Section 116 of the BNS 2023 specifies eight categories of grievous hurt: emasculation; permanent privation of the sight of either eye; permanent privation of the hearing of either ear; privation of any member or joint; destruction or permanent impairing of the powers of any member or joint; permanent disfiguration of the head or face; fracture or dislocation of a bone or tooth; and any hurt which endangers life or which causes the sufferer to be in severe bodily pain, or unable to follow ordinary pursuits for twenty days. The presence of any one of these categories makes the hurt grievous — regardless of how minor the incident may have appeared at the time. This statutory categorisation is the starting point for every Section 116 defence.
In practice, the majority of Section 116 cases GP handles arise from property disputes, matrimonial conflicts, and neighbourhood altercations — situations where the FIR under BNSS Section 173 has been registered at the complainant's instance, where the medical evidence is the most objective record of what actually happened, and where the relationship between the accused and the complainant provides the context for understanding both the incident and the complaint. GP's defence in these cases begins with a thorough analysis of the FIR, the medical evidence, and the background of the dispute — and proceeds from that analysis to the bail application, the charge framing stage, and the trial.
Section 116 BNS (grievous hurt without weapon) is bailable as of right — the accused is entitled to bail from the police or the Magistrate. Section 117 BNS (grievous hurt by dangerous weapon) is non-bailable — bail must be applied for before the Sessions Court or the High Court. The distinction between Section 116 and Section 117 is therefore significant not only for the sentence but for the immediate question of liberty on arrest. GP advises on the correct categorisation of the offence and, where Section 117 is charged, files the bail application before the Sessions Court. Where the accused has reason to apprehend arrest, GP files an anticipatory bail application under BNSS Section 482 in the High Court before the arrest occurs.
The most common defence strategy in Section 116 cases is to demonstrate at the charge framing stage or at trial that the injury sustained does not fall within the eight statutory categories of grievous hurt — and is therefore simple hurt under Section 115. The medical evidence is decisive: whether the fracture is genuine and recent (or a pre-existing condition), whether the incapacity lasted twenty days or fewer, whether the alleged disfigurement is permanent. GP challenges the medical characterisation of the injury through cross-examination of the treating doctor and, where appropriate, through an independent medical opinion — arguing that the injury does not meet the grievous hurt threshold and that the charge should be reduced to Section 115.
Section 116 is frequently the correct charge in cases where the police have registered the FIR under Section 109 (attempt to murder) — over-charging being a common feature of property dispute and matrimonial violence cases in India. Where the medical evidence, the weapon, and the circumstances do not establish the intent to cause death required by Section 109, GP argues at the charge framing stage in the Sessions Court that the charge should be framed under Section 116 rather than Section 109 — a distinction that reduces the maximum sentence from life imprisonment to seven years and fundamentally changes the accused's position at trial and on sentencing.
The right of private defence under BNS Sections 34 to 38 is a complete defence to a charge of grievous hurt where the accused had a reasonable apprehension of grievous hurt to themselves or another and used proportionate force to repel the attack. GP builds the private defence case in Section 116 matters arising from property confrontations, road rage, and matrimonial altercations — establishing the accused's reasonable apprehension from the prior conduct of the complainant, the circumstances immediately preceding the incident, the consistency of the accused's account with the medical evidence, and the evidence that the accused did not initiate the violence.
The trial of a Section 116 charge in the Sessions Court is built on two pillars of prosecution evidence: the testimony of the complainant and eyewitnesses, and the medical evidence of the treating doctor. GP's trial defence concentrates on the cross-examination of the medical witness — challenging the cause of the injury (whether it was caused by the accused's act or by another cause), the classification of the injury as grievous (particularly where the classification depends on the duration of incapacitation), and the consistency between the medical findings and the FIR's description of the incident. The complainant and eyewitness cross-examination focuses on inconsistencies between the FIR under BNSS Section 173 and the deposition at trial.
A significant proportion of Section 116 complaints are filed as a tactical weapon in ongoing property disputes, matrimonial conflicts, and business rivalries — where the complainant has a clear financial or personal motive to have the accused arrested and detained. GP builds the false implication defence by establishing the history of the dispute between the accused and the complainant, the timing of the complaint relative to key events in the underlying civil or property proceedings, the complainant's prior pattern of complaints, and the absence of independent eyewitness corroboration for the complainant's account of events. This false implication defence, developed thoroughly at the investigation stage and at trial, is frequently the difference between conviction and acquittal.
The most common factual pattern GP encounters in Section 116 cases is a property boundary dispute — between neighbours, between a landlord and tenant, or between co-owners of ancestral land — that has escalated to physical violence. In these cases the Section 116 FIR is filed by one party to the property dispute against the other; the parties know each other well; there is a background of civil litigation or threatened litigation; and the criminal complaint is frequently filed immediately after a key event in the property dispute (a court hearing, a demolition notice, an encroachment). GP approaches these cases by establishing the complete history of the property dispute as the foundation of the false implication defence and the context for the accused's conduct.
In every Section 116 case, the medical evidence is the most objective and reliable record of what actually happened — more reliable than the FIR (which is the complainant's account), more reliable than the eyewitnesses (who may be biased or mistaken), and more durable than the accused's own account. GP analyses the medical evidence in detail: the description of the wound in the injury report, the mechanism of injury suggested by the medical findings, the consistency between the weapon alleged and the injury found, and the duration of incapacity recorded by the treating doctor. These details — cross-examined carefully in the Sessions Court — frequently establish that the injury is less serious than alleged, that it is not consistent with the complainant's account of how it was caused, or that it does not fall within the grievous hurt categories.
