Hurt and Grievous Hurt for CLAT: Restraint vs Confinement

📑 On this page

⚡ The short answer

Hurt is causing bodily pain, disease or infirmity; no wound or weapon is needed. It becomes grievous hurt only if it falls in a closed list of eight serious harms, such as a fracture, a lost eye, or 15 days of severe pain. Wrongful restraint blocks one way you may lawfully go; wrongful confinement blocks every way out.

🎬 The 30-second story

Fest night at the auditorium

“Nobody goes up to the terrace. VIP zone.”

🚧

Aarav

Aarav blocks the only staircase. Zoya turns back.

“Stay in the sound room till my set's over.”

🔒

Aarav

He bolts Rohan inside. No window, no other door. Forty minutes.

“My tooth! It's cracked!”

🦷

Rohan

Freed, he gets shoved aside by Aarav and hits the frame. Fractured tooth.

“It was just a push!”

🚨

Aarav

The principal calls the police.

Tara's ruling: Blocking the stairs: wrongful restraint of Zoya. Bolting Rohan in, even briefly: wrongful confinement. A fractured tooth is a grievous hurt, but Aarav voluntarily caused grievous hurt only if he meant it or knew it was likely. A mere shove may leave him with plain voluntarily causing hurt.

What counts as hurt in criminal law?

The legal word hurt is wider than 'injury'. Causing anyone bodily pain, disease or infirmity is hurt; infirmity means an organ not working properly, even briefly. A hair-pull, a stinging slap or a nauseating drug in a drink all qualify. No blood, no bruise, no certificate.

It doesn't even need contact. The old Code's drafters gave the example of a blade hidden in grass where a neighbour walks. Nobody attacks anybody, yet the pain is hurt.

🧮 The formula

Voluntarily causing hurt

👊

An act

a blow, a trap, a drug

🤕

Pain, disease or infirmity

no wound needed

🎯

Intention or knowledge

meant it, or knew it was likely

⚖️

Voluntarily causing hurt

The third tile decides most questions. A cricket ball that clips a spectator in a normal game isn't voluntary hurt. Rash or negligent harm, like bowling full pace in a crowded corridor, is a separate, lighter offence.

📌 What CLAT actually expects

The passage defines the offence. Match each word to the facts: what harm, how long, intended or not, which direction blocked, any way out? Section numbers never matter.

When does hurt become grievous hurt?

Grievous hurt isn't just 'very bad hurt'. It's a closed list of eight kinds, and only those count. A deep stab that heals in a week without endangering life can be simple hurt; a cracked tooth is grievous. Rough, but clear.

🧩 At a glance

The only eight grievous hurts

⚠️Emasculation

Depriving a man of masculine power.

👁️Loss of sight

Permanent, in either eye.

👂Loss of hearing

Permanent, in either ear.

✋Loss of a limb or joint

Deprived of any member or joint.

🦿Crippled limb or joint

Its powers destroyed or permanently impaired.

🩹Disfigured head or face

Permanent, like a cut nose.

🦴Fracture or dislocation

Of a bone or tooth.

⏳Danger to life, or 15 days

Endangers life, or 15 days of severe pain or incapacity.

⚠️ 15 days or 20?

The old Penal Code said 20 days; the new code (the BNS) says 15. Older notes still say 20. In the exam, use the number the passage gives.

How does the 15-day clock work?

Endangers life means the injury itself put life at risk, not that it looked scary. The time limb needs severe pain, or inability to follow ordinary pursuits like college or work, for the whole period. Merely lying in hospital that long proves nothing; the incapacity must be shown.

🕒 Timeline

Same punch, two outcomes

👊
Day 1

The blow lands

Pain, no fracture. Hurt, not yet grievous.
🎒
Day 9

Back in class

Recovery here keeps it simple hurt.
🛏️
Day 14

Still bedridden

Close, but the clock hasn't run out.
⚖️
Day 15

Still in severe pain

Period complete: grievous hurt.

Meant one harm, caused another?

Voluntarily causing grievous hurt needs both: grievous hurt caused, and grievous hurt intended or known to be likely. The kinds needn't match. Aim to scar a face for life, and if the scar fades but the victim suffers 15 days of severe pain, it's still voluntary grievous hurt.

