If you are a criminal lawyer, law student, or an accused person navigating India’s new legal landscape, understanding Section 118(1) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS), 2023 is no longer optional. It is essential.
Effective from July 1, 2024, the BNS replaced the Indian Penal Code, 1860. One of the most practically impactful changes came in the area of hurt caused by dangerous weapons. What was once governed by Section 324 IPC now falls under Section 118(1) BNS, bringing with it a crucial procedural shift that catches many practitioners off guard: the offence is now non-bailable.
This guide breaks down everything you need to know about Section 118(1) BNS, from its legal ingredients and bail strategy to how to challenge weapon classification and win at trial.
Overview
Section 118 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita consolidates two older IPC provisions into a single, streamlined section:
- Section 118(1) BNS corresponds to Section 324 IPC (hurt by dangerous weapons or means)
- Section 118(2) BNS corresponds to Section 326 IPC (grievous hurt by dangerous weapons or means)
This article focuses specifically on Section 118(1), which targets situations where non-grievous injury is caused using a dangerous weapon or harmful means such as a knife, firearm, poison, fire, acid, explosive substance, or any other object likely to cause death when used as a weapon.
The offence is:
- Cognizable (police can arrest without warrant)
- Non-bailable (bail is not a matter of right)
- Non-compoundable (cannot be settled between parties without court permission)
- Triable by any Magistrate
All existing judicial precedents under Section 324 IPC continue to apply to Section 118(1) BNS, which provides a rich body of case law for both prosecution and defense.
Section 118(1) BNS: Dangerous Weapon Hurt
Text of the Provision
Section 118(1) BNS states that whoever voluntarily causes hurt by means of any instrument for shooting, stabbing, or cutting, or any instrument which, when used as a weapon of offence, is likely to cause death, or by means of fire or any heated substance, poison or any corrosive substance, or by means of any explosive substance, or by means of any substance harmful to the human body, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to three years, or with a fine of up to Rs. 20,000, or with both.
Essential Ingredients
For a conviction under Section 118(1) BNS, the prosecution must establish all of the following elements beyond reasonable doubt:
- Voluntariness: The accused intentionally caused the hurt, not by accident.
- Dangerous Weapon or Means: The instrument or substance used falls within the categories described in the section.
- Actual Hurt: Bodily pain, disease, or infirmity was caused to the victim.
- Causal Link: The dangerous weapon or means was the direct cause of the hurt.
As established in Pitchavadhmtiilu v. State of AP (2011 Cr LJ 469), there must be complete correspondence between the result and the intention of the accused. A mismatch between intent and outcome can dissolve the charge entirely.
What Qualifies as a Dangerous Weapon?
This is where most trials are actually won or lost. The BNS lists specific categories:
- Instruments for shooting, stabbing, or cutting (firearms, knives, swords)
- Objects likely to cause death when used as a weapon (iron rods, heavy stones depending on size and manner of use)
- Fire or heated substances (burning material, hot oil)
- Poison or corrosive substances (acid)
- Explosive substances
- Any substance harmful to the human body
In Kumaran v. State of Kerala (2025), the Kerala High Court held that stones are not inherently dangerous weapons. Their classification depends on factors such as size, sharpness, and the potential to cause death. The prosecution failed to prove these aspects, and the court reduced the charge to simple hurt under Section 323.
This ruling is a landmark for defense practitioners in 2026. Object classification is not automatic. It must be proven.
Key Changes from IPC 324 (Bail Shift)
This is where Section 118(1) BNS diverges most dramatically from its predecessor. Under IPC Section 324, the offence was bailable, meaning the accused had a right to bail. Under Section 118(1) BNS, that right no longer exists.
Comparison: IPC 324 vs BNS 118(1)
| Parameter | IPC Section 324 | BNS Section 118(1) |
| Nature | Bailable | Non-bailable |
| Fine | Not specified | Up to Rs. 20,000 |
| Bail right | Automatic | Discretionary |
| Dangerous means | Listed | Expanded (includes animals) |
| Applicable from | Before July 1, 2024 | After July 1, 2024 |
| Precedents | Fully applicable | Continue under BNS |
The BNS also expands the list of dangerous means to include the use of animals, which was not explicitly covered under IPC 324. This is a significant substantive change that practitioners must account for in rural or agrarian dispute cases.
The fine structure has also been formalized. While IPC 324 allowed a fine without specifying a maximum, BNS 118(1) caps it at Rs. 20,000, providing greater certainty at the sentencing stage.
Arrest and Bail Strategy
Since Section 118(1) BNS is non-bailable, pre-trial detention is the default position unless the accused successfully applies for bail. The procedural roadmap under the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS) is as follows:
Step-by-Step Arrest Procedure
- FIR is registered at the police station.
- The victim’s Medico-Legal Certificate (MLC) is recorded.
- If the weapon is recovered, videography is mandatory under Section 105 BNSS.
- Police arrest the accused and must produce them before the Magistrate within 24 hours.
- The weapon is sent to the Forensic Science Laboratory (FSL) for examination.
