i

Faculty of Law, JMI

PROJECT SUBMITTED ON

ASSAULT AND CRIMINAL FORCE IN THE IPC

SUBMITTED TO FACULTY

CONTENTS:
ii

1. TABLE OF AUTHORITIES
2. INTRODUCTION
3. CRIMINAL FORCE
● Force defined

● Criminal Force defined

● Elements of Criminal Force

4. ASSAULT
● Assault Defined

● Elements of Assault

●Assault and battery

●Defenses to assault

●Punishment for Assault

5. AGGRAVATED FORMS OF ASSAULT

5. CONCLUSION
6. REFRENCES

1. TABLE OF AUTHORITIES
iii

STATUTES:
Indian Penal Code, 1860

CASES:
1. Chandrika Sao v. State of Bihar, AIR 1967 SC 170

2. Mangiram v Emperor, (1927) 28 Cr LJ 964

3. Maiku v State of Uttar Pradesh, AIR 1953 All 749

4. Balram Sahu v Chandra Sahu AIR 1921 Pat 391

5. Vidyadharan v State of Kerala, AIR 2004 SC 536

iv

INTRODUCTION

The words ‘assault’ and have distinct meanings and definitions in the IPC. They
deal with the different stages of commission of offence.A assault is understood to
mean the use of criminal force against a person, causing some bodily injury or
pain. When we hear the word assault, images of fights or brawls spring to our
mind. Legally, ‘assault’ denotes the preparatory acts which cause apprehension of
use of criminal force against a person. Assault falls short of actual use of criminal
force.. In this assignment, I will try to elucidate the subtle differences between the
concepts as well as throw light on some of the essentials of these offences. I will
also be discussing the relevance of these sections particularly their aggravated
forms to the present times in light of changes that have been brought to deter
crimes of assault against women.

ASSAULT
v

An assault is committed when one person tries to or does physical harm to another
or acts in a threatening manner to put another in fear of immediate harm. Assault is
defined as "the threat or use of force on another that causes that person to have a
reasonable apprehension of imminent harmful or offensive contact; the act of
putting another person in reasonable fear or apprehension of an
immediate battery by means of an act amounting to an attempt or threat to commit
a battery."1 Assault is a very broad crime and there are various forms of assault,
including (but not limited to) civil assault, assault by contact, sexual assault, simple
assault, and aggravated assault. Though nowadays it is common to use the term
"assault and battery" as if it were one crime, the terms are separate and distinct
legal concepts. Assault refers specifically to demonstration of an unlawful intent to
inflict immediate injury of offensive contact on another, whereas battery involves
the actual act of contact with another. Thus, assault is the beginning of the act
which, if consummated, results in battery.

ASSAULT DEFINED

The offence of Assault is defined in the IPC as follows:

2.1 351. Assault.—Whoever makes any gesture, or any preparation intending or

knowing it to be likely that such gesture or preparation will cause any person
present to apprehend that he who makes that gesture or preparation is about to
use criminal force to that person, is said to commit an assault.

Explanation.—Mere words do not amount to an assault. But the words which a

person uses may give to his gestures or preparation such a meaning as may make
those gestures or preparations amount to an assault.

Illustrations

(a) A shakes his fist at Z, intending or knowing it to be likely that he may thereby
cause Z to believe that A is about to strike
Z. A has committed an assault.

(b) A begins to unloose the muzzle of a ferocious dog, intending or knowing it to

be likely that he may thereby cause Z to believe that he is about to cause the dog to
attack Z. A has committed an assault upon Z.

1
Black’s Law Dictionary
vi

(c) A takes up a stick, saying to Z, “I will give you a beating”. Here, though the
words used by A could in no case amount to an assault, and though the mere
gesture, unaccompanied by any other circumstances, might not amount to an
assault, the gesture explained by the words may amount to an assault.

