The Bombay High Court ruled that human teeth aren’t dangerous weapons under IPC Section 324. A property dispute-based assault case against a family of five was dismissed.
Thank you for reading this post, don't forget to subscribe!
MUMBAI: The Bombay High Court said that human teeth cannot be treated as a ‘dangerous weapon’ under Section 324 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC). This law deals with the act of voluntarily causing hurt using dangerous weapons.
This important decision came from a bench of Justice Vibha Kankanwadi and Justice Sanjay Deshmukh. The judges relied on an earlier decision by the Supreme Court of India in the case of Shakeel Ahmed (2004).
In that old case, the top court had already said that human teeth are not deadly weapons under Section 326 of the IPC, which is related to causing grievous hurt using a dangerous weapon.
The High Court said that the same thinking applies to this case also.
The Court explained:
“Hon’ble Supreme Court in Shakeel Ahmed while considering the offence under Section 326 of the Indian Penal Code observed that teeth of human being cannot be considered as deadly weapon as per the description of deadly weapon enumerated under Section 326 of the Indian Penal Code. If we consider Section 326 of the Indian Penal Code, then as compared to