LatestLaws.

com

Tooth as Dangerous Weapon for IPC: a Fallacious Concept :

prepared by Rakesh Kumar Singh
***********

This will be interesting. One can in his specific factual situation bite the other on his body
parts causing injury. The same can be treated as hurt or grievous hurt as may be the occasion
according to definition given under the IPC in respect of hurt and grievous hurt. Till this point
there is no problem at all. The problem starts with the introduction of Section-324 for hurt and 326
for grievous hurt. This paper will attempt to ascertain if tooth bite can fall within the ambit of
Section-324/326 IPC.

2.

Any step for further movement will remain incomplete unless we note certain provisions of

IPC such as:

Section 324. Voluntarily causing hurt by dangerous weapons or

means.- 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 it is deleterious to the human body to inhale, to
swallow, or to receive into the blood, or by means of any animal,
shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a
term which may extend to three years, or with fine, or with both.

Section 326. Voluntarily causing grievous hurt by dangerous

weapons or means.-Whoever, except in the case provided for by
section 335, voluntarily causes grievous hurt 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
Tooth as Dangerous Weapon for IPC: a Fallacious Concept : prepared by Rakesh Kumar Singh

LatestLaws.com

the human body inhale, to swallow, or to receive into the blood, or

by means of any animal, shall be punished with imprisonment for
life, or with imprisonment of either description for a term which
may extend to ten years, and shall also be liable to fine.

3.

What is noteworthy is that both the sections are worded on same pattern except the fact that

the former punishes the hurt and the later punishes the grievous hurt. In the present paper we are not
discussion the difference between hurt and grievous hurt and therefore for our purpose, both the
sections are similarly worded. Causing of hurt or grievous hurt is necessary but here the action is
important. How the action is done for the purpose of aforesaid provisions may be summarized as
under:
by means of any instrument for shooting, stabbing or cutting, or
by 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, or
by means of any animal.

4.

It shows that 7 categories are available to define the action. In relation to human tooth, last 6

categories are out of question and therefore are to be summarily rejected. Then remains only the
first category which reads as by means of any instrument for shooting, stabbing or cutting.
Shooting is again out of question for a human tooth. What remains? Stabbing and Cutting.

5.

Meaning thereby that if hurt or grievous hurt is caused by the use of any instrument for

stabbing or cutting, the resultant scenario will fall within the ambit of Section-324 or 326 IPC as the
case may be. Our focus therefore will be on understanding the issue if human tooth can be described
as an instrument for stabbing or cutting.

6.

A division bench of Hon'ble High Court of Delhi in Jagat Singh vs State 1984 Cri LJ 1551

has taken the following view:

We are of the view that tooth is an instrument for cutting within
the meaning of S. 324 of the Penal Code. P.W. 10 Dr. Bajaj has
Tooth as Dangerous Weapon for IPC: a Fallacious Concept : prepared by Rakesh Kumar Singh

LatestLaws.com

described the injury on the ear to be a grievous injury. The Doctor

opined the injury to be grievous because it had caused disfiguration
of the face of Lal Chand. We are of the view that the offence
committed by Suresh would fall under S. 326 of the Indian Penal
Code.

7.

In Rameshwar vs State Of Rajasthan 1990 WLN UC 59, Hon'ble Rajasthan High Court

has taken the view:

In my opinion also, the human teeth are instrument for cutting as

contemplated Under Section 324 IPC.

8.

In Harichandra vs State Of Madhya Pradesh (2011) 104 AIC 755, Hon'ble High Court of

Chhatisgarh has also taken the same view as:

Thus the act of the accused/appellant in voluntarily causing toothbite injury on the delicate part of his body i.e. "penis" with an
instrument of cutting i.e. "tooth" squarely falls within the
provisions of Section 324 of the Indian Penal Code and that being
so the findings recorded by the Court below convicting him under
the said section are strictly in accordance with law. This Court
approbates the same.

9.

In Chaurasi Manjhi vs State Of Bihar AIR 1970 PATNA 322, Hon'ble High Court of

Patna has taken similar view:

Reading the dictionary meaning of the words "instrument" and

"tooth" therefore, I have unhesitatingly come to the conclusion that
for simple injury caused by tooth bite, the offender will be guilty
under Section 324 of the Penal Code. If grievous injury is caused
by such bite, he will be guilty under Section 326 of the Penal
Code.

10.