2.2 ELEMENTS OF ASSAULT

The following two requirements must be satisfied in order to prosecute a person for
assault under section 351 of the IPC:

a. Actus Reus

The actus reus of assault is any act which causes the victim to apprehend an
immediate infliction of violence, e.g. raising a fist or pointing a gun.
Assault means an attempt to injure someone else, and in some circumstances can
include threatening behavior against others. It consists of an overt act, or making
gestures, or preparations intending, or knowing it to be likely that such gestures or
preparations are with reference to the use of criminal force against the person. To
constitute an assault , there must be some threatening physical act by which the
offender intentionally causes another to apprehend that criminal force is about to
be used against them. Actual physical contact is not always necessary but the
commission of a ‘criminal act’ is required. The important element is that a threat
must be created in the mind of the victim (standard is that of a reasonable man).
There must be an apprehension of violence in the mind of the victim2. There is no
need for any physical contact between the defendant and the victim. The emphasis
is on what the victim thought was about to happen. So even if the defendant meant
his threat as a joke, an assault is nevertheless committed if the victim is sufficiently
frightened. Another important aspect is immediacy. The requirement of immediacy
in the crime of assault is generally understood to mean that the victim must
perceive the threat as one which can be carried out "there and then" by the
defendant.

In Read v. Coker3, A was in the premises of a shop belonging to B, and was

refusing to leave. B and his workmen surrounded him tucking up their sleeves and
threatening to break his neck if he did not go, it was held that the act amounts to
assault. Here, it was considered to be assault. This case effectively changed the law
at the time in England because it stated that word without a threatening gesture can
2
K D Gaur, Textbook on Indian Penal Code 837 (LexisNexis, Kundli, 6th edn).
3
(1853) 13 CB 850
vii

amount to an assault as this is intentionally and directly causing the victim to fear
an imminent assault. There was something more than the threat of violence and
that was the present ability of the accused and his accomplices(workmen) to carry
out the threat into effect. In another case, an accused who had his hands on the hilt
of his sword told the victim, “if it were not assize time, I would not take such
words from you”. It was held in this case that the act of the accused did not amount
to an assault because although placing his hands on his sword could be sufficient
gesture, the accompanying words indicated that the force was not going to be used.

INTENT REQUIREMENT:
There must have been an intention on the part of the offender or he must have
known that such preparation or gesture will cause the person to apprehend that the
person making it is about to use criminal force to him.

In order to commit an assault, an individual need only to have ‘general intent’.

What this means is that although someone cannot accidentally assault another
person, it is enough to show that the offender intended the actions which make up
the assault. So if an individual acts in a way that is dangerous to other people that
can be enough to support assault charges, even if they did not intend a particular
harm to a particular individual. Moreover, intent to scare or frighten another person
can be enough to attract the charge of assault. Assault essentially is a threat of
violence exhibiting an intention to use criminal force . Also, the offender must
have the present ability and intention to carry out the threat into execution. There
must in all cases be the means to carry out the threat into effect.

In Vidyadharan v State of Kerala4, the accused put out his hand towards the
woman in a menacing manner so as to cause her to apprehend that he was about to
use criminal force. The accused was charged and convicted for assault because of
causing fear in the mind of the victim.

The following have been held to be instances of assault:

i) Lifting one’s lathi in presence of another

ii)Throwing brick into another’s house

iii) Fetching a sword and advancing with it towards the victim

iv) Pointing a gun , whether loaded or unloaded, at a person.

4
AIR 2004 SC 536.
viii

v) Advancing with a threatening attitude to strike blows.

The person against whom this offence is committed should be present and near
enough to apprehend danger. If a person standing in the compartment of a running
train, makes a threatening gesture at a person standing on the station platform, the
gesture will not amount to assault, for the person has no present ability to
effectuate his purpose. To take another example, Diana points a loaded pistol at her
ex-boyfriend Dan, says, “Prepare to die, Dan,” and pulls the trigger. Fortunately
for Dan, the gun malfunctions and does not fire. Diana has committed assault.
Diana took every step necessary toward completion of the act, and her conduct of
aiming a pistol at Dan and pulling the trigger was strongly corroborative of her
criminal purpose. In addition, it appears that Diana had the present ability to shoot
Dan because her gun was loaded. Thus Diana may be charged with and convicted
of the offense of assault with a deadly weapon. Diana may also be charged with or
convicted of attempted murder because it appears that murder intent is present.The
question whether a particular act amounts to an assault or not depends on whether
the act has caused reasonable apprehension in the mind of the person that criminal
force was imminent. The words or the action should not be threat of assault at
some future point in time. The apprehension of use of criminal force against the
person should be in the present and immediate.