Flip it. A light shove causes a freak fracture. Only simple hurt was meant or foreseen, so the offence is voluntarily causing hurt, unless he knew of brittle bones. Same logic at the homicide line: endangering life is grievous hurt; knowing it was likely to kill points to culpable homicide.

🧭 Decision flow

Simple hurt or grievous hurt?

❓ Did the act cause bodily pain, disease or infirmity?

No →

No hurt

Check criminal force instead.

Yes ↓

❓ Was hurt intended, or known to be likely?

No →

Not voluntary hurt

Rashness may be a lighter offence.

Yes ↓

❓ Does the harm fit one of the eight kinds?

No →

Voluntarily causing hurt

Yes ↓

❓ Was grievous hurt of any kind intended or foreseen?

No →

Voluntarily causing hurt only

Yes ↓

❓ Was a dangerous weapon or means used?

Knife, fire, poison, acid, an animal.

Yes →

Grievous hurt by dangerous means

No →

Voluntarily causing grievous hurt

What makes hurt worse, or milder?

🎚️ The scale

From a sting to a scar for life

← LighterHeaviest →

Simple hurt

Pain, nothing listed.

e.g. A slap

Hurt by dangerous means

Knife, fire, poison, animal.

e.g. A dog urged to bite

Grievous hurt

One of the eight.

e.g. A fist breaks a jaw

Grievous by dangerous means

Listed harm plus weapon.

e.g. A blade cuts bone

Acid attack

Its own, harshest offence.

e.g. Fine goes to the victim

✓Purpose: hurt to extort money, force an illegal act, or squeeze out a confession (police torture is the classic case) is punished more.
✓Victim: hurting a public servant on duty, or to stop their duty, is worse.
✓Provocation: hurt on grave and sudden provocation, aimed only at the provoker, is punished far more lightly.

💡 A weapon isn't part of grievous hurt

Bare hands can break a bone; a weapon only raises the band. 'Dangerous' depends on size, sharpness and use, so a stone isn't automatically one.

What is wrongful restraint?

Now from the body to movement. Wrongful restraint is voluntarily obstructing a person so they can't go in a direction they have a right to go. Three checks: a person blocked, deliberately, from a lawful way.

✓Any obstruction: a wall, a body, a bus across the road. Blocking a bus restrains its passengers; an empty car isn't a person.
✓Threats count: 'Walk here and I'll set my savage dog on you' restrains you, even if the dog is harmless.
✓No right, no offence: stopping a stranger walking into your bedroom isn't restraint.
✓Good-faith exception: closing a private path you honestly believe you may close is a civil dispute, not this crime.

Inconvenience isn't obstruction. In Keki Hormusji Gharda (2009), the Supreme Court held directors weren't liable merely because road repairs made access harder; the blocking must be direct and physical.

How is wrongful confinement different from restraint?

⚔️ Side by side

One road blocked vs every road blocked

🚧Wrongful restraint

blocks one way

•Free to go any other way
•Partial loss of liberty
•Lighter punishment

🔒Wrongful confinement

blocks every way out

•Kept within a boundary, however large
•Total loss of liberty inside it
•Heavier; worse with days, secrecy or motive

Test	Wrongful restraint	Wrongful confinement
Relationship	The wider offence	A special kind of restraint
Example	A wall across your path	Locked in a room
How long?	Any time	Minutes are enough
Barrier needed?	No; threats work	No; fear of being seized works

Every confinement is a restraint; not every restraint is a confinement.

Does there need to be a lock?

Situation	Confined?	Why
Armed men at the exits threaten to shoot anyone leaving	Yes	Every way out is blocked though doors are open.
Workers gherao a manager's office until demands are met	Yes	Courts have held such gheraos illegal.
Police hold a man past 24 hours without a magistrate	Yes	Once lawful authority ends, custody is confinement.
An adult is told 'don't leave', door open, nothing backing it	Usually no	Bare words create no reasonable fear of being stopped.

→ scroll to see more

The test is the victim's reasonable belief that leaving means being seized. Time matters only for punishment: three or ten days, secret confinement, extortion, or ignoring a release order all carry more.

