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

A division bench of Justice Vibha Kankanwadi and Justice Sanjay A. Deshmukh were considering applicants' plea for quashing of proceedings against them. The applicants were booked under Sections 324 (Voluntarily causing hurt by dangerous weapons or means), 323 (Punishment for voluntarily causing hurt), 504 (Intentional insult with intent to provoke breach of the peace), 506 (criminal intimidation) of IPC

The brief facts are that there were property disputes between the informant and applicants. The informant had lodged a suit of partition in land, house and brick kiln. As per the FIR, when the informant found the applicants preparing a road for transporting bricks from the brick kiln, she told the applicants to not transport them until the court's decision.

She alleged that the applicants then assaulted her and that applicant no. 2 bit on her right hand, thereby causing injury. It was further alleged that applicant no. 1 bit the left right of her brother when he tried to rescue her.

The applicants argued that the FIR was a result of previous disputes and that it does not disclose the commission of any offence. The applicants further contended that human teeth cannot be said to be a weapon under Section 324 of IPC.

The High Court relied on Shakeel Ahmed vs. State of Delhi (2004), where the Supreme Court held that human teeth cannot be considered as deadly weapon as per the description of deadly weapon enumerated under Section 326 IPC. Here, the High Court noted that the only difference between Section 324 and Section 326 IPC is the 'hurt' and 'grievous hurt' respectively. It observed the Apex Court's findings were also applicable to the present case.

“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.”

In the present case, the Court noted that the Medical Officer did not find any teeth marks on the informant and her brother. As per the Medical Officer, the dimensions of injury did not indicate that it was caused by human teeth. The Court thus disbelieved that the injuries were caused by human teeth.

Considering the facts of the case, the Court opined that the ingredients of Section 324 IPC were not attracted.

It thus quashed the criminal proceedings against the applicants.

Case title: Tanaji Shivaji Solankar & Ors vs. State of Maharashtra & Anr (Criminal Application No.5049 Of 2024)

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Bom) 143