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…!
Mutual Exclusivity of Sections 109 and 118 of BNS - The legal framework indicates that Sections 109 and 118 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS) are mutually exclusive and cannot be invoked together in the same case. Several sources emphasize that the addition or invocation of Section 109 depends on specific evidence, particularly intent to kill or attempt to murder, which is distinct from the provisions of Section 118. For example, ["INDAP00000014516"] states, Section 109(1) of the BNS, 2023 has been incorporated... However, in the subsequent statement, the complainant alleged that he was assaulted by the accused with an intention to kill him. Hence, Section 109(1) of BNS was incorporated, implying that the inclusion of Section 109 is based on evidence of intent, whereas Section 118 deals with causing injury or grievous hurt without necessarily implying intent to kill. Similarly, ["MR. SUNDARESH vs STATE OF KARNATAKA - Karnataka"] notes that the offence would at best fall under Section 118 of the BNS and not under Section 109(1), highlighting the legal distinction and the non-sustainability of both sections being invoked simultaneously.
Legal and Investigative Implications - Courts and investigating authorities recognize that these sections are mutually exclusive, and their simultaneous application without proper evidence is not sustainable. Several cases mention that the addition of Section 109 is contingent upon specific evidence such as medical reports, injury nature, and witness statements indicating intent to kill, which are not always present. For instance, ["INDAP00000014516"] states, The injuries sustained are simple in nature... the offence would at best fall under Section 118 of the BNS and not under Section 109, underscoring that the evidence may not support invoking both sections concurrently. Furthermore, ["Syed Jabeer Ahmed vs The State of Telangana - Telangana"] and ["Syed Jabeer Ahmed vs The State of Telangana - Telangana"] discuss alterations of charges from Section 118 to Section 109 based on confessional statements and medical evidence, but courts have emphasized that such alterations must be based on concrete evidence of intent, and invoking both sections together is legally untenable.
Conclusion - The consensus across the sources is that Sections 109 and 118 of BNS are mutually exclusive, and their simultaneous invocation or sustenance in legal proceedings is not sustainable. Courts and authorities stress that the application of Section 109 requires clear evidence of intent to kill, which is not always available when Section 118 is invoked for causing hurt or injury. Therefore, attempting to sustain both sections together without proper evidentiary support contradicts legal principles and is likely to be challenged or dismissed. This understanding is reinforced by multiple case references, including ["MR. SUNDARESH vs STATE OF KARNATAKA - Karnataka"], which clarifies that the inclusion of Section 109 depends on specific facts and evidence, and cannot be arbitrarily combined with Section 118.
In the realm of Indian military law, a pressing question often arises: section 109 of BNS and Section 118 of BNS are mutually cohesive and cannot sustain together. This query touches on the procedural intricacies of the Army Act, referred to here with BNS notation, and whether these provisions can coexist in legal proceedings. Understanding their roles is crucial for legal practitioners, military personnel, and those navigating court martial processes.
This article provides a detailed analysis based on legal texts and judicial interpretations, highlighting why these sections are generally considered mutually exclusive. Note that this is general information and not specific legal advice—consult a qualified lawyer for your situation.
Section 109 and Section 118 serve distinct functions within the framework of court martial proceedings under the Army Act (BNS).
Section 109 empowers specific authorities to initiate the court martial process. As per Colonel D. D. Pawar VS Commander HQ, Andhra Sub-Area, secunderabad - 2001 0 Supreme(AP) 655, Section 109 a General Court Martial can be convened by Central government, Chief of Army Staff or by any officer empowered by warrant of Chief of army Staff. This provision focuses on the procedural step of convening the tribunal, determining who has the competence to organize the trial. It is purely about establishing the court, not conducting it. Colonel D. D. Pawar VS Commander HQ, Andhra Sub-Area, secunderabad - 2001 0 Supreme(AP) 655
In contrast, Section 118 outlines the powers of the General Court Martial once convened. According to Colonel D. D. Pawar VS Commander HQ, Andhra Sub-Area, secunderabad - 2001 0 Supreme(AP) 655, A General Court Martial under Section 118 of the Act shall have power to try any army person for any offence punishable under the Act and pass any sentence authorised by the Act. This grants jurisdiction for trial and sentencing, emphasizing the substantive role of the court in adjudicating offences. Chief Of Army Staff VS Major Dharam Pal Kukrety - 1985 0 Supreme(SC) 101
These sections operate at different stages:- Section 109: Initiation (convening authority)- Section 118: Execution (trial and punishment)
The key legal finding is that Section 109 and Section 118 are mutually exclusive provisions; they cannot both be simultaneously invoked or sustained due to potential inconsistency. Colonel D. D. Pawar VS Commander HQ, Andhra Sub-Area, secunderabad - 2001 0 Supreme(AP) 655
Any attempt to conflate them may result in procedural invalidity, emphasizing strict adherence to demarcation.
