Simple vs Grievous Hurt under BNS 2023 §§ 114-118

The Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita 2023 came into force on 1 July 2024, replacing the Indian Penal Code 1860 for all offences committed on or after that date. For medico-legal purposes, the relevant provisions are §§ 114-118, which carry forward the substantive framework of IPC §§ 319-323 without major doctrinal change. The numbering differs; the substance, with one clarification on endangering life, is preserved.

BNS § 114: Hurt (simple hurt). Section 114 defines hurt as: "Whoever causes bodily pain, disease or infirmity to any person is said to cause hurt." This is a deliberately broad definition that encompasses any degree of bodily injury that causes pain, regardless of its severity or duration. A bruise, a scrape, a minor laceration, a sprain, or any injury, including the abrasions, contusions and lacerations that make up the bulk of assault casework, that produces bodily pain without crossing into the eight grievous categories is simple hurt. The offence of voluntarily causing hurt is created at BNS § 115, with aggravated forms at §§ 115-116. The corresponding IPC provision was § 319 (definition of hurt) and § 323 (voluntarily causing hurt).

BNS § 117: Grievous hurt. Section 117 creates a defined list of eight injury categories, any one of which elevates the offence from simple to grievous hurt. The eight categories, which mirror IPC § 320's enumeration, are:

1. Emasculation (castration or penile injury rendering the victim incapable of sexual function). The medico-legal certificate should document the specific injury and the functional consequence.
2. Permanent privation of the sight of either eye. The injury must result in permanent loss of sight; temporary blindness from a corneal laceration that subsequently heals does not satisfy this category. The MLC should document the ophthalmic examination findings, the prognosis, and the basis for the "permanent" characterisation.
3. Permanent privation of the hearing of either ear. Same permanency requirement as sight. Audiometric examination findings should be documented. Temporary conduction deafness from a perforated tympanic membrane that will heal is not category 3.
4. Privation of any member or joint, or the permanent impairing of the power of any member or joint. This covers traumatic amputation of a finger, toe, hand, or limb, and also permanent functional impairment of a joint through ligament damage or fracture-dislocation. "Permanent" is the operative criterion; the MLC must state the basis for the permanency opinion.
5. Permanent disfiguration of the head or face. A scar on the face that will not resolve with routine healing satisfies this category. Scarring on the neck or scalp does not (the provision specifies head or face). Temporary swelling or bruising without scarring does not satisfy it. The forensic physician should document the wound's likely healing trajectory.
6. Fracture or dislocation of a bone or tooth. This is the most frequently charged category in assault casework. Any radiologically or clinically confirmed fracture, whether of the nose, orbit, jaw, mandible, metacarpal, vertebra, rib, radius, ulna, tibia, or any other bone, satisfies category 6. A tooth fracture (crown fracture reaching the dentine or pulp) satisfies it. A tooth dislocation satisfies it. The MLC should specify the bone or tooth affected and the radiological confirmation. The IPC § 320 equivalent was category 6 of the same list.
7. Any hurt which endangers life or which causes the sufferer to be in severe bodily pain during a space of twenty days. Endangering life is the more serious sub-limb: a stab wound to the thorax that penetrates the lung and causes haemothorax endangers life regardless of the survival period. Severe bodily pain for twenty days covers injuries that are not structurally life-threatening but produce severe pain over an extended period (e.g., a large soft-tissue crush injury without fracture).
8. Any hurt which causes the sufferer to be unable to follow their ordinary pursuits during a space of twenty days. This is the most temporally contingent category. Incapacitation for twenty days is a factual question that the treating clinician and the forensic physician must jointly address. The MLC should state the likely duration of incapacity based on the injury type and the clinical trajectory.

Charging provisions. BNS § 118 creates the offence of voluntarily causing grievous hurt, with imprisonment up to seven years plus fine. BNS § 118 also creates aggravated forms by dangerous weapons, poison, fire, and acid. The IPC equivalent was § 325 (voluntarily causing grievous hurt) and § 326 (voluntarily causing grievous hurt by dangerous weapons or means).

