Section 122 is the provocation exception referred to throughout Sections 115, 117, and 118: it reduces the punishment where hurt, or grievous hurt, is caused on grave and sudden provocation and the offender neither intends nor knows themselves likely to harm anyone other than the person who gave the provocation.
Verified against the National Crime Records Bureau's official BNS–IPC concordance (Sankalan Portal), which maps sub-section (1) to old IPC Section 334 and sub-section (2) to old IPC Section 335, and cross-checked directly against the bare text of both provisions.
| BNS section | IPC, 1860 equivalent | Category |
|---|---|---|
| 122(1) | 334 | Substantively changed |
| 122(2) | 335 | Substantively changed |
Comparing the texts word for word: sub-section (1)'s conduct description is unchanged from old IPC Section 334, but the maximum fine has increased from five hundred rupees to five thousand rupees. Sub-section (2)'s conduct description is unchanged from old IPC Section 335, but the maximum imprisonment term has increased from four years to five years, and the maximum fine from two thousand rupees to ten thousand rupees. The closing Explanation's cross-reference has been renumbered from old IPC Section 300 (Murder) to this Sanhita's own Section 101 (Murder), addressing the same underlying provision rather than a new one.
| Sub-section | Conduct | Punishment | Cognizable / Bailable / Court |
|---|---|---|---|
| (1) | Voluntarily causing hurt on grave and sudden provocation | Imprisonment for 1 month, or fine of ₹5,000, or both | Non-cognizable, Bailable, Any Magistrate |
| (2) | Voluntarily causing grievous hurt on grave and sudden provocation | Imprisonment for 5 years, or fine of ₹10,000, or both | Cognizable, Bailable, Magistrate of the first class |
(1) Whoever voluntarily causes hurt on grave and sudden provocation, if he neither intends nor knows himself to be likely to cause hurt to any person other than the person who gave the provocation, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to one month, or with fine which may extend to five thousand rupees, or with both.
(2) Whoever voluntarily causes grievous hurt on grave and sudden provocation, if he neither intends nor knows himself to be likely to cause grievous hurt to any person other than the person who gave the provocation, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to five years, or with fine which may extend to ten thousand rupees, or with both.
Explanation.—This section is subject to the same proviso as Exception 1 of section 101.
Source: Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 (Act No. 45 of 2023), as published in the Gazette of India Extraordinary.
This sub-section reduces the punishment for voluntarily causing hurt where two conditions are both met: the hurt was caused on grave and sudden provocation, and the offender neither intended nor knew themselves likely to hurt anyone other than the person who gave the provocation. The closing Explanation cross-refers to the proviso attached to Exception 1 of Section 101 (Murder), which limits when the provocation defence is available (for instance, provocation that is sought or voluntarily provoked by the offender does not qualify).
This sub-section applies the same provocation-based reduction to grievous hurt, with a higher punishment than sub-section (1) but still lower than the ordinary grievous hurt punishment under Section 117(2).
This judgment relates to Section 122 as a whole rather than to one specific sub-section, and so is presented together here rather than alongside a particular clause above.
A fight broke out between two groups of men; one person died, and others were hurt. The trial court originally convicted some of the accused of more serious offences (culpable homicide and causing hurt with a weapon), but the High Court, on appeal, took a second look at how the fight had actually started and altered their convictions down to simple and grievous hurt caused on grave and sudden provocation — exactly what Section 122 of the BNS now covers — recognising that the violence had grown out of a sudden quarrel rather than any planned attack. When the case reached the Supreme Court, the only real dispute left was over the sentence: the accused argued the courts below had imposed more punishment than the law actually allows for this specific, lesser offence. The Supreme Court agreed, quoting the provision's own capped punishment back at the lower courts and cutting the sentences down to match it — a one-month maximum for simple hurt on provocation, and a shorter sentence for the grievous-hurt variant than had been imposed. The case is a clear illustration of how Section 122 deliberately punishes hurt caused in the heat of sudden provocation far more lightly than hurt caused with a cooler mind.
No. It does not excuse the offence; it reduces the punishment compared to the ordinary hurt or grievous hurt provisions, provided the specific conditions in this section are met.
This section does not apply in that situation. Both sub-sections require that the offender neither intended nor knew themselves likely to cause hurt to anyone other than the person who gave the provocation.
It is the same proviso attached to Exception 1 of Section 101 (Murder), which restricts when provocation can be relied upon — for example, where the provocation was sought or voluntarily provoked by the offender as an excuse.
The maximum fine under sub-section (1) has increased from five hundred rupees to five thousand rupees. Under sub-section (2), the maximum imprisonment term has increased from four years to five years, and the maximum fine from two thousand rupees to ten thousand rupees.