Bombay HC: Human Teeth Not 'Dangerous Weapon', Injury Caused By It Falls U/S 323 IPC And Not 324 IPC

 We would like to go by contents of First Information Report, statements of witnesses and other documents in order to consider as to whether the offence under Section 324 of the Indian Penal Code has been made out or not. The other offences i.e. Sections 323, 504, 506 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code are non cognizable in nature and in that event First Information Report under Section 154 of the Code of Criminal Procedure will not be maintainable. First Information Report and statements of witnesses, especially the injured, would also show that when informant had allegedly requested applicants not to transport bricks from the brick kiln till the decision of the case, she states that she was assaulted. She levels allegation against applicant No.1 that he took bite (i.e. by using his teeth as weapon) to the left forearm of her brother Laxman and she also states that applicant No.2 had taken bite of her right hand. That means, she has levelled allegation that applicant Nos.1 and 2 both have used teeth as weapon. As per the ingredients of Section 324 of the Indian Penal Code, the hurt should be by means of any instrument for shooting, stabbing or cutting, or any instrument which, used as a weapon of offence, is likely to cause death, or by means of fire or any heated substance, or by means of any poison or any corrosive substance, or by means of any explosive substance or by means of any substance which it is deleterious to the human body to inhale, to swallow, or to receive into the blood etc. As aforesaid, the medical certificates of informant and her brother show that there was simple hurt to both of them. Now, the weapon that is used is stated to be hard and blunt object. The teeth marks were not noted by the Medical Officer and he has given the description of injury as Contused Lacerated Wound. The dimensions given cannot match with the injury that might be caused by human teeth. The natural curve in case of bite is not noted. Therefore, it is hard to believe that injuries which were noted on the person of informant and her brother would have been caused by human teeth. Hon’ble Supreme Court in Shakeel Ahmed (supra) while considering the offence under Section 326 of the Indian Penal Code observed that teeth of human being cannot be considered as deadly weapon as per the description of deadly weapon enumerated under Section 326 of the Indian Penal Code. If we consider Section 326 of the Indian Penal Code, then as compared to Section 324 of the Indian Penal Code, there is only the difference of word ‘hurt’ and ‘grievous hurt’ in the respective sections and then the change in the sentence. Therefore, the observations in Shakeel Ahmed (supra) are applicable to the case under Section 324 of the Indian Penal Code also. In Shakeel Ahmed (supra) injury was grievous as the phalanx of index finger was snipped off and, therefore, it was considered under Section 325 of the Indian Penal Code. If we apply the same rule, then the injury would come down to Section 323 of the Indian Penal Code, which is non cognizable in nature. Therefore, with this evidence, though there appears to be a cross case; yet, it would be an abuse of process of law to ask the applicants to face the trial, as the ingredients of offence under Section 324 of the Indian Penal Code are not attracted for the aforesaid reasons.

{Para 6}

 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY

BENCH AT AURANGABAD

CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO.5049 OF 2024

 Tanaji Shivaji Solankar Vs  The State of Maharashtra

Citation: 2025:BHC-AUG:9907-DB

CORAM : SMT. VIBHA KANKANWADI &

SANJAY A. DESHMUKH, JJ.

PRONOUNCED ON : 04th APRIL, 2025

ORDER : ( PER : SMT. VIBHA KANKANWADI, J. )

Print Page

Supreme Court: When Accused Acted With Common Intention, Punishment Can't Be Reduced Merely Because Injury Inflicted Individually Wasn't Severe

 Merely for the reason that

the injuries inflicted by Accused no.2 (K.B.Vijayakumar)

were less than what was inflicted by Accused no.3

(K.B.Jayakumar @ Suresh) and the injuries were not a

grievous. Conviction under Section 326 cannot be converted

to Section 324. Irrespective of the facts whether the

injuries caused to the injured persons (PW1 & PW7) were

only on the hand, the fact remained that the presence of

Accused no.2 on the spot is as an accomplice of Accused

no.3 and hence, Section 34 of the IPC is clearly made out.