Filing for Bail
The accused must apply for bail under Section 481 BNSS. Courts assess the following factors:
- Severity and nature of the injury
- Type of weapon used and its capacity to cause death
- Criminal antecedents of the accused
- Risk of tampering with evidence or influencing witnesses
- Whether the accused poses a threat to public safety
Grounds That Improve Bail Chances
- The accused has no prior criminal record
- The injury is minor and the MLC reflects no life-threatening harm
- There is a strong dispute about whether the object qualifies as a dangerous weapon
- The weapon was not recovered or the recovery was not videographed
- The matter appears to stem from a sudden quarrel without premeditation
For anticipatory bail, the application goes to the Sessions Court or the High Court under the BNSS framework.
Challenging the ‘Weapon’ and ‘Intent’
The most effective defense strategies under Section 118(1) BNS directly attack the two core elements: the dangerous nature of the weapon and the voluntary intent of the accused.
Challenging Weapon Classification
If the object used was a household item (mobile phone, pen, plastic bottle, or a small stone), argue that it does not fall within the categories described in Section 118(1). A weapon is “dangerous” not just by its nature but by its use, size, sharpness, and the circumstances of the incident.
Support this with:
- Expert opinion or FSL report on the nature of the object
- Medical evidence showing injury inconsistent with the claimed weapon (e.g., FIR says “stabbed with knife” but MLC shows blunt trauma)
- The Kumaran precedent to argue for reclassification under Section 115(2) BNS (simple hurt), which is bailable
Challenging Intent
To secure a conviction, the prosecution must prove the hurt was voluntary, meaning the accused acted with knowledge or intention that the act would cause harm. Defense avenues include:
- Accidental injury: The weapon caused harm during a scuffle without any voluntary act by the accused
- Sudden quarrel: A sudden fight without premeditation can reduce the charge under Section 118(1) rather than escalate it to 118(2), as confirmed by the Supreme Court in cases involving reactive altercations
- Right of private defense: Under Sections 34-44 BNS, argue the weapon was used to repel an attack by the complainant. Support with CCTV footage, bystander videos authenticated under Section 61 BSA, or witness testimony showing the complainant was the aggressor.
Critical Pitfalls for Practitioners
Experienced criminal lawyers must avoid these common mistakes when handling Section 118(1) BNS matters:
1. Using “IPC 324” Language in Court Filings
Always cite Section 118(1) BNS in all applications and submissions. Filing bail applications or charge challenges using old IPC labels can result in the registry rejecting the application. The transition to BNS is complete and permanent for cases filed after July 1, 2024.
2. Accepting Non-Videographed Weapon Recoveries
Under Section 105 BNSS, weapon recovery must be videographed. If the prosecution cannot produce a valid video of the knife or weapon recovery, immediately move for discharge or argue for a weak charge-sheet. Non-compliance with Section 105 BNSS is a valid ground for acquittal in 2026.
3. Not Objecting to Police Custody on the Same Incident
Under Section 187 BNSS, once the weapon is already found and documented, police cannot seek Police Custody (PC) again for “further investigation” into the same incident. Raise this objection without delay.
4. Overlooking the MLC-FIR Discrepancy
A mismatch between the FIR allegation and the MLC findings is one of the strongest defense weapons available. If the FIR alleges a stab wound but the MLC records blunt trauma, the Section 118(1) charge becomes legally unstable. Examine both documents immediately upon receiving the case.
5. Failing to Authenticate Digital Evidence Properly
Under Section 63 BSA, digital evidence such as CCTV footage, WhatsApp messages, and mobile recordings must be authenticated through a valid certificate. Failure to do so makes such evidence inadmissible. Both prosecution and defense must comply with this requirement.
Trial and Evidence Strategy
Section 118(1) BNS trials follow the procedure of a Warrant Case before the Magistrate. This means the prosecution must file a formal charge-sheet, charges are framed, and then witnesses are examined.
Pillars of the Prosecution’s Case
- Testimony of the eyewitness to the incident
- Evidence of the Medical Officer who examined the victim
- FSL report on the nature of the weapon
- MLC of the victim
Defense Evidence Strategy
A strong defense at trial should include:
- Cross-examination of the MLC doctor: Expose any inconsistencies between the stated weapon and the injury pattern.
- FSL report analysis: If the weapon was not recovered or the FSL report is inconclusive about its capacity to cause death, use this to argue downgrade of charge.
- Eyewitness credibility attack: Examine whether the eyewitness had a clear line of sight, any prior enmity with the accused, or whether their version is inconsistent with the FIR.
- Private defense documentation: Submit authenticated digital evidence showing the complainant was the aggressor.
- Sudden quarrel argument: In cases of reactive altercations, cite precedents where courts reduced charges because premeditation was absent.
A single credible eyewitness combined with MLC support can sustain a conviction. The defense must therefore focus on creating reasonable doubt about weapon classification, intent, or the credibility of witnesses.
Final Thoughts
Section 118(1) BNS is not simply a renumbering of IPC 324. The bail shift from bailable to non-bailable changes the entire strategic calculus for both accused persons and their lawyers. Pre-trial liberty is no longer a right. It is something that must be argued for and won.
For practitioners in 2026, the key takeaways are clear: always use BNS terminology, challenge weapon classification aggressively using the Kumaran precedent, check for Section 105 BNSS compliance on recoveries, and build your trial defense around the MLC-FIR consistency check.
India’s criminal law reform under the BNS reflects a stricter approach toward weapon-based violence. But the law still demands proof of each ingredient. Intent must be established. The weapon must be classified correctly. And the evidence must be gathered lawfully.
A well-prepared lawyer who understands these dynamics can make the difference between conviction and acquittal, or between pre-trial detention and timely bail.
