Section 332 IPC: Voluntarily Causing Hurt to Deter Public Servant From Duty
Section 332 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 dealt with voluntarily causing hurt to a public servant while that person was discharging public duty, to prevent or deter a public servant from performing such duty, or because of an act lawfully done or attempted in discharge of that duty.
Section 332 IPC - statutory provision
Meaning and scope of Section 332 IPC
The provision protected public servants against voluntarily inflicted hurt connected with the lawful performance of public duties. The statutory connection with public duty could arise in different ways: hurt could be caused while the public servant was discharging duty, with the intention of preventing or deterring that or another public servant from discharging duty, or in consequence of something lawfully done or attempted by that public servant in discharge of duty.
Meaning of "hurt" - Section 319 IPC
Section 319 IPC defined hurt as causing bodily pain, disease or infirmity to any person. Section 332 therefore required hurt within the IPC meaning, together with the additional public-duty circumstances specified in the section.
Voluntarily causing hurt - Section 321 IPC
Section 321 IPC dealt with voluntarily causing hurt. Broadly, it applied where a person did an act intending to cause hurt, or knowing that hurt was likely to be caused, and thereby caused hurt. For Section 332, that voluntary hurt also had to bear the required connection with the public servant's duty.
Who is a "public servant" under the IPC?
Section 21 IPC contained an extensive statutory definition of "public servant" covering specified categories of persons holding public offices or performing public functions. Whether the injured person fell within the statutory definition and whether the relevant act concerned discharge of public duty were therefore important elements in applying Section 332.
Essential ingredients of Section 332 IPC
- The accused must have voluntarily caused hurt.
- The person concerned must have been a public servant for the purpose of the IPC.
- The case must fall within at least one of the duty-related situations stated in Section 332.
- The hurt may have been caused while the public servant was discharging duty as such public servant.
- Alternatively, it may have been caused with intent to prevent or deter that public servant or another public servant from discharging public duty.
- The section also covered hurt caused in consequence of something done or attempted by the public servant in the lawful discharge of duty.
Punishment under Section 332 IPC
| Provision | Section 332, Indian Penal Code, 1860 |
|---|---|
| Offence | Voluntarily causing hurt to deter a public servant from duty |
| Central IPC punishment | Imprisonment of either description up to 3 years, or fine, or both |
| Maharashtra amendment | Maximum imprisonment substituted from 3 years to 5 years in the application of Section 332 to Maharashtra |
Maharashtra state amendment to Section 332 IPC
Maharashtra: In the application of Section 332 IPC to the State of Maharashtra, the words "three years" were substituted by the words "five years".
This state amendment increased the maximum imprisonment under the pre-BNS Section 332 IPC in Maharashtra while leaving the central text at three years for jurisdictions where that amendment did not apply.
Lawful discharge of public duty
The statutory wording expressly referred to something done or attempted by the public servant in the lawful discharge of duty when liability was based on retaliation or consequence. The factual nature of the official act and its relationship to lawful public duty could therefore be material in a prosecution under this provision.
Section 332 IPC and Section 333 IPC
Section 332 concerned voluntarily causing hurt in the specified circumstances. The adjoining Section 333 IPC dealt with voluntarily causing grievous hurt to deter a public servant from duty. The legal character of the injury was therefore important in distinguishing the two provisions.
Section 332 IPC and Section 353 IPC
Section 332 specifically required voluntarily causing hurt. Section 353 IPC separately dealt with assault or use of criminal force against a public servant in execution of duty, or with intent to prevent or deter discharge of duty, or in consequence of something done or attempted in lawful discharge of duty. The ingredients of the particular offence alleged therefore had to be considered rather than treating the provisions as interchangeable.
Frequently asked questions
What did Section 332 IPC punish?
It punished voluntarily causing hurt to a public servant in discharge of duty, intending to prevent or deter a public servant from discharging duty, or in consequence of something done or attempted in lawful discharge of public duty.
What was the punishment under Section 332 IPC?
Under the central IPC provision, imprisonment could extend to three years, or fine, or both. In Maharashtra, a state amendment substituted five years for the three-year maximum.
Was every hurt caused to a public servant covered by Section 332?
No. The statutory requirements included the necessary relationship between the voluntary hurt and the discharge, prevention or deterrence of public duty, or the consequence of something lawfully done or attempted in discharge of such duty.
What was the difference between Sections 332 and 333 IPC?
Section 332 concerned hurt, whereas Section 333 concerned grievous hurt, in the corresponding public-duty circumstances.
Note: This article explains the legal framework applicable before implementation of the BNS. The provision applicable to a particular matter can depend on the date of the alleged act, the jurisdiction, the nature of the injury and the facts concerning discharge of public duty.