Hon'ble Allahabad High Court in Jamil Hassan vs State 1974 CriLJ 867taken the same

Tooth as Dangerous Weapon for IPC: a Fallacious Concept : prepared by Rakesh Kumar Singh

LatestLaws.com

view in following manner:

The learned Counsel for the petitioner has raised two points in this
revision the first, regarding the correctness of the conviction under
Section 326, and the second, regarding the enormity of the
sentence. His contention is that tooth or teeth cannot be considered
by any means to be an 'instrument' for 'cutting' and therefore, a bite
by teeth is out of the purview of this section.
*****
It cannot be said that instrument can only mean some mechanical
device, wholly apart from the human anatomy; it may be that, and
may not be so. Human hands can be used as an instrument for
causing hurt and even grievous hurt and 3 see no reason why
human teeth should be deprived of that quality. It is a matter of
common experience that the human teeth are used for cutting
sugarcane, or breaking bones in non-vegetarian meals, or in
breaking hard shells of fruits.............Biting or cutting of nose of
wives by husbands is quite a frequent occurrence and therefore the
sentence does not require any reduction. The revision is therefore,
dismissed and the conviction of and the sentence awarded to the
petitioner are confirmed.

11.

Hon'ble High Court of Madhya Pradesh in Chhota @ Akash vs The State Of Madhya

Pradesh dated 16.10.2015 tends to agree with the aforesaid judgments but since in that case human
nail was in issue, it held that such case would not fall within the ambit of Section-324. Following
observations are relevant:

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.

Tooth as Dangerous Weapon for IPC: a Fallacious Concept : prepared by Rakesh Kumar Singh

LatestLaws.com

12.

Hon'ble High Court of Guarat in Gopalbhai Chhaganlal Soni v. State of Gujarat (1972)

13 Guj LR 848 has however taken a contrary view in following manner:

A hurt caused voluntarily by means of teeth bite cannot be said to

have been caused by any instrument for shooting stabbing or
cutting or any instrument which used as a weapon of offence is
likely to cause death. The rest of the means mentioned in sec. 324
also cannot apply to human teeth used for the purpose of
voluntarily causing hurt. Under these circumstances the learned
Magistrate with respect to him was in error when he held accused
No. 1 guilty of the offence punishable under sec. 324 of the Indian
Penal Code.

13.

It appears that most of the High Courts are of the view that human teeth is an instrument of

cutting and the result will fall under Section-324 or 326 IPC as the case may be. The only exception
appears to be of Gujarat High Court.

14.

We have therefore to see which of the aforesaid judgments needs to be followed.

15.

Though the word "instrument" has not been defined in Indian Penal Code, but we can take

assistance from the dictionary. The dictionary meaning of teeth/tooth may be summarized as one of
the hard, dense structures in the mouth of a vertebrate, used for seizing and chewing food, as
offensive and defensive weapons, etc. It consists chiefly of dentine or ivory, invested on the outer
surface and crown with enamel, and a root embedded in the gum, with a small opening leading into
a pulp cavity richly supplied with blood vessels and nerves. Also means, the hard processes within
the mouth, attached (usually in sockets) in a row to each jaw in most vertebrates except birds (but
also in some extinct birds) having points, edges or grinding surfaces and serving primarily for
biting, tearing or titration of solid food and secondarily as weapons of attack or defence, and for
other purposes in singular each of these individually. Thus primarily an instrument has been defined
as something by which something is done. Now, undoubtedly, the primary function of human teeth
is to bite food, to cut it by the incisors, canine, the premolar and the molar and to reduce it into
pieces and to render it into pulp, masticate and then let the system swallow it for easy digestion. The
purpose of the tooth is thus biting or cutting. It cannot be denied that human teeth can be and are
used as a weapon of attack or defence. In sum and substance the instrument does not mean only
Tooth as Dangerous Weapon for IPC: a Fallacious Concept : prepared by Rakesh Kumar Singh

LatestLaws.com

some mechanical device wholly apart from the human anatomy. Human hands and legs can also be
used as an instrument for causing grievous hurt. Having thus had a comprehensive meaning of word
"instrument", it would be very difficult to find reason in not including the "human tooth" in the
category of instrument.

16.

We may find some guidenes in the judgments of Hon'ble Supreme Court. In Anwarul Haq

vs The State Of Uttar Pradesh (2005) 10 SCC 581, following observations were made:

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................... 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.

17.

