In a notable ruling, the Bombay High Court clarified that human teeth cannot be treated as a 'dangerous weapon' under Section 324 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC). As a result, any injury caused by a human bite does not attract Section 324 IPC, which deals with voluntarily causing hurt by dangerous weapons, but instead falls under Section 323 IPC, which addresses voluntarily causing hurt without dangerous means.
This judgment was delivered by a division bench comprising Justice Vibha Kankanwadi and Justice Sanjay A. Deshmukh in the case titled Tanaji Shivaji Solankar & Ors vs. State of Maharashtra & Anr (Criminal Application No.5049 Of 2024).
Case Background
The case involved a dispute between the informant and the applicants related to property, including land, a house, and a brick kiln. The informant had already filed a partition suit over the disputed property. The FIR alleged that the applicants were creating a road to transport bricks from the kiln, despite the pending legal matter. When the informant objected, she claimed to have been assaulted.
According to her complaint:
- Applicant No. 2 bit her right hand, causing injury.
- Applicant No. 1 bit her brother’s leg when he tried to help her.
On this basis, the police had filed charges under Sections 324, 323, 504, and 506 of the IPC, alleging the use of teeth as a weapon during the assault.
Applicants' Stand
The applicants denied the allegations, claiming that the FIR was filed out of previous enmity. They specifically argued that human teeth are not weapons under the law and that the charges under Section 324 IPC were not legally sustainable.
The High Court examined this contention in light of the Supreme Court’s judgment in Shakeel Ahmed vs. State of Delhi (2004). In that case, the Supreme Court held that human teeth are not classified as ‘deadly weapons’ under Section 326 IPC, which relates to grievous hurt caused by dangerous means.
The High Court emphasized that:
- Section 324 IPC requires that the injury be caused by a dangerous weapon or means, while
- Section 323 IPC deals with voluntarily causing hurt without the use of dangerous weapons.
It further noted that the Medical Officer found no evidence of teeth marks, and the size and shape of the injuries were inconsistent with being caused by a human bite.
"The dimensions of the injury did not indicate that it was caused by human teeth“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, the observations in Shakeel Ahmed (supra) are applicable to the case under Section 324 of the Indian Penal Code also."
Read Also:- Bombay High Court Dismisses PIL on Fear of Coercive Action Over Sharing Kunal Kamra’s Comedy Clip
Since there was no medical confirmation of bite injuries and human teeth do not qualify as dangerous weapons, the Court found no grounds for applying Section 324 IPC.
Accordingly, the Court quashed the proceedings under Section 324 IPC and ruled that only Section 323 IPC may apply, subject to the facts of the case.