Section 116 BNS (grievous hurt) is compoundable with the permission of the court — meaning the complainant and the accused may agree to settle the matter and the court may permit compounding. In cases arising from property disputes or neighbourhood conflicts where the underlying civil dispute can be resolved simultaneously, compounding the Section 116 case as part of a comprehensive settlement is often the most practical outcome for all parties. GP advises clients on the compounding option — structuring the settlement to address both the criminal complaint and the underlying civil dispute, ensuring that the compounding terms protect the accused from recurrence, and obtaining the court's permission for compounding in the appropriate forum.
Section 116 BNS sits in the middle of the offence hierarchy for physical harm — above simple hurt and below attempt to murder. A Section 116 defence frequently involves arguing downward (the injury is simple hurt, not grievous) or preventing an upward reclassification (the act does not constitute attempt to murder, only grievous hurt). GP's criminal defence team has argued both directions across Sessions Courts and High Courts — and the experience of handling both Section 109 (attempt to murder) and Section 116 matters means that GP understands precisely where each offence ends and the other begins.
The majority of Section 116 cases GP handles arise from property disputes and civil conflicts. Defending the criminal case effectively requires understanding the underlying civil dispute — the property title, the history of the conflict, the civil proceedings, and the complainant's tactical objectives. GP's combined criminal and property practice means that the criminal defence is developed with full awareness of the civil proceedings — ensuring that the criminal defence narrative supports rather than undermines the civil position, and that any settlement of the criminal case is structured to advance the civil outcome.
A Section 116 case can run for years from the FIR through the charge framing, the trial, and the appeal. The defence narrative stated in the bail application must be consistent with the defence at trial; the cross-examination plan must be built from the FIR; the final arguments must synthesise the entire evidence. GP manages the complete case — from the bail application through the Sessions Court trial to the High Court appeal where necessary — with the same lawyers present at every stage, ensuring consistency, continuity, and the deepest possible familiarity with the record.
Defended a Delhi landowner charged under BNS Section 116 following a confrontation with his neighbour over a disputed boundary wall. The FIR alleged that the accused had struck the complainant with a stick causing a fracture to his forearm. GP obtained the complainant's prior medical records — which showed that the same forearm had been treated for a fracture eighteen months earlier — and cross-examined the treating doctor on whether the fracture shown in the post-incident X-ray was consistent with a fresh injury or a previously healed fracture. The treating doctor conceded under cross-examination that the X-ray findings were consistent with a healed earlier fracture. GP also produced three witnesses to the boundary dispute who testified to the complainant's history of making false complaints against neighbours. The Sessions Court acquitted the accused, finding the prosecution's medical evidence unreliable and the complainant's testimony inconsistent with the medical findings.
Appealed a Sessions Court conviction under BNS Section 109 for a road rage incident in which the accused had driven his vehicle at the complainant following a traffic altercation, causing a leg fracture. The Sessions Court had convicted under Section 109, finding the use of the vehicle as a weapon indicative of murderous intent. GP argued before the Bombay High Court that: the accused had driven at a low speed in congested traffic; the fracture was to the shin, not a vital part of the body; the accused had immediately stopped and assisted the complainant; and the circumstances of a traffic altercation were inconsistent with a premeditated intent to kill. The High Court altered the conviction from Section 109 to Section 116 BNS, reduced the sentence from seven years to eighteen months, and suspended the balance of the sentence pending good behaviour.
Acted for a Bangalore husband facing a Section 116 BNS complaint filed by his wife's family following a matrimonial altercation — the complaint alleged that the husband had struck the wife causing bruising that was classified as grievous hurt on the basis of the duration of pain. GP identified that the Section 116 complaint had been filed three days after the wife's family filed for divorce — establishing the tactical timing of the complaint. Rather than contesting the charge through lengthy trial proceedings, GP structured a comprehensive matrimonial settlement that included the compounding of the Section 116 case with the permission of the Sessions Court, the withdrawal of all related complaints by both parties, and the consent terms for the divorce. The criminal case was closed, and the matrimonial proceedings were resolved simultaneously.
The criminal defence team handles Section 116 matters from anticipatory bail through the Sessions Court trial to the High Court appeal — and for Section 116 cases arising from property disputes, works closely with GP's property law practice to coordinate the criminal and civil proceedings as a unified strategy.
For matrimonial Section 116 cases — which frequently arise alongside domestic violence proceedings and divorce — GP's family law team works alongside the criminal defence team to ensure that the criminal and family law proceedings are handled as a coordinated whole, with compounding and settlement options explored at every stage.
A plain-language guide to BNS Section 116 — what makes hurt grievous, the Section 116 vs Section 117 dangerous weapon distinction, the private defence framework, and the immediate steps on receiving a grievous hurt complaint or arrest.
Read Insight →The pattern of Section 116 complaints in property disputes, how to establish the complainant's motive, and why the civil property proceedings and the criminal defence must be managed simultaneously for the best outcome.
Read Insight →Whether you have been charged under BNS Section 116, are facing a Section 109 charge that should be Section 116, or anticipate a complaint arising from a property or matrimonial dispute — speak to GP today. In grievous hurt matters, early advice determines the charge.