Though the observation aforesaid appears to have been used in the context of instrument

likely to cause death, there is no reason why the same should not be applied to other categories
mentioned in the section. Therefore, for any instrument mentioned in Section-324 or for that matter
in Section 326, we have to consult the marginal note of the section which says dangerous weapon
and further we cannot rely on the manner of use of such instrument and should only rely on the
nature of the instrument.

18.

In Mathai vs State 2005) 3 SCC 260 the Hon'ble Supreme Court observed as under:

At this juncture, it would be relevant to note that in some

provisions e.g. Section 324 and 326 expression "dangerous
weapon" is used. In some other more serious offences the
expression used is "deadly weapon" (e.g. Sections 397 and 398).
The facts involved in a particular case, depending upon various
factors like size, sharpness, would throw light on the question
Tooth as Dangerous Weapon for IPC: a Fallacious Concept : prepared by Rakesh Kumar Singh

LatestLaws.com

whether the weapon was a dangerous or deadly weapon or not.

That would determine whether in the case Section 325 or Section
326 would be applicable.

19.

In view of the judgments of Supreme Court in Anwarul Haq and Mathai (supra), it is clear

that the heading of Section 326 IPC is important. The heading talks about causing grievous hurt by
dangerous weapons or means. In view of the text and context, in which the words "any instrument"
are employed in Sec. 326 it cannot be treated as body part. The language used in the said section is
"voluntarily causes grievous hurt" by means of any instrument for shooting, stabbing or cutting or
any instrument which is used as a weapon of offence. The grievous hurt is the result of blow given
by an instrument. The nature and gravity of injury alone is not sufficient to attract Sec. 326 unless it
is shown that such grievous hurt is by means of any instrument or weapon mentioned in the section.
Precisely, for this reason, the Apex Court in Anwarul Haq and Mathai (supra) has taken assistance
from marginal note and heading.

20.

Relying upon the aforesaid, Hon'ble High Court of Madhya pradesh in Kamla Bai vs

Naresh (2016) 160 AIC 501 held that body part cannot be treated as an instrument for Section-326
IPC. Following observations are relevant:

In view of aforesaid, it is clear that as per language employed in

Section 326 IPC, the body part cannot be treated as an instrument.
An instrument has to be an outside mean/weapon and cannot be a
body part. It is trite law that a penal provision must be construed
strictly. Thus, as per the express language employed, I am unable to
hold that the expression "any instrument" includes kick, fist or any
other body part.

21.

It is however the Hon'ble Supreme Court itself pronounced a judgment which concludes the

matter beyond doubt. It has clearly taken a view that human teeth cannot be treated as a dangerous
weapon for Section-326 IPC. The case is tiled as Shakeel Ahmed v. State, Delhi, (2004) 10 SCC
103 and the relevant observations are as under:

The appellant stands convicted under Section 326 read with

Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code. Injuries, no doubt, are
Tooth as Dangerous Weapon for IPC: a Fallacious Concept : prepared by Rakesh Kumar Singh

LatestLaws.com

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 a human being cannot be
considered as deadly weapon as per the description of deadly
weapon enumerated under Section 326 IPC. Hence the offence
cannot escalate to Section 326. It can best remain only at Section
325 IPC. We, therefore, alter the conviction to Section 325 IPC
read with Section 34 IPC.

22.

The authority of the Hon'ble Supreme Court therefore will be binding throughout India and

override all views taken by different Hon'ble High Courts including that of Delhi.

23.

Later on Hon'ble High Court of Rajasthan in Mst.Chandraee vs State dated 15.02.2011 has

relied upon Shakeel Ahmed (supra) and has held as under:

but in view of the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the

case of Shakeel (supra), it can be said that the offence cannot
escalate to Section 326 IPC. In the above judgment of the Hon'ble
Supreme Court, the phalanx of the index finger was snipped off by
the teeth and the Hon'ble apex court held that the teeth of the
human being cannot be considered as a deadly weapon, as per the
description of the deadly weapon enumerated under Section 326
IPC and the Hon'ble Supreme Court altered the conviction from
Section 326 to Section 325 IPC.

24.

Now, we can say with certainty that a human tooth cannot be considered as instrument

falling within the ambit of dangerous weapon and therefore even if hurt or grievous hurt is casued
by human tooth, it cannot attract Section-324 or 326 IPC but will remain in the confines of hurt and
grievous hurt envisaged in Section-323 or 325 as the case may be.

***********

Tooth as Dangerous Weapon for IPC: a Fallacious Concept : prepared by Rakesh Kumar Singh