BACK TO SECTIONSAIR 1962 SC 605
BNS 2024ACTIVE FRAMEWORK
Section 117
Voluntarily Causing Grievous Hurt on Provocation
Replaces colonial-era: IPC 335
BailableCognizable: Non-CognizableMagistrate First Class
Reform Highlights
1
Renumbered from IPC 335 to BNS 117.
2
Grave and sudden provocation standard unchanged.
3
Collateral injury exclusion preserved — mitigation only if harm was directed at the provoker.
THE STATUTE
The Clause
Whoever voluntarily causes grievous hurt on grave and sudden provocation, if he neither intends nor knows himself to be likely to cause grievous hurt to any person other than the person who gave the provocation, is punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to four years, or with fine which may extend to two thousand rupees, or with both.
Legal Commentary
Section 117 addresses the mitigated form of grievous hurt — where the offender caused grievous harm but did so in immediate response to severe provocation from the victim. This provision reflects the law's recognition that human beings are not always fully in control of their reactions, and that a person who responds with violence to a devastating provocation is morally less culpable than one who acts in cold blood. However, the 'grave and sudden' standard is stringently applied — the provocation must be both serious and immediate. A long-simmering resentment that culminates in violence days or weeks later does not qualify. The provocation must have caused the accused to lose self-control at the very moment of the act. The provision additionally requires that the accused neither intended nor knew themselves likely to cause grievous hurt to any person other than the provoker — collateral injury to bystanders removes the mitigation. The punishment of up to 4 years is less than the 7 years for unmitigated grievous hurt (Section 116), but still substantial, reflecting that provocation mitigates but does not excuse causing serious bodily harm. Indian courts apply the 'reasonable person' standard: would a reasonable person in the accused's position and cultural context have been provoked to the extent of losing control? Caste-based slurs, extreme verbal abuse in the context of a family dispute, and sexual taunts about a family member have all been held capable of constituting grave and sudden provocation in different cases.
Landmark Precedents
K.M. Nanavati v. State of Maharashtra (1962)
RELEVANCE
Landmark case on provocation as mitigation in homicide — the Supreme Court's analysis of what constitutes grave and sudden provocation (excluding prolonged resentment, requiring sudden loss of self-control) is equally applicable to the grievous hurt provocation defence.
Case Simulations
"A person who, upon being told by their spouse of infidelity in an explosive confrontation, immediately strikes them with a nearby object causing a fracture — Section 117 (grave and sudden provocation)."
"A man who is taunted with deeply offensive abuse about his deceased mother at a public gathering and immediately responds with a violent blow causing a head injury — Section 117."
"A person who, angry about an event three days ago, plans and carries out an attack on the provoker — not Section 117 (provocation was not sudden; time to cool down had elapsed)."
Expert Insights
Possibly — courts have recognised that sufficiently degrading verbal abuse, particularly caste-based slurs in the Indian social context, can constitute grave provocation. The key is that your response was immediate (not premeditated) and that a reasonable person in your position would have been provoked to loss of self-control. The broken bone is a grievous hurt — Section 117 would reduce the charge from Section 116 (7 years) to Section 117 (4 years).