Delhi High Court has prima facie opined that hurt caused due to teeth bite does not fall within the ambit of Section 324 IPC.
A bench of Justice Bakhru has passed the order in the case titled as NEETU BHANDARI vs DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF POLICE on 25.09.2019.
FIR was registered on the basis of a complaint of one landlord against the tenant wherein the prime allegation was that the tennant was not vacating the premises and threatening to implicate the landlord in false cases and one day, his wife bite his hand. The police registered an FIR for offences punishable under Section 323/3234/34 IPC. The accused challenged the FIR before the High Court.
The High Court has made following observation:
“The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner relies upon the decision of the Supreme Court in Shakeel Ahmed v. State: (2004) 10 SCC 103.
A plain reading of the said decision indicates that in the facts of the present case, an offence under Section 324 IPC is not made out.
Mr Mahajan, learned ASC appearing for the State seeks time to examine this decision”.
Thereafter the High Court adjourned the matter.
Pertinently, the Supreme Court in Shakeel Ahmed v. State: (2004) 10 SCC 103 has made following observation:
“The appellant stands convicted under Section 326 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code. Injuries, no doubt, are grievous as the phalanx of the index finger has been snipped off.
But the allegation is that the assailant had bitten the index finger and caused the said injury. Teeth of human being cannot be considered as deadly weapon as per the description of deadly weapon enumerated under Section 326 of the IPC.
Hence the offence cannot escalate to Section 326. It can best remain only at Section 325 of the IPC. We, therefore, alter the conviction to Section 325 of the IPC read with Section 34 of the IPC”.