The Offences Against the Person Act 1861 remains the statutory framework for non-fatal violence in England and Wales. Scotland has a separate common-law framework. Northern Ireland follows the same OAPA provisions. The three principal sections are 47 (actual bodily harm), 20 (wounding or inflicting grievous bodily harm), and 18 (wounding or causing grievous bodily harm with intent).

OAPA 1861 § 47: Assault occasioning actual bodily harm (ABH). Section 47 requires proof that an assault was committed and that it occasioned actual bodily harm. "Actual bodily harm" was defined in R v. Miller (1954) as "hurt or injury calculated to interfere with the health or comfort of the prosecutor; and it is not necessary that it should be permanent, but it must, I think, be more than merely transient and trifling." ABH therefore covers the class of injury that causes pain and marks but heals without residual impairment: contusions, minor lacerations, minor abrasions, soft-tissue sprains. The maximum sentence is five years' imprisonment.

The Crown Prosecution Service charging standards for assault (last updated 2019) specify that ABH is appropriate when the injury includes loss of consciousness, minor fracture (e.g., a hairline fracture of the nose), and psychiatric injury extending beyond temporary fear. Contusions and minor lacerations falling short of fracture are typically charged as Section 47 where the harm threshold is met.

OAPA 1861 § 20: Wounding or inflicting grievous bodily harm. Section 20 creates two separate offences: "wounding" and "inflicting grievous bodily harm." A wound under Section 20 requires a break in the continuity of the skin, meaning internal bruising without skin breach does not constitute a wound in the Section 20 sense. The word "wounding" therefore corresponds most directly to any laceration, incised wound, or stab wound that breaks through the full skin thickness. "Grievous bodily harm" was construed in DPP v. Smith (1961, House of Lords) as "really serious harm," and the current position following R v. Saunders (1985) is that "grievous" connotes serious harm but does not require harm that is grave or severe in a specific quantitative sense. Section 20 carries a maximum of five years' imprisonment, the same as Section 47, but charges as a higher offence.

OAPA 1861 § 18: Wounding or causing grievous bodily harm with intent. Section 18 mirrors Section 20 in its injury descriptors but adds the element of specific intent to cause grievous bodily harm (or to resist lawful arrest). The maximum sentence is life imprisonment. Section 18 is therefore reserved for the most serious assault cases: deep stab wounds with vital organ involvement, extensive facial wounding, acid attacks, and deliberately inflicted severe injury.

Sentencing Council guidelines. The Sentencing Council's assault offences guidelines (effective 1 July 2021, applicable in England and Wales) introduce a harm-category matrix for Section 18 and Section 20 offences. Harm category 1 (the most serious) includes injuries with serious long-term effects, particularly multiple fractures or deep penetrating wounds. Harm category 2 includes significant bodily harm, including most fractures. Harm category 3 includes "minor" serious-offence harm (isolated fractures, single wound). These categories interact with culpability factors to determine the sentence range.

The United States operates under 51 separate criminal codes (50 states plus the District of Columbia) plus federal law, and there is no single national statutory equivalent of the BNS § 117 / OAPA § 20 framework. Instead, two parallel systems carry the injury-severity classification burden: the ICD-10-CM clinical coding system (which assigns a specific code to every injury type and severity), and the Abbreviated Injury Scale (AIS) / Injury Severity Score (ISS) system used in trauma medicine and forensic casework.

ICD-10-CM injury coding. The International Classification of Diseases, Tenth Revision, Clinical Modification (ICD-10-CM) is the mandatory coding system used by all US hospitals and healthcare providers since 2015. Every injury treated in a US hospital receives one or more ICD-10-CM codes from the S and T chapters (Chapter 19: Injury, Poisoning and Certain Other Consequences of External Causes). These codes specify the body part, the injury type (fracture, contusion, laceration, dislocation), and the severity qualifier (displaced vs non-displaced for fractures, open vs closed). The code record constitutes the medical documentation of injury in civil and criminal proceedings. A forensic physician preparing a US court report should include the ICD-10-CM code for each injury documented, as this provides a standardised, interoperable severity reference.