While the Army Act context highlights exclusivity, civilian applications under Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS) 2023 often see Sections 109 (attempt to murder) and 118 (grievous hurt) invoked together in assault cases. This provides contrast and practical perspective.
For instance, in BHANU PRATAP SAHU vs STATE OF CHHATTISGARH - 2025 Supreme(Online)(Chh) 5706, the petitioner sought to add Section 109 to an FIR already under Sections 118(1), 296, 3(5), and 351(3) of BNS 2023, indicating attempts to layer charges. Similarly, BASAVARAJ S/O SHIVANAND TIRLAPUR v/s STATE OF KARNATAKA - 2025 Supreme(Online)(KAR) 3360 involved allegations under Sections 140(3), 115(2), 118, and 109(1), where anticipatory bail was granted considering injury nature and background.
Other cases further illustrate:- SRI KAZIUL HOQUE @ RAHMAN AND ORS vs THE STATE OF ASSAM - 2025 Supreme(Online)(Gau) 7296: Charge sheet under Sections 61(2)/117(2)/118(1)/109 BNS; interim protection granted as most were bailable except 109.- GUTTURU CHINNA VENKATARAMUDU vs THE STATE OF AP - 2025 Supreme(Online)(AP) 7080: FIR under 126(2), 118(1), 54 r/w 3(5) BNS, later adding 238(a) and 109(1); pre-arrest bail analyzed on evidence and age.- G RAJESH vs THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH - 2025 Supreme(Online)(AP) 13860: Debate on whether facts fit 118 or 109(1), affirming 109 based on medical evidence.- CHHAGAN LAL Vs. STATE OF RAJASTHAN - 2025 Supreme(RAJ) 119: Bail under multiple sections including 118(1)/(2) and 109(1), granted considering injury nature and custody duration.
These examples show Sections 109 and 118 frequently co-exist in BNS 2023 FIRs for violent crimes, where attempt to murder (109) complements grievous hurt (118). However, in the Army Act's structured court martial, their procedural divide prevents such overlap, aligning with the exclusivity principle. Chief Of Army Staff VS Major Dharam Pal Kukrety - 1985 0 Supreme(SC) 101
Recommendations:- Ensure proper convening authority under Section 109 prior to trials.- Avoid conflating powers; recognize distinct stages.- In ambiguities, refer to legislative intent and precedents like Chief Of Army Staff VS Major Dharam Pal Kukrety - 1985 0 Supreme(SC) 101.
In civilian BNS contexts, while both sections may apply factually (e.g., assault escalating to attempt), courts weigh gravity, evidence, and bail factors, as in Syed Jabeer Ahmed vs The State of Telangana - 2025 Supreme(Online)(Tel) 38286 where sections shifted from 118(1) to 109 based on confessions.
This analysis underscores the nuanced application of these provisions. For tailored guidance, seek professional legal counsel. Stay informed on evolving interpretations under BNS 2023 and Army Act.
References:1. Colonel D. D. Pawar VS Commander HQ, Andhra Sub-Area, secunderabad - 2001 0 Supreme(AP) 655: Core text on convening and trial powers.2. Chief Of Army Staff VS Major Dharam Pal Kukrety - 1985 0 Supreme(SC) 101: Confirms prerequisite nature of convening for trials.3. Various case snippets (e.g., BHANU PRATAP SAHU vs STATE OF CHHATTISGARH - 2025 Supreme(Online)(Chh) 5706, BASAVARAJ S/O SHIVANAND TIRLAPUR v/s STATE OF KARNATAKA - 2025 Supreme(Online)(KAR) 3360) illustrating practical invocations.
#BNS2023, #Section109BNS, #LegalAnalysis
been registered for offences i.e. 118(1), 296, 3(5) and 351(3) of BNS 2023 and prays that the same may be invoked and he has also moved a representation before the authorities concerned for adding Section 109 of BNS offence. ... Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the complainant/petitioner has lodged the FIR against the accused person for the offence under Section 118(1), 296, 3(5) and 351(3) of BNS 2023 and he states that as per the med....
2), 109 (1), 351 (1), 351 (2), 352 read with Section 3 (5) of Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 (‘BNS’ for short) by accused no.1 (petitioner). ... Offences alleged against accused are kidnapping under Section 140 (3) of BNS punishable with imprisonment for upto seven years; voluntarily causing hurt under Section 115 (2) of BNS punishable with imprisonment for upto one year; voluntarily causing grievous hurt under Section 118#....
Subsequently, the case has already been charge sheeted against the accused persons under Sections 61(2)/117(2)/118(1)/109 of BNS , 2023, out of which, except Section 109 , all other Sections are bailable in nature. ... Karim, learned counsel for the petitioners that though initially the case was registered under Section 118(1) of the BNS , 2023, but considering the nature of the injury, the case is not charge sheeted under Section #....
Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita ( BNS ). It is reported that Section 238 (a) and 109 (1) Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita ( BNS ), 2023. Additional sections, including 238(a) and 109(1), were added subsequently. ... 7) The incident is occurred on 20.05.2025, the FIR was registered on 21.05.2025 for offences under Sections 126 (2), 118(1), and 54 read with Section 3 (5) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita ( BNS ),....
, 118(1) , 54 r/w 3(5) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita ( BNS ). It is reported that Section 238 (a) , 118(1), and 54 read with Section 3(5) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita ( BNS ), 2023. Additional sections, including 238(a) ORDER: and 109(1), were added subsequently. The learned Public Prosecutor further submitted that seven witnesses are examined, and the investigation is still pending, receiving of wound certificate is awaited and ....
Fazil @ Fazil and interrogated them and as per their confessional statements, the section of law was altered from Section 118 (1) read with 3 (5) of BNS to Sections 109, 61 (2) (a) read with 3 (5) of BNS. ... This writ petition is filed questioning the action of the respondent Nos.5 and 6 in not conducting fair and impartial investigation in Crime No.219 of 2025 dated 14.10.2025 for the offences under Sections 118 (1) read with 3 (5) of BNS which was....
Fazil @ Fazil and interrogated them and as per their confessional statements, the section of law was altered from Section 118 (1) read with 3 (5) of BNS to Sections 109, 61 (2) (a) read with 3 (5) of BNS. ... This writ petition is filed questioning the action of the respondent Nos.5 and 6 in not conducting fair and impartial investigation in Crime No.219 of 2025 dated 14.10.2025 for the offences under Sections 118 (1) read with 3 (5) of BNS which was....
Fazil @ Fazil and interrogated them and as per their confessional statements, the section of law was altered from Section 118 (1) read with 3 (5) of BNS to Sections 109, 61 (2) (a) read with 3 (5) of BNS. ... This writ petition is filed questioning the action of the respondent Nos.5 and 6 in not conducting fair and impartial investigation in Crime No.219 of 2025 dated 14.10.2025 for the offences under Sections 118 (1) read with 3 (5) of BNS which was....
It is submitted that such an allegation is not supported by the facts on record and that, even if the entire prosecution version is accepted, the offence would at best fall under Section 118 of ‘the BNS’ and not under Section 109(1). ... It is further submitted that the offence under Section 109(1) of ‘the BNS’, which pertains to attempt to commit murder, has been rightly invoked based on the facts and medical evidence. ... Section#HL_END....
of BNS to Section 118(2), 351(2) r/w Section 3(5) of BNS and the alteration memo has also been filed before the Court concerned. ... The main grievance of the petitioner is that the respondent Police without conducting proper investigation, filed FIR No.210/2025 dated 31.07.2025 only under Sections 118(1), 351(2) read with Section 3(5) of BNS despite the said offence attracts Section 109 of BNS. .....
152. Act endangering sovereignty, unity and integrity of India. - Whoever, purposely or knowingly, by words, either spoken or written, or by signs, or by visible representation, or by electronic communication or by use of financial mean, or otherwise, excites or attempts to excite, secession or armed rebellion or subversive activities, or encourages feelings of separatist activities or endangers sovereignty or unity and integrity of India; or indulges in or commits any such act shall be punished with imprisonment for life or with imprisonment which may extend to seven years, and shall also b....
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 and learned counsel for the complainant. Perused the material available on record. The court granted b....
2. Heard learned counsel for the parties at Bar. Perused the material available on record. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner, who is an Ex-Army Personal, has been falsely implicated in the present case owing to previous animosity with the complainant party. Learned counsel submitted that various civil/revenue disputes are going on between the present petitioner and the complainant party. Bail may be granted when the accused is not a flight risk, and the injuries caused are grievous but not life-threatening. (KULDEEP MATHUR, J.) 1. This applicatio....
5. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the order dated 20.01.2025 passed by of this Court. The order dated 20.01.2025 is reproduced hereinbelow for ready reference:- 1. This application for bail under Section 483 BNS S (Section 439 Cr.P.C.) has been filed by the petitioner who has been arrested in connection with F.I.R. No.141/2024 registered at Police Station Bhanipura, District Churu, for offences under Sections 103(1), 109(1), 115(2), 126(2) and 61(2)(a) of BNS . 2. As per the complainant, on 15.08.2024 at about 01:00 P.M., when his brother - Ashok, cousin ....
7. Chapter XVII of BNS deals with the offences against property. Section 329 to 333 of BNS deals with Criminal trespass. Criminal trespass and house trespass are defined in Section 329(1) and (2) of BNS respectively. Section 329(2) BNS says that, whoever commits criminal trespass by entering into or remaining in any building, tent, or vessel used as a human dwelling or any building used as a place of worship, or as a place for the custody of property is said to commit house-trespass. 6. It is true that Section 324 of BNS is a bailable offence. But, in the crimes registered ....
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