The defendant must intentionally or recklessly cause his victim to apprehend the
infliction of immediate force. The element of intent is central to the crime of
assault. Intent is a central issue because defendants charged with threatening or
scaring someone will often plead that the entire incident was an accident or the
result of a misunderstanding. To defeat such a claim, the prosecution will have to
show that the defendant meant for the victim to become threatened. For example,
if the defendant is charged with assault for pointing a gun at the victim, it will not
matter what was going on inside the defendant’s mind at the time. Intent will be
inferred from the circumstances, because it is common knowledge that people fear
for their safety when a gun is pointed at them. On the other hand, consider a
defendant with a dog who approaches an individual who, unbeknownst to the
defendant, is deathly afraid of dogs. In this situation, the defendant’s ignorance of
the victim’s phobia will defeat the assault charge. Of course, if the defendant knew
ix

about the phobia, then the intent requirement is satisfied and the defendant can be
convicted.

2.3 ASSAULT AND BATTERY

While both assault and battery are crimes, they are not the same offense. It is
common for the two crimes to be confused or used interchangeably in
conversation, though there is a key difference. The main difference between a
battery charge and an assault charge is the actual presence of harm and the threat of
harm. Someone can only be charged with battery if they have caused real physical
harm to someone, while a person can be charged with assault if the mere threat of
harm is present.

2.4 DEFENCES TO ASSAULT

a) That the prosecution has failed to prove any of the statutory elements of assault

b) Victim’s consent

c) Intoxication of the defendant (in some cases)

d) Self-defense. To prove self-defense, the defendant must show the assault was
reasonably necessary to protect the defendant against equal or greater bodily harm
that would have been inflicted by the victim.

e) Grave provocation.

2.5 PUNISHMENT FOR ASSAULT

352. Punishment for assault or criminal force otherwise than on grave

provocation.—Whoever assaults or uses criminal force to any person otherwise
than on grave and sudden provocation given by that person, shall be punished with
imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to three months,
or with fine which may extend to five hundred rupees, or with both.

Explanation.—Grave and sudden provocation will not mitigate the punishment for
an offence under this section, if the provocation is sought or voluntarily provoked
by the offender as an excuse for the offence, or if the provocation is given by
x

anything done in obedience to the law, or by a public servant, in the lawful

exercise of the powers of such public servant, or
if the provocation is given by anything done in the lawful exercise of the right of
private defense. Whether the provocation was grave and sudden enough to
mitigate the offence is a question of fact.

This section provides punishment for assault or criminal force, otherwise than on
grave provocation with imprisonment of either description for three months , or
with fine which may extend to five hundred rupees or both. To constitute the
offence of assault , the following need to be proved:
a) That the accused made a gesture or preparation to use criminal force
b) That the accused knew that it was likely that such a gesture or preparation to use
criminal force would cause apprehension that such assault or use of force would be
done
c) That no grave or sudden provocation was received from the victim

This offence is non-cognizable ,bailable, compondable, and triable by any

magistrate.
A non-cognizable offence has been defined in Criminal Procedure Code as
follows, "non-cognizable offence' means an offence for which, and `non-
cognizable case' means a case in which, a police officer has no authority to arrest
without warrant". Non-Cognizable offenses are those which are not much serious
in nature such as assault, cheating forgery etc.

2.6 ASSAULT AND CRIMINAL FORCE DIFFERENTIATED

Assault:
1. Assault is defined in Sec. 351 I.P.C

2. There is no physical contact in an assault.

3. It is an ‘attempt’ to commit force/criminal force.

4. Every assault may not include force/criminal force.

5. An assault is an over act indicating an immediate to commit force/criminal force

coupled with the capacity of carrying out the intention into effect.
xi

6. In order to constitute an assault it is also necessary that the person so assaulted

must, on reasonable grounds, believe that the person assaulting has the ability to
apply the force/criminal force so attempted by him,

7. Throwing the water upon a person is an assault.

8. Assault is a lesser form of offence, comparing with force/criminal force..

Force/Criminal Force:
1. Force is explained in Sec. 349 and Criminal

2. Force is explained in Sec. 350 of I.P.C. There is physical contact or fear in the
mind of the aggrieved person in the application of force/criminal force is seen.

3. In Force/Criminal Force the action of the wrong-doer is completed.

4. But every force/criminal force must always include assault.

5. The force/criminal force is something more in it an intentional application of

force to the person of another without lawful justification is necessary.