ℹ️ Crime vs tort

Tort's false imprisonment needs a total restraint, so blocking one path isn't false imprisonment. Criminal law still punishes it as wrongful restraint. Check which branch the passage is on.

Which cases decide hurt and confinement questions?

🦴

Landmark case · 1969 · Supreme Court

Hori Lal v State of UP

📋

What happened

The accused attacked a man with kantas, sharp-edged weapons, leaving wounds that cut into his bones. They argued no bone was 'fractured'.

❓

The question

Is a cut into the bone a fracture?

🔨

What the court held

Yes. A fracture needn't go right through the bone; a break by cutting or splintering, a rupture or a fissure is enough. Conviction upheld.

What CLAT takes from it: Read 'fracture' practically: a crack or bone-deep cut counts.

🪨

Landmark case · 2005 · Supreme Court

Mathai v State of Kerala

📋

What happened

The accused hit a man on the head with a stone, fracturing a front tooth. He was convicted of grievous hurt by a dangerous weapon.

❓

The question

Grievous hurt? And was the stone 'dangerous'?

🔨

What the court held

The fractured tooth made it grievous. But a stone isn't dangerous by default; size and nature decide, and this one wasn't shown to be. Conviction reduced to plain grievous hurt.

What CLAT takes from it: Two separate questions: what harm, and what means.

🚔

Landmark case · 2010 · Supreme Court

CBI v Kishore Singh

📋

What happened

A man was held in a police lock-up for about two and a half days without being produced before a magistrate, beaten, and mutilated with a razor by one officer.

❓

The question

Was the officer in charge, who didn't wield the razor, guilty?

🔨

What the court held

Yes, of wrongful confinement: an arrested person must reach a magistrate within 24 hours. The razor attack was premeditated grievous hurt by a dangerous weapon, not a provoked act.

What CLAT takes from it: A uniform is no shield: detention without legal authority is confinement.

How would CLAT test hurt and confinement?

Honest note: no CLAT UG paper from 2018 to 2025 has set a question squarely on hurt or confinement; 2019 asked one-line criminal-force principles, a close cousin. These are CLAT-style practice questions, built like real passages.

🧪 CLAT-style practice (not a past question) The 15-day line

Hurt means causing bodily pain, disease or infirmity to any person. Only these kinds of hurt are grievous: permanent loss of sight or hearing of either eye or ear; loss or permanent impairment of a limb or joint; permanent disfigurement of the head or face; fracture or dislocation of a bone or tooth; and hurt which endangers life, or causes the sufferer to be in severe bodily pain, or unable to follow his ordinary pursuits, for fifteen days.

P punches Q in the stomach. There is no fracture and Q's life is never in danger, but he is in severe pain and misses office for 12 days, then recovers. P is liable for:

AGrievous hurt, because Q was in severe pain.

BHurt, but not grievous hurt.

CNo offence, as there was no visible injury.

DGrievous hurt, because P intended pain.

Reveal answer + reasoning

Answer: B

Pain is hurt. The only grievous fit would be the time limb, which needs fifteen days; Q was out for twelve.

Why the others fail

A — Severe pain counts only for fifteen days.
C — Hurt needs pain, not a wound.
D — Intending pain is intending simple hurt.

🧪 CLAT-style practice (not a past question) Confinement without a lock

Whoever wrongfully restrains any person so as to prevent that person from proceeding beyond certain circumscribing limits wrongfully confines that person. A physical barrier is not necessary; it is enough if the circumstances create a reasonable belief in the person's mind that he would be seized at once if he tried to leave.

T wrongly suspects customer U of shoplifting. He says, 'Step out before the police come and my guards will grab you,' and two guards stand at the open door. U waits 30 minutes; the police find nothing. T has:

ACommitted no offence, as the door was open.

BCommitted no offence, as it lasted only 30 minutes.

CWrongfully confined U.

DOnly wrongfully restrained U, as U was never touched.

Reveal answer + reasoning

Answer: C

A reasonable belief of being seized is enough. Guards plus an explicit threat close every way out. The passage gives no defence for honest suspicion, so don't invent one.

