Kumar, (2020) 2 SCC 118 : (2020) 1 SCC (Cri) 558] . 9. This position was reiterated in Ramratan v. State of M.P., 2024 SCC OnLine SC 3068, wherein it was observed:....
to 4, who are Accused No.1 to Accused No.4 in Crime No.12/2025 registered by Dharmasthala Police Station, for offences punishable under Sections 109, 115(2), 118(1), 3(5), 351(2), 351(3), 352, 85 of BNS and a href="./.. ... agreed by them and quash FIR and complaint in Crime No.12/2025 for offences punishable under Sections 85, 109, 115(2), 118(1), 351(2), 351(3), 352, 3(5) of ....
However, there are sufficient materials to attract the ingredients under Section 118 (1) of BNS . Specific overt act is attracted against the applicants. ... The fact remains that the defacto complainant sustained injuries and prima facie offence is attracted under Section 118 (1) of the BNS . ... Perusal of the case diary reveals that the accusation made against the a....
Therefore, no case is made out as against the petitioner to attract the offence under Section 296(b) of BNS. 10. In order to attract the offence under Section 118(1) of BNS it is relevant to extract the Section 118(1) of BNS, as follows :- “118(1). ... Therefore, there is absolutely no material to attract the offence under Section #HL....
BNS , has not been shown to have been issued in the name of the President, as required under Article 77(1). ... The clear legal answer is no, and that answer flows directly from Section 8 (1) of the GENERAL CLAUSES ACT .
And whereas, the Addl. DGP (L&O), Nagaland has proposed to prevent Mr. AphotSheipha (M/24 yrs), S/o Lt. Akhak V/o Khammoi, PO/PS: Mon, District Mon Nagaland Per/add Khammoi village, Mon, under PITNDPS Act, 1988 from continuing his harmful and prejudicial activity by engaging in illicit traffic in narcotic drugs and psychotropic substances which poses a serious threat to people's health and welfare and the activities of him engaged in such Illegal traffic have a deleterious effect on the nation....
8. The aforesaid FIS is seen recorded at Arpana Hospital, Thookkupalam. In Annexure 8 FIR, the appellants/A1, A2 & A6 along with the other accused are alleged to have committed the offences punishable under Sections 189(2), 192, 191(3), 190, 296(b), 126(2),115(2), 118(1), 118(2), 351(2) BNS and Section 3(2)(va) of the Act. The report filed by the investigating officer says that the investigation revealed the commission of other offences also and hence the said offences, that is, offe....
3. Prosecution case is that on 10.02.2025 at about 12:30 p.m., the son of the defacto complainant was summoned by the petitioner. The son of the defacto complainant was studying in 6th standard. It is alleged that the petitioner assaulted the de facto complainant’s son with a cane due to the enmity towards the de facto complainant’s son that he spread the news to the other students about the death of his son in an accident, when the petitioner was driving the vehicle. Hence, it is alleged that....
3. At the outset, learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that he does not want to press the present bail application qua the petitioner No.5 Ashok Kumar, at this stage. Thus, the present bail application is dismissed qua the petitioner No.5 Ashok Kumar S/o Bhera Ram at this stage with a liberty to file a fresh bail application after recording of statements of injured- Ratnaram before the competent criminal Court. 2. Heard learned counsel for the petitioners, learned Public Prosecutor an....
6. This Court considered the contentions of the petitioners and the Public Prosecutor. The 1st accused is granted bail as per Annexure A2 order. The only non bailable offence alleged against the petitioners is Sec. 118(1) of the BNS. The maximum sentence that can be imposed under Sec.118(1) of the BNS is only 3 years. In Arnesh Kumar v. State of Bihar and another [(2014) 8 SCC 273] the Apex Court observed like this : 7.2. The law mandates the police officer to state the facts....
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
