Mayhem
Chapter Twenty-Three
Syllabus topic 2.1, "Trespass to Person: Assault, Battery, Mayhem, False imprisonment."
Pages 98 to 100 of 434
In one line
Mayhem is an aggravated battery which deprives a person of a part of the body useful in defending himself.
In the wording a student can write in an exam: mayhem, sometimes spelled maim, is a form of trespass to the person consisting of a bodily injury that deprives the plaintiff of the use of a member which would be useful to him in fighting or in defending himself; it originated as a distinct wrong because such an injury weakened the King's fighting strength, and in modern law it is treated as an aggravated battery, the corresponding penal provision in India being the definition of grievous hurt.
The origin of the wrong
Mayhem is a very old head of liability and its history explains its odd shape. In medieval England the King was entitled to the military service of his subjects, and an injury that made a man less able to fight was therefore a wrong to the King as well as to the man. Depriving him of a hand, a finger, an eye or a front tooth was mayhem; injuries that disfigured without weakening, such as cutting off an ear or the nose, were not.
That distinction between what weakens and what merely disfigures is what students are expected to know, and it is also why the category has practically disappeared: modern law compensates disfigurement as readily as disablement.
The position in modern law
In tort, mayhem is not a separate cause of action in India. A plaintiff sues for battery, and the maiming goes to the seriousness of the wrong and therefore to the damages. What survives of mayhem is the idea that some batteries are far graver than others.
In the penal law, the corresponding idea is grievous hurt. Section 116 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita 2023 designates the kinds of hurt that are grievous, and the list is recognisably descended from mayhem: emasculation, permanent privation of the sight of either eye, permanent privation of the hearing of either ear, privation of any member or joint, destruction or permanent impairing of the powers of any member or joint, permanent disfiguration of the head or face, fracture or dislocation of a bone or tooth, and any hurt which endangers life or which causes the sufferer to be during the space of fifteen days in severe bodily pain or unable to follow his ordinary pursuits.
Note that permanent disfiguration of the head or face is in the list. The penal law, unlike the old law of mayhem, does not require the injury to weaken the victim's ability to fight.
Where the idea still does real work
Damages. The measure of general damages for personal injury turns on the nature and permanence of the disability, and a maiming injury attracts a far larger award. Chapter [Kinds of Damages] and, for accident claims, chapter [Computing Just Compensation] work out how a court arrives at the figure.
Mayhem
Compensation for grievous hurt under statute. Section 164 of the Motor Vehicles Act 1988 fixes compensation of two and a half lakh rupees for grievous hurt in a motor accident without any proof of fault, and section 145 of that Act, as substituted in 2019, adopts the penal definition of grievous hurt for the purposes of the insurance chapter. Chapter [Liability without Fault] works that out.
Consumer claims. Where a defective product maims a consumer, the Consumer Protection Act 2019 gives a remedy in product liability, which chapter [Product Liability] deals with.
A worked example
In a fight outside a shop, Ravi strikes Sunil three times.
The first blow knocks out one of Sunil's front teeth. On the old law that is mayhem, because a tooth used in fighting is a member useful in defence. Under section 116 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita 2023 the fracture or dislocation of a tooth is grievous hurt.
The second blow slits Sunil's ear. On the old law that is not mayhem, because it disfigures without weakening. Under the Sanhita it is not within the list unless it amounts to permanent disfiguration of the head or face, which on these facts it may.
The third blow breaks Sunil's arm. That is grievous hurt as a fracture of a bone, and in the old language a deprivation of the use of a member.
In the civil suit Sunil pleads battery for all three, and the maiming enters as an aggravating feature which increases the damages. He does not plead three different torts.
Distinctions that carry marks
| Battery | Mayhem | |
|---|---|---|
| Nature | Any application of force | An aggravated battery |
| Injury | None need result | A member useful in fighting is lost or disabled |
| Modern Indian equivalent | Criminal force, section 129 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita 2023 | Grievous hurt, section 116 |
| Separate cause of action today? | Yes | No; it goes to damages |
What it does NOT mean
It is not a separate suit. A plaintiff sues in battery and relies on the maiming for damages.
It does not require disfigurement. The old test was loss of fighting capacity, and disfigurement alone was outside it.
The penal test is wider than the old civil one. Section 116 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita 2023 includes permanent disfiguration of the head or face and hurts that keep the sufferer in severe pain for twenty days.
Quick revision
- Mayhem is an aggravated battery depriving a person of a member useful in fighting.
- Its origin is the King's interest in the fighting strength of his subjects.
- Disfigurement without loss of fighting capacity was not mayhem.
- In India today it is not a separate cause of action; it is battery, and the maiming increases the damages.
- The corresponding penal idea is grievous hurt, section 116 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita 2023, which lists emasculation, loss of sight or hearing, privation or impairing of a member or joint, permanent disfiguration of the head or face, fracture or dislocation of a bone or tooth, and hurts endangering life or causing fifteen days of severe pain or incapacity.
- Section 164 of the Motor Vehicles Act 1988 gives two and a half lakh rupees for grievous hurt without proof of fault.
Mayhem
Test yourself
1. What is mayhem, and what is its place in modern Indian law? Mayhem, or maim, is an aggravated form of battery consisting of a bodily injury that deprives the plaintiff of the use of a member useful to him in fighting or defending himself, such as a hand, a finger, an eye or a front tooth. It began as a distinct wrong because an injury of that kind reduced the fighting strength available to the King, and injuries that merely disfigured, such as cutting off an ear, fell outside it. In modern Indian law it is not a separate cause of action: the plaintiff sues in battery and the maiming is relied on as an aggravating feature increasing the damages. The idea survives in the penal law as grievous hurt under section 116 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita 2023, and in the statutory compensation of two and a half lakh rupees for grievous hurt under section 164 of the Motor Vehicles Act 1988.
2. How does the penal definition of grievous hurt differ from the old law of mayhem? The old law asked whether the injury deprived the victim of a member useful in fighting, so disfigurement without loss of capacity was outside it. Section 116 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita 2023 is wider. It designates as grievous hurt emasculation, permanent privation of the sight of either eye or the hearing of either ear, privation of any member or joint, destruction or permanent impairing of the powers of any member or joint, permanent disfiguration of the head or face, fracture or dislocation of a bone or tooth, and any hurt which endangers life or which causes the sufferer to be for fifteen days in severe bodily pain or unable to follow his ordinary pursuits. Disfiguration of the head or face is therefore expressly included, and so are injuries defined by their duration rather than by the part of the body affected.
The rest of this subject
These notes are cut from the University's printed syllabus. Open the syllabus itself, or the past papers, for the same subject.