Why the others fail

A — An open door is no exit if leaving means being grabbed.
B — Time affects punishment, not guilt.
D — Touch is irrelevant; every exit was blocked.

Can you dodge these traps?

💥 Myth vs fact

Traps students fall for

🙅 Myth

No visible injury, no hurt.

Tap to bust it →

✅ Fact

Pain, disease or infirmity is enough. A drugged drink counts.

🙅 Myth

A deep stab is always grievous.

Tap to bust it →

✅ Fact

Only the eight kinds count. A stab that heals fast without danger to life can be simple hurt.

🙅 Myth

Grievous hurt needs a weapon.

Tap to bust it →

✅ Fact

Bare hands can break a bone. A weapon only raises the band.

🙅 Myth

No lock, no confinement.

Tap to bust it →

✅ Fact

Threats at the exits are enough, and minutes will do.

🎯 Quick quiz

Five fact patterns, four offences

0 / 5

As a prank, Aarav stirs a laxative into Zoya's juice. She is ill for a day.

Q1. What has Aarav done?

Rohan lightly slaps Kabir. Due to an unknown ear condition, Kabir permanently loses hearing in one ear.

Q2. Rohan is guilty of:

Angry at a delivery boy, Rohan locks him in a lift lobby with no other exit for 20 minutes.

Q3. Which offence fits best?

Suppose a law said confinement must last at least an hour. Aarav bolts Zoya in a changing room for 20 minutes.

Q4. Under this rule, Aarav has committed:

Kabir fences a footpath across his farm, honestly believing villagers have no right of way. Rohan is blocked.

Q5. Is Kabir guilty of wrongful restraint?

🎯 Hurt and confinement in a nutshell

Hurt = bodily pain, disease or infirmity; no wound needed.
Grievous hurt is a closed list of eight; the time limb is 15 days.
Voluntary grievous hurt needs the harm and intent or knowledge of it.
Restraint blocks one lawful way; confinement blocks every way out.
Threats can restrain or confine; time changes only the punishment.

📎 Good to know, not to memorise

BNS 2023: s.114 hurt, s.115 voluntary hurt, s.116 grievous hurt, s.117 voluntary grievous hurt, s.118 dangerous weapons, s.122 provocation, s.124 acid. IPC ss.319–338; IPC s.320 said 20 days.
BNS s.126 wrongful restraint; s.127 wrongful confinement and its aggravated forms (IPC ss.339–348).
Private defence extends to causing death against an assault threatening grievous hurt, or confinement cutting off the authorities (BNS s.38; IPC s.100).
Hori Lal, AIR 1970 SC 1969; Mathai, (2005) 3 SCC 260; Keki Hormusji Gharda, (2009) 6 SCC 475; CBI v Kishore Singh, (2011) 6 SCC 369.

Make the element-check automatic

Timed criminal law questions with every option explained.

Practise Criminal Law drills

Frequently asked questions

What is the difference between hurt and grievous hurt?

Hurt is any bodily pain, disease or infirmity. Grievous hurt is a closed list of eight serious kinds, such as permanent loss of sight or hearing, a crippled limb, permanent facial disfigurement, a fractured bone or tooth, or hurt that endangers life or causes 15 days of severe pain.

Is it 15 days or 20 days for grievous hurt?

Under the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, which replaced the Indian Penal Code, it is 15 days. The old Code said 20, so older books use 20. In CLAT, always apply the number the passage states.

Can someone cause hurt without touching the victim?

Yes. Hurt is about the result, not contact. Poisoning a drink or setting a dog on someone can cause hurt, provided the accused intended the harm or knew it was likely.

What is the difference between wrongful restraint and wrongful confinement?

Wrongful restraint blocks a person from a direction they have a right to take, leaving other ways open. Wrongful confinement keeps a person within a boundary so they can't leave in any direction. Confinement is the more serious, special kind of restraint.

Is a few minutes enough for wrongful confinement?

Yes. A few minutes behind a bolted door is enough for guilt. Duration matters only for punishment: three or more days, ten or more days, secret confinement, or confining someone to extort money all attract heavier sentences.