6. No such belief is needed in force/criminal force. On the other hand, the

application of even the slightest amount of force is actionable. Even a slight touch
to person or causing fear is sufficient.

7. As soon as the water falls on the person, it becomes force.

8. Force/criminal force are the higher form of offence comparing with assault.

4. AGGRAVATED FORMS OF ASSAULT

4.1 ASSAULT OR CRMINAL FORCE TO DETER PULIC SERVANT

xii

Section 353. Assault or criminal force to deter public servant from discharge
of his duty.—Whoever assaults or uses criminal force to any person being a
public servant in the execution of his duty as such public servant, or with intent to
prevent or deter that person from discharging his duty as such public
servant, or in consequence of anything done or attempted to be done by such
person to the lawful discharge of his duty as such public servant, shall be punished
with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to two years,
or with fine, or with both.

A public servant works in risky environments and may have to face dangerous
situations. The law protects the public servant by punishing those who offend the
law , of which the public servant is a minister. Only those officers who are engaged
at the time in the discharge of their duties are entitled to protection.

Ingredients:

a. The victim must be a public servant

b. At the time of the assault he must have been acting in execution of his duty and
the assault was intended to stop him from discharging his duty.

4.2 ASSAULT OR CRIMINAL FORCE TO WOMAN TO OUTRAGE HER

MODESTY

Section 354. Assault or criminal force to woman with intent to outrage her
modesty.—Whoever assaults or uses criminal force to any woman, intending to
outrage or knowing it to be likely that he will there by outrage her modesty,[shall
be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which shall not be
less than one year but which may extend to five years, and shall also be liable to
fine].

To convict a person for this offence, the prosecution will have to prove that not
only did the accused assault a woman but he did so with either the intent to outrage
her modesty or with the knowledge that his act was likely to do so5. What
constitutes outraging of modesty have nowhere been defined in the IPC. It can be
defined as the quality of being modest6 , reserve or sense of shame proceeding
from instinctive aversion to impure or coarse suggestion. The ultimate test of
whether modesty of a woman has been outraged is whether the assault against the
5
Ram Das v State of West Bengal AIR 1954 SC 711.
6
State of Punjab v Major Singh AIR 1967 SC 63.
xiii

woman was capable of shocking the sense of decency of the woman.Use of

criminal force leading to the offence of outraging the modesty of a woman can
range from holding her hand to any heinous nature of sexual assault which may fall
short of penile penetration. Outraging the modesty of a woman is distinct from
rape. In case of rape, there must be some action on the part of the accused to show
that he was intending to penetrate the woman.

ASSAULT OR CRIMINAL FORCE WITH INTENT TO DISROBE A

WOMAN

Section 354B. ASSAULT OR CRIMINAL FORCE WITH INTENT TO

DISROBE A WOMAN— Any man who assaults or uses criminal force to any
woman or abets such act with the intention of disrobing or compelling her to
be naked, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term
which shall not be less than three years but which may extend to seven years, and
shall also be liable to fine.

This section was added to the IPC by the Criminal Law (Amendment) Act 2013. It
makes an assault or use of criminal force against a woman, by a man to disrobe her
or to make her naked against her will, an offence punishable with simple or
rigorous imprisonment for a term ranging between three and seven years, with
fine. This section ensures that disrobing of a woman will no longer just be a mere
outraging of modesty and the perpetrator will not get lighter punishment.

CONCLUSION

Assault and criminal force have been dealt with extensively in the IPC. The IPC
clearly set out the definitions of both these terms and prescribes punishment for
their violation. There is, however, a need to reform the provisions dealing with
criminal force and assault with changes in social behavior and advances in
technology. These reforms range from revision to deletion of some of the
provisions. The Fifth Law Commission has given a set of proposals ranging from
xiv

including a subsection on assault on minors to doing away with the complex

definition of ‘force’ under section 349.

6. REFRENCES

1. Glanville Williams, Textbook on Criminal law, chapter 9.

2. K D Gaur, Textbook on Indian Penal Code
3. PSA Pillai’s Criminal Law
4. “Assault and Battery Overview”. Criminal.findlaw.com Retreived 30 October
2017.
xv

5. Indian Penal Code Chapter XVI