Himachal Pradesh High Court | Human Teeth Not a “Deadly Weapon” Under Section 324 IPC | Conviction Partly Set Aside, Other Offences Sustained
Safiya Malik
The High Court of Himachal Pradesh, Single Bench of Justice Rakesh Kainthla, partly allowed a revision petition by setting aside the conviction under Section 324 of the Indian Penal Code, holding that human teeth are not a “deadly weapon” within the meaning of that provision. The Court affirmed, however, the convictions under Sections 452, 354 and 323 IPC, noting that the accused had trespassed into the victim’s house, assaulted her, and outraged her modesty. It observed that the victim’s account was supported by medical evidence and her prompt report to the police, and that no perversity or jurisdictional error was shown in the findings of the trial and appellate courts. Consequently, the revision was allowed only to the limited extent of modifying the conviction under Section 324 IPC, while the remaining convictions and sentences were maintained
The matter arose from an incident in which the accused entered the house of the complainant during the night. The complainant alleged that the accused trespassed into her residence, assaulted her, and attempted to outrage her modesty. She sustained injuries in the course of the assault, including a bite injury. A report was made promptly to the police, and the complaint was supported by contemporaneous medical records.
The prosecution relied upon the testimony of the complainant, the statement of her brother-in-law who came to her aid, and the medical evidence that corroborated the injuries described. The complainant stated that she had been alone in the house when the accused forced entry, assaulted her, and inflicted injuries, including one caused by biting. The brother-in-law testified that he arrived after hearing her cries and saw the accused fleeing.
The defence sought to discredit the complainant’s testimony by pointing to minor contradictions and inconsistencies. It was also argued that the medical evidence did not establish use of a deadly weapon, and that the allegations had been exaggerated to secure harsher punishment. The accused filed a revision petition before the High Court challenging the findings of the trial court and the first appellate court.
The statutory provisions invoked included Section 452 IPC (house-trespass after preparation for assault), Section 354 IPC (assault or criminal force with intent to outrage modesty of a woman), Section 323 IPC (voluntarily causing hurt), and Section 324 IPC (voluntarily causing hurt by dangerous weapons or means). The trial court convicted the accused under all these provisions and sentenced him to terms of simple imprisonment. The appellate court affirmed these convictions.
Before the High Court, the central issue concerned whether a human bite, specifically teeth, could be considered as use of a “deadly weapon” within the meaning of Section 324 IPC. The accused contended that such a finding was contrary to law and that the conviction under Section 324 IPC should be set aside. The State opposed the petition, submitting that the evidence on record was sufficient to sustain all convictions, and that the concurrent findings of fact by the lower courts should not be disturbed
The Court examined the statutory language of Section 324 IPC in light of precedents. It observed: “A human bite, no doubt, is capable of causing ‘hurt’ or ‘grievous hurt’, as it can sever a body part. However, it is evident from the plain language of the provisions and the context in which the expression ‘instrument’ is employed that a body part cannot be treated as an instrument for shooting, stabbing or cutting or as a weapon of offence”
Referring to Supreme Court authority, the Court recorded: “The allegation is that the assailant bit the index finger and caused the said injury. The teeth of a human being cannot be considered a deadly weapon as per the description of a deadly weapon enumerated under Section 326 IPC. Hence, the offence cannot escalate to Section 326. It can best remain only at Section 325 IPC”
The Court further stated: “It is evident from the afore-quoted observation of the Hon’ble Supreme Court that a human tooth does not fall under the definition of a dangerous weapon within the meaning of Section 324 or 326 of the Penal Code, and if grievous hurt is caused by a human bite, the offence would likely fall under Section 325 of the Penal Code”
Citing the Bombay and Madhya Pradesh High Courts, the Court observed: “Although a human tooth may be described as an instrument or weapon in a broad sense, it cannot automatically be treated as a deadly weapon within the scope of Sections 324 or 326 of the Penal Code because human tooth being a natural part of the human body, cannot be equated with weapons specifically categorised as dangerous weapons in law”
On the other hand, regarding the conviction under Sections 452, 354, and 323 IPC, the Court stated: “The learned Trial Court had imposed a sentence of simple imprisonment for six months each for the commission of offences punishable under Sections 451 and 354, and three months for the commission of offence punishable under Section 323 of the IPC. This cannot be said to be excessive; rather, it appears to be lenient considering that the victim was alone in her house and the accused had taken advantage of this fact by entering her house. A house is considered to be the castle of a person, and trespassing into the house in the middle of the night was a grave offence”
The Court stated: “the present appeal is partly allowed. The judgment and order passed by the learned Trial Court convicting and sentencing the accused of the commission of an offence punishable under Section 324 of IPC is ordered to be set aside and the accused is acquitted of the commission of an offence punishable under Section 324 of IPC. Subject to this modification, the rest of the judgment and order passed by the learned Trial Court, as affirmed by the learned Appellate Court, are upheld.”
“A modified warrant be prepared accordingly. A copy of this judgment, along with the records of the learned Courts below, be sent back forthwith. Pending applications, if any, also stand disposed of.”
Advocates Representing the Parties
For the Petitioners: Mr. Janesh Gupta, Advocate
For the Respondents: Mr. Lokender Kutlehria, Additional Advocate General
Case Title: Khelo Ram v. State of Himachal Pradesh
Neutral Citation: 2025: HHC:29477
Case Number: Cr. Revision No. 4153 of 2013
Bench: Justice Rakesh Kainthla
