In the framework of this article, there are examined some problematic and unordinary aspects regarding the process of render and application of art.151 and 152 PC RM, that usually inure to provoke controversies, with considerable practical connotations. We reach the conclusion that subject to notion „organ loss” (within the meaning of art.151 PC RM) is the injuring of an unfunctional organ, when subsequently is necessitated (from medical point of view) it ablation. In the same time, we conclude that causing work disability – full or partial – will not train the application of art.151, 152 PC RM or art.78 of the Contravention Code. Is argued why lose of teeth can’t be qualified as grave health or corporal battery. On there are examined the aggravated circumstances prevented at lett.b),c),d) par.(3) art.151 and lett.c 1 ),d),e) par.(2) art.152 PC RM. Especially, are analyzed the application conditions of the penal responsibility for intentioned grave health or corporal battery/intentioned midst health or corporal battery, perpetrated consciously against infants or pregnant women either as a result of victims known or evident impotence situation, due to agedness, illness, physical or psychic handicap or due to other issues. As well, there is performed the research concerning the same offences, more exactly concerning the hypothesis on its perpetration against a person interrelated with him accomplishing his job or social commitments. Finally, we found important to analyze the perpetration hypothesis of intentional grave health or corporal battery/intentional midst health or corporal battery by two or more persons. Theoretical investigations are followed by relevant examples from the judicial practice. The prepared conclusion and references have the vocation to replace the informational vacuum concerning the render and the application of the disposals prevented at art.151 and art.152 PC RM.