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

 CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

 CRIMINAL APPEAL NO(S). 1694/2014

THE STATE OF KARNATAKA Vs  BATTEGOWDA & ORS.

Dated: January 09, 2025.

Read full Judgment here: Click here.

Print Page

Supreme Court: Common intention U/S 34 of IPC and the pre-meeting of minds can take place at the spur of the moment itself during the course of the incident.

Accused no.2 on the spot is as an accomplice of Accused

no.3 and hence, Section 34 of the IPC is clearly made out.

The case of the defence is that when the Accused Nos.2 & 3

had arrived at the spot, they had no intention to inflict

the nature of injuries on the injured persons. Even if it

is assumed it is true, it cannot be denied that common

intention and the pre-meeting of minds can take place at

the spur of the moment itself during the course of the

incident.

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

 CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

 CRIMINAL APPEAL NO(S). 1694/2014

THE STATE OF KARNATAKA Vs  BATTEGOWDA & ORS.

Dated: January 09, 2025.

Print Page

Whether knife is a dangerous weapon as per S 324 of IPC?

The plea that the weapon used was not a dangerous weapon had never been urged before the trial court or the High Court. Whether weapon is a dangerous weapon or not has to be gauzed only on the factual basis. As there was no challenge on this aspect by the accused before the courts below, that plea for the first time cannot be permitted to be raised in this Court.

12. Section 324 provides that "Whoever except in the case provided for by Section 334, voluntarily causes hurt by means of any instrument for shooting, stabbing or cutting, or any instrument which, used as weapon of offence, is likely to cause death, or by means of fire or any heated substance, or by means of any poison or any corrosive substance, or by means of any explosive substance, or by means of any substance which is deleterious to the human body to inhale, to swallow or to receive into the blood, or by means of any animal" can be convicted in terms of Section 324. The expression "an instrument, which used as a weapon of offence, is likely to cause death" should be construed with reference to the nature of the instrument and not the manner of its use. What has to be established by the prosecution is that the accused voluntarily caused hurt and that such hurt was caused by means of an instrument referred to in this Section.

13. The Section prescribes a severer punishment where an offender voluntarily causes hurt by dangerous weapon or other means stated in the Section. The expression "any instrument which used as a weapon of offence is likely to cause death" when read in the light of marginal note to Section 324 means dangerous weapon which if used by the offender is likely to cause death.

14. Authors of IPC observed, as noted below, the desirability for such severer punishment for the following reasons:

"...Bodily hurt may be inflicted by means the use of which generally indicates great malignity. A blow with the fist may cause as much pain, and produce as lasting an injury, as laceration with a knife, or branding with a hot iron. But it will scarcely be disputed that, in the vast majority of cases, the offender who has used a knife or a hot iron for the purpose of wreaking his hatred is a for worse and more dangerous member of a society than he has only used his fist. It appears to us that many hurts which would not, according to our classification, be designated as grievous ought yet, on account of the mode in which are inflicted, to be punished more severely than many grievous hurts."

 IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

Criminal Appeal Nos. 625-626 of 2005 

Decided On: 26.04.2005

Anwarul Haq  Vs. The State of Uttar Pradesh

Hon'ble Judges/Coram:

Dr. Arijit Pasayat and S.H. Kapadia, JJ.

Author: Arijit Pasayat, J.

Citation: MANU/SC/0332/2005

Print Page

Whether offence U/S 324 of IPC is made out if injury was caused by human nail?

However, the question to be considered in the case at hand is whether an injury caused by human nail may be deemed to be an injury caused by means of an instrument for stabbing or cutting?

9. It may be noted that there is intrinsic difference between the two sets of appendages of human body namely, the teeth and the nails. Teeth are hard, bony appendages growing out of upper and lower jaw bones and by their very nature much stronger than the nails. Whereas the upper set of teeth is fixed, the lower set, activated by strong jaw muscles, is adapted to move against the upper set facilitating a pincer like grip upon the object being bitten or chewed. As such, teeth are capable of chopping away parts of human body such as tip of nose, earlobes or in extreme cases even distal parts of small fingers. They are; therefore, capable of causing much graver injury to human body than human nails.