Abbreviated Injury Scale (AIS) and Injury Severity Score (ISS). The AIS was developed by the Association for the Advancement of Automotive Medicine (AAAM) in 1969 and has been revised at regular intervals (current version AIS 2005, update 2008, with a subsequent AIS 2015 revision). It assigns each injury a severity score from AIS 1 (minor) to AIS 6 (maximum injury, currently unsurvivable). The injury is coded to a body region and severity on a six-point scale:

AIS 1 = Minor (e.g., superficial contusion, minor laceration) AIS 2 = Moderate (e.g., closed fracture of single rib) AIS 3 = Serious (e.g., multiple rib fractures, simple pneumothorax) AIS 4 = Severe (e.g., tension pneumothorax, single-organ solid-organ laceration with major blood loss) AIS 5 = Critical (e.g., aortic rupture, bilateral severe pulmonary contusion) AIS 6 = Maximum injury (unsurvivabie by current medical standards)

The Injury Severity Score (ISS) is calculated from the AIS scores for the three most severely injured body regions: ISS = (AIS1)^2 + (AIS2)^2 + (AIS3)^2. An ISS of 1-8 is minor, 9-15 is moderate, 16-24 is serious, and 25+ is severe or critical. The New Injury Severity Score (NISS) uses the three highest AIS scores regardless of body region. The Trauma and Injury Severity Score (TRISS) combines ISS or NISS with the Revised Trauma Score (a physiological measure) and patient age to calculate the probability of survival. TRISS is used in quality benchmarking and medicolegal mortality analysis.

Federal Sentencing Guidelines § 2A2.2. In federal assault prosecutions, the US Sentencing Guidelines § 2A2.2 (aggravated assault) increase the base offence level based on the degree of bodily injury. The definitions are: "bodily injury" means any significant injury (requiring medical treatment), "serious bodily injury" means injury involving extreme physical pain, protracted disfigurement, protracted loss or impairment, or that creates a substantial risk of death, and "permanent bodily injury" means injury with permanent disfigurement, loss or impairment. These definitions roughly parallel BNS § 117 categories 2, 3, 4, and 5, though the structural mapping is imprecise. A forensic expert in federal proceedings should use the Sentencing Guidelines definition, not the AIS score, when advising on the enhancement level, though the AIS score may be referenced as a standardised severity metric.

The medico-legal certificate (MLC) is the primary document linking the forensic physician's clinical findings to the charging decision. An MLC that is complete, precise, and uses the statutory language of the applicable jurisdiction minimises the risk of charge reduction at court because of medical-evidence deficiency.

Core MLC structure (Indian jurisdiction, BNS 2023 era). The MLC should contain: patient identification and examination date/time; the presenting complaint and history as stated (not as accepted); each injury listed by anatomical site, injury type, dimensions, and relevant clinical features (swelling, haematoma, wound characteristics); investigation results (radiological, haematological); and, critically, the forensic opinion section. The forensic opinion section must state:

1. The injury nature (blunt force, sharp force, firearm, etc.) and direction of force where determinable.
2. The probable causative object type where determinable.
3. The vital state at the time of injury (antemortem / postmortem / perimortem where relevant).
4. The estimated age of the injuries where multiple injuries suggest different timing.
5. The statutory category: for each injury, state whether it constitutes simple hurt (BNS § 114) or grievous hurt (BNS § 117), and for grievous hurt, the specific category number from the eight-category list.
6. The prognosis: whether permanent impairment of function is expected, and the basis for that opinion.

Prognosis and permanency. BNS § 117 categories 2, 3, 4, and 5 all require a permanency finding. A forensic physician certifying grievous hurt under these categories without a prognosis statement invites a defence challenge that the impairment may be temporary. The standard approach is to state the prognosis at the time of examination ("current examination cannot establish permanence; follow-up ophthalmic assessment recommended within 6 months") and supplement the MLC with a follow-up certificate once the prognosis is confirmed.

