i

Faculty of Law, JMI

PROJECT SUBMITTED ON

ASSAULT AND CRIMINAL FORCE IN THE IPC

SUBMITTED TO FACULTY
ii

CONTENTS:

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
iii

1. TABLE OF AUTHORITIES

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 ‘criminal force’ have distinct meanings and definitions in
the IPC. They deal with the different stages of commission of offence. In common
usage, these words have a similar meaning and they are clubbed together as a
single category of wrongs. In fact, 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. The moment
criminal force is used; it ceases to be just an assault as it goes beyond the
preparatory stage. In this assignment, I will try to elucidate the subtle differences
between the two concepts as well as throw light on some of the essentials of these
two 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.
v

1. CRIMINAL FORCE

Section 349 of the Indian Penal code defines the expression ‘force’. It merely
explains what amounts to ‘force’ but it does not constitute any offence. An
understanding of the term force is necessary to understand the definition of
criminal force and assault.

1.1 Force . 349.—A person is said to use force to another if he causes motion,
change of motion, or cessation of motion to that other, or if he causes to any
substance such motion, or change of motion, or cessation of motion as brings that
substance into contact with any part of that other's body, or with anything which
that other is wearing or carrying, or with anything so situated that such contact
affects that other's sense of feeling: Provided that the person causing the motion,
or change of motion, or cessation of motion, causes that motion, change of motion,
or cessation of motion in one of the three ways hereinafter described:

First— By his own bodily power.

Secondly.— By disposing any substance in such a manner that the motion or

change or cessation of motion takes place without any further act on his part, or
on the part of any other person.,

Thirdly — By inducing any animal to move, to change its motion, or to cease to

move.

We know that the general meaning of the term force is exertion of strength or
energy to produce change in the outer world1. This is done by either causing or
preventing motion. Force has many other different meanings like vigor, might,
power, violence, armament. In the IPC force is usually meant to be the physical
variant of the term as opposed to the mental or moral equivalent. This section
defines force in relation to human beings and not inanimate objects2. For instance,
destruction of property would not be covered by this section .The term ‘force’

1
Glanville Williams Textbook Of Criminal Law
2
Sadashiv Mondal v Emperor AIR 1915 Cal 131; Also in Maiku v State of Uttar Pradesh, AIR 1953 All 749.
vi

defined in this section contemplates force used by a human being on another

human being and not against an inanimate object. It may be exercised directly or
indirectly. For example, if A raises his stick to strike B and the latter moves away,
A’s act would constitute an offence under this section. To constitute force, the
following three ingredients must be present :

(1) The causing of motion

(2) Change of motion; or

(3) Cessation of motion

‘Force’ as defined in clause (i) of section 349 of the code contemplates the
presence of the person who uses the forces and also of the person against whom the
force is used. Thus, a motion or cessation of motion caused to property without
affecting a human being is not the ‘use of force to another’ within the meaning of
this section. This section minutely defines the term ‘force’. It delineates ‘force’ as
exertion of energy producing a movement or change in the external world. The
second paragraph of the section deals with a situation, where some other body is
interposed between the person using the force and the person on whom the force is
used.

In Chandrika Sao v. State of Bihar3 ,the accused snatched the account books from
the hands of an officer who was inspecting them. It was contended by the accused
that the mere snatching of books does not amount to using force as given in s 349
of the IPC. The Supreme court observed that from the bare perusal of section 349,
it becomes clear that one person is said to have used force against another if he
causes motion , change of motion or cessation of motion to that other. By
snatching away the books which the official was holding ,the accused caused a jerk
to the hand of the officer. Further, the natural effect of snatching the books from
the hands of the officer would be to affect or alter his current physical state. The
court therefore held that the action of the accused amounts to use of force as
contemplated by section 349 of the code.

3
AIR 1967 SC 170
vii

Section 350 defines Criminal Force;

1.2 350. Criminal force.—Whoever intentionally uses force to any person,

without that person's consent, in order to the committing of any offence, or
intending by the use of such force to cause, or knowing it to be likely that by the
use of such force he will cause injury, fear or annoyance to the person to whom the
force is used, is said to use criminal force to that other.

To designate a force as criminal, it must be used:

(1) Intentionally against any person.

(2) Without the person’s consent,

(3) To commit an offence , and

(4) with the intention to cause or knowing it to be likely to cause injury, fear or
annoyance to the person to whom it was caused.

This section makes it clear that the use of force by the offender must be intentional.
Negligent acts, therefore, would not fall under this section. The nature and extent
of the offence would depend upon the offender’s intention or knowledge, or the
likelihood of causing injury, fear or annoyance.4 It is necessary that criminal force
must be directed against a human being and not against a thing . Breaking open a
lock is not considered to be use of criminal force for the simple reason that
criminal force cannot be used against an inanimate object under this section5.

