Human Teeth Aren’t Deadly Weapons U/s. 326 IPC Even Though Injuries Caused Were Grievous, Section 325 IPC Is Applicable: Karnataka HC
|The Karnataka High Court, Dharwad Bench while referring to the judgment of the Apex Court in the case of Shakeel Ahmed v. State Delhi (2004) 10 SCC 103 has said that the human teeth are not deadly weapons even though the injuries caused were grievous.
The Court further said that in such a case, the offence will fall within the ambit of Section 325 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) instead of Section 326 IPC.
A Single Bench of Justice Anil B. Katti held, “… it has been observed and held that though accused has caused bite injury over the left ear lobe of complainant and same is grievous in nature, but in view of judgment of Hon’ble Apex Court referred above in SHAKEEL AHMED’s case human teeth are not deadly weapon even though injuries caused were grievous. The offences under Section 325 of IPC is held to be made out. In the present case also, the offence under Section 326 of IPC is not attracted and accused causing injury falls within the ambit of Section 325 of IPC.”
The Bench observed this while dealing with the criminal revision petition filed by two accused who were convicted under Section 326 of the IPC.
Advocates M.B. Gundawade and Y. Lakshmikant Reddy appeared for the petitioners/accused while HCGP Praveen Uppar appeared for the respondent/State.
Brief Facts -
In 2011, at night, while the complainant was going to his agricultural land, he found the first accused storing mud so as to obstruct the free flow of water in the canal. The complainant asked him not to do the same as it can cause obstruction for the free flow of water but the said accused started abusing him in filthy language and then while holding both his hands, bit him on his left ear lobe.
Due to such an aforesaid act, the upper portion of the ear lobe of the complainant got cut and fell on the ground. This led to grievous injury and both the accused assaulted the complainant with their hands. Therefore, the offences punishable under Sections 326 and 323 read with Section 34 of the IPC got registered and the first appellate court convicted the appellants.
The High Court in view of the facts and circumstances of the case noted, “… the contention of the learned counsel for the accused that accused could not be identified during darkness cannot be legally sustained. … virtually there is no any evidence against accused No.2 for offence for having assaulted complainant-P.W.1 by means of hands and caused any voluntarily hurt. Therefore, conviction of accused No.2 for the offence punishable under Section 323 of IPC is unsustainable in law.”
The Court said that the offence under Section 325 of IPC is proved against the first accused and the same is punishable with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to seven years, and shall also be liable to pay a fine.
“… the imposition of sentence and fine is mandatory for proved offence under Section 325 of IPC. Looking to the facts and circumstances of the case, in my opinion, if accused No.1 is convicted and sentenced to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of three months and to pay fine of Rs.10,000/- in default of payment of fine to under go simple imprisonment of one month is ordered would meets the ends of justice”, held the Court.
The Court further noted that there is no evidence against the second accused that he assaulted the complainant by means of hands and voluntarily caused any hurt which can attract penal action in terms of Section 323 of IPC.
“… findings of the first appellate Court in holding accused No.2 guilty for the offence under Section 323 of IPC cannot be sustained. Therefore, in order to modify the sentence and to set-aside the conviction against accused No.2 interference of this Court is required”, added the Court.
Accordingly, the Court partly allowed the criminal revision petition and modified the judgment of the first appellate court.
Cause Title- Lakshmana Reddy Yane Lakshmi Reddy v. The State of Karnataka