Language for the 20-day provisions. Categories 7 and 8 require a duration-of-pain or duration-of-incapacity estimate of twenty or more days. These are not merely clinical prognoses; they are factual predicates for the charge. The MLC should state: "Based on the injury type and clinical trajectory, the injury is expected to cause severe bodily pain for a period exceeding twenty days" or "incapacitation from ordinary pursuits for a period exceeding twenty days" as applicable. This statement should be supported by reference to standard clinical recovery timelines for the documented injury type.

UK medico-legal reporting conventions. In England and Wales, forensic physicians working in Sexual Assault Referral Centres (SARCs) or as Forensic Medical Examiners (FMEs) for the police produce documentation using the Faculty of Forensic and Legal Medicine (FFLM) body-map and narrative report standards. The report should state for each injury: the injury type, the probable cause, the likely time frame, and the relevance to the alleged mechanism. The OAPA category (Section 47, 20, or 18) is typically for the Crown Prosecution Service to determine based on the medical report, but the forensic physician's report should include enough clinical detail to support any of the three tiers where the injury warrants it.

EU and international comparison. The European emergency-medicine triage systems use the Manchester Triage System (MTS) priority scale: immediate (red), very urgent (orange), urgent (yellow), standard (green), non-urgent (blue). While not a criminal classification system, the triage priority assigned on emergency presentation correlates with injury severity and is sometimes referenced in EU civil proceedings as a severity indicator. The French medico-legal system uses a concept of "incapacité totale de travail" (total work incapacity, ITT) measured in days, closely analogous to BNS § 117 category 8; an injury causing ITT of more than eight days in France elevates the offence from a minor to a more serious charge level.

The AIS and ISS systems were designed for trauma epidemiology and quality benchmarking in hospital trauma centres. Their adoption in forensic, insurance, workers' compensation, and criminal proceedings has been gradual and not without criticism, because a severity score designed to predict population-level survival probability is a different instrument from a statutory injury classification designed to support criminal charge selection.

Where AIS/ISS adds value. In mass-casualty incidents, the AIS/ISS provides a common severity language that allows rapid triage documentation across multiple victims and across multiple jurisdictions involved in the same incident. In mass-casualty incidents such as the 26/11 Mumbai attacks (2008), the Boston Marathon bombing (2013), and the Manchester Arena attack (2017), AIS/ISS coding provided a common severity language across agencies and jurisdictions, and appeared in forensic pathology reports used in subsequent criminal and civil proceedings.

Where AIS/ISS has limitations in legal proceedings. The AIS score for a single injury describes its anatomical severity independent of the victim's functional status and recovery trajectory. An AIS 2 rib fracture in a healthy 25-year-old has a very different functional consequence than the same AIS 2 score in a 78-year-old with osteoporosis and compromised respiratory reserve. For criminal charge purposes, the statutory language (BNS § 117 categories, OAPA § 20 GBH) is the controlling framework, and the AIS score is a supporting metric rather than a determinative one.

The TRISS survival-probability calculation has been used in India to support or contest negligence allegations in mass-casualty medical treatment cases, where the question is whether a specific injury severity was survivable with appropriate care. TRISS is not a criminal-charge severity tool; it is a quality-of-care benchmark. Forensic experts using TRISS in criminal proceedings should distinguish clearly between its statistical origin (population-level survival probability) and its application to the specific individual case.

ISS and NISS in fatal injury documentation. When a death results from multiple injuries, the ISS or NISS provides a standardised summary of the total injury burden. An ISS of 25 or more is associated with high mortality in adult blunt-trauma patients. An ISS of 16-24 indicates serious multi-system trauma. These scores appear routinely in US forensic pathology reports for multiple-injury homicides and in UK forensic pathology reports on road-traffic fatalities. In Indian practice, ISS documentation is adopted at AIIMS New Delhi trauma centre forensic autopsies but is not yet standardised across all state FSL autopsy departments.