10. The human nail on the other hand is a thin, though hard, layer covering the outer tip of human fingers. It is made up of a translucent protein called keratin. By virtue of its constitution, it is weaker than a tooth. It is also somewhat flexible. Unless they are intentionally used for pinching, nails of fingers are ordinarily not used in coordination with each other. As a result they are not capable of exerting same amount of pressure as teeth. Therefore, in ordinary course they only cause abrasions or scratch marks. In the present case also, only an abrasion over right side of neck was found on the person of the victim.

11. Thus, a human nail cannot be placed on the same footing as tooth as a weapon of offence or defence. It cannot be deemed to be an instrument used for either cutting or stabbing. Hence, hurt caused by human nail may not qualify as an injury caused by means of an instrument for the purposes of section 324 of the Indian Penal Code.

12. In aforesaid view of the matter, learned Courts below erred in framing a charge of the offence punishable under section 324 of the IPC simply because one of the abrasions found upon the person of one of the victims was said to have been caused by nails. Thus, the charge framed under sections 324 or 324 read with section 34 of IPC against applicants/accused persons is not sustainable in the eyes of law and deserves to be quashed.

Madhya Pradesh High Court

Chhota @ Akash vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 16 October, 2015

Coram: (C V SIRPURKAR) JUDGE 

Print Page

Offence u/s 324 of IPC became non compoundable from date of notification that is from 31.12.2009

In the case at hand, the incident occurred on 21.02.2009. The Sessions Court ultimately found the convict-petitioners guilty of committing offence punishable under Sections 447 and 324 of IPC. Section 447 is compoundable all along. Offence under Section 324 was compoundable before the Code of Criminal Procedure (Amendment Act), 2005 (Act 25 of 2005) came into force. Though the Act 25 of 2005 was published on 23.06.2006, it was stipulated that it shall come into effect only from the date of its notification. The Amendment Act was brought into force, by notification w.e.f. 31.12.2009. Evidently, on the date of occurrence, the offence under Section 324 of IPC was compoundable with the permission of the Court in view of the provisions prescribed in the table under sub-section (2) of Section 320 of Cr.P.C.
13. The Amendment Act of 2005, intended to give effect w.e.f. the date of notification. So, before the date of notification though the amendment was made and published, it had no force and therefore, the provision which was existing before the date of coming into force and the Amendment Act shall operate. Normally in cases of all compoundable offences, compromise is encouraged and often such cases are referred to Lokadalat or mediation centers to have a settlement of the dispute between the parties with a view to bring amity between the parties and to maintain peace and tranquility. Compromise, in all cases compoundable in nature, is for the benefit and welfare of the society as a whole and therefore, the Courts may encourage such compounding where the parties voluntarily come forward to do so.

IN THE HIGH COURT OF GAUHATI (AGARTALA BENCH)

Crl. Rev. P. No. 84 of 2012

Decided On: 11.01.2013

 Prabhat Das and Ors.Vs. State of Tripura and Ors.

Hon'ble Judges/Coram: S.C. Das, J.
citation;2013 CR L J 1712( Gauhati)

Print Page

Offence u/s 324 of IPC are bailable bombay high court

If   no   notification   giving   effect   to   the   amendment   in
question  i.e. amendment to the Fifth Column in the entry relating to
“Section 324 of the IPC”, has been issued till today, (which aspect is
undisputed) it means that the offence punishable under Section 324 of
the IPC, continues to be a “bailable” offence.


IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CRIMINAL ANTICIPATORY BAIL APPLICATION NO.1207 OF 2012
MR.CHANDRA KANJAPPA KUCHCHIKURWE 
V/s.
STATE OF MAHARASHTRA & ANR.

CORAM: ABHAY M. THIPSAY, J.
DATE    : 14th DECEMBER, 2012.

Print Page