Section 123: Causing Hurt by Means of Poison, etc. with Intent to Commit an Offence

Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita • Chapter VI: Of Offences Affecting the Human Body • Official Statutory Text & Legal Guide

Chapter VI: Of Offences Affecting the Human Body
Court of Session
Non-Bailable
Cognizable
Formerly Sec 328 IPC

Legal Commentary & Landmark Judgments: Section 123

Section 123 penalizes causing hurt by means of poison, or any stupefying, intoxicating, or unwholesome drug, with intent to commit an offence, prescribing imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to ten years, and fine.

  • Administration of Noxious Substance: Administering poison, stupefying drugs, sedatives, or unwholesome substances (e.g. spiking drinks, chloroform).
  • Facilitating Criminal Design: Done with intent to commit an offence, or knowing it to be likely that an offence (theft, robbery, rape) will be facilitated.
  • Severe Ten-Year Custodial Ceiling: Penalizes railway drugging gangs, spiked-drink predators, and pharmacological assaults (formerly Section 328 IPC).
Key Landmark Precedents:
  • Joseph Kurian v. State of Kerala (1994) 6 SCC 535: The Supreme Court held that Section 328 IPC (Section 123 BNS) requires proof of deliberate administration of poison or unwholesome drug with intent to cause hurt or facilitate crime; accidental adulteration does not satisfy the section.
  • State of Maharashtra v. Som Nath Thapa (1996) 4 SCC 659: Affirmed that administering toxic chemical substances to disable victims during robberies constitutes completed Section 328 liability.
Courtroom Practice & Strategic Litigation Guidance:

In poisoned food or spiked drink trials, demand the FSL viscera or chemical examination report: if the forensic laboratory detects no traces of poison, sedatives, or stupefying drugs, Section 123 BNS charges must be quashed.