Under the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023, A, a revenue officer, tortures Z in order to compel him to pay…

Causing hurt to force satisfaction of a claim or demand falls within the specified hurt offence. Revenue arrears are such a demand, and no legally grievous injury is established by the stated facts.

Why not "Voluntarily causing grievous hurt to extort property, or to constrain to an illegal act"? This answer requires grievous hurt, a defined legal category that cannot be inferred merely from the word torture. The facts identify the purpose as enforcing revenue arrears and establish no particular grievous injury. The more directly applicable hurt offence also expressly addresses satisfaction of claims or demands.

Why not "Voluntarily causing grievous hurt to extort confession, or to compel restoration of property"? The coercive purpose is relevant to this aggravated offence, but its grievous-hurt requirement remains unproved. Torture can cause hurt without establishing one of the legally designated grievous injuries. Without an additional injury fact, the ordinary hurt provision covering compelled satisfaction of demands is the supported classification.

Why not "None of the following offences: (1) Voluntarily causing grievous hurt to extort property, or to constrain to an illegal act; (2) Voluntarily causing hurt to extort confession, or to compel restoration of property; (3) Voluntarily causing grievous hurt to extort confession, or to compel restoration of property."? The listed hurt offence does cover compelling payment of an existing demand, even though its heading mentions confession and restoration of property. The operative provision has a wider description than that abbreviated heading. Rejecting every listed offence would overlook the revenue demand expressly encompassed by it.