1.3 Elements to prove the offence of criminal force:

a. PHYSICAL ELEMENT OR ACTUS REUS:

i. The use of force against a person to without his or her consent. The word
consent should be taken as defined under section 90 of the IPC. Section 90 states
that “A consent is not such a consent as is intended by any section of this Code, if
the consent is given by a person under fear of injury, or under a misconception of
fact, and if the person doing the act knows, or has reason to believe, that the

4
Balram Sahu v Chandra Sahu AIR 1921 Pat 391.
5
Mangiram v Emperor, (1927) 28 Cr LJ 964
viii

consent was given in consequence of such fear or misconception….”. There is

clearly a difference between doing an act ‘without one’s consent’ and ‘against his
will’. The latter involves active mental opposition to the act.

ii. Such a use of force resulting in change of motion must be caused by one of the
three methods specified under s. 349: by his on bodily power, by disposing a
substance so as to cause motion without any further act on the part either party or
by inducing any animal to move.

b. FAULT ELEMENT OR MENS REA:

i. The first requirement is of intention. The accused must have intentionally or

willfully applied force. That is, he was fully aware of the consequences of his act.

ii. The second requirement is that of an ulterior purpose where the accused
intends, illegally, to cause injury, fear or annoyance or knows that injury , fear or
annoyance is likely to be caused. Breaking open a lock is not use of criminal force.
Criminal force may be applied directly or indirectly6. For instance, pushing a
person into a river would be direct application of criminal force and throwing a
stone intending or knowing it to likely cause injury or fear to another would be
indirect application of criminal force. The illustrations to section 349 further
elucidate the concept of criminal force.

Examples of situations against a person under section 350:

-Causing motion
(a) Z is sitting in a moored boat on a river. A unfastens the moorings, and thus
intentionally causes the boat to drift down the stream. Here A intentionally causes
motion to Z, and he does this by disposing substances in such a manner that the
motion is produced without any other action on any person's part. A has therefore
intentionally used force to Z; and if he has done so without without Z's consent, in
order to the committing of any offence, or intending or knowing it to be likely that
this use of force will cause injury, fear or annoyance to Z, A has used criminal
force to Z.

-Change of motion
(b) Z is riding in a chariot. A lashes Z's horses, and thereby causes them to quicken
their pace. Here A has caused change of motion to Z by inducing the animals to
6
Glanville Williams, Textbook Of Criminal Law (Sweet and Maxwell, 4th edn)
ix

change their motion. A has therefore used force to Z; and if A has done this
without Z's consent, intending or knowing it to be likely that he may thereby
injure, frighten or annoy Z, A has used criminal force to Z.

-Cessation of motion
(c) Z is riding in a palanquin. A, intending to rob Z, seizes the pole and stops the
palanquin. Here A has caused cessation of motion to Z, and he has done this by his
own bodily power. A has therefore used force to Z; and as A has acted thus
intentionally, without Z's consent, in order to the commission of an offence. A has
used criminal force to Z.

(d) A intentionally pushes against Z in the street. Here A has by his own bodily
power moved his own person so as to bring it into contact with Z. He has therefore
intentionally used force to Z; and if he has done so without Z's consent, intending
or knowing it to be likely that he may thereby injure, frighten or annoy Z, he has
used criminal force to Z.

(e) A intentionally pulls up a Woman's veil. Here A intentionally uses force to her,
and if he does so without her consent
intending or knowing it to be likely that he may thereby injure, frighten or annoy
her, he has used criminal force to her.

Criminal force under section 350 is a charge that is taken very seriously in India.
This is especially when criminal force is used in furtherance of sexual crimes such
as outraging the modesty of women or in cases of wrongful confinement as well as
in cases which deter a public servant from discharging his duty. The criminal law
(amendment) act, 2013, made changes in the IPC in order to deter sexual offences
by having harsher punishments. This was done in the wake of the Nirbhaya gang
rape case. Sexual offences such as Sexual harassment – section 354A, and Assault
or use of criminal force to woman with intent to disrobe – section 354B, have been
made stricter.

2. ASSAULT
x

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."7 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.

7
Black’s Law Dictionary
xi

(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 victim8. 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. Coker9, 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

8
K D Gaur, Textbook on Indian Penal Code 837 (LexisNexis, Kundli, 6th edn).
9
(1853) 13 CB 850
xii

at the time in England because it stated that word without a threatening gesture can
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 Kerala10, 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

10
AIR 2004 SC 536.
xiii

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

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
xiv

the victim’s phobia will defeat the assault charge. Of course, if the defendant knew
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
xv

by the offender as an excuse for the offence, or if the provocation is given by

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.

xvi

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.

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

xvii

4.1 ASSAULT OR CRMINAL FORCE TO DETER PULIC SERVANT

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 so11. What

11
Ram Das v State of West Bengal AIR 1954 SC 711.
xviii

constitutes outraging of modesty have nowhere been defined in the IPC. It can be
defined as the quality of being modest12 , 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
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.

4.3 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.

5. CONCLUSION

12
State of Punjab v Major Singh AIR 1967 SC 63.
xix

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
including a subsection on assault on minors to doing away with the complex
definition of ‘force’ under section 349.

6. REFRENCES
xx

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.
5. Indian Penal Code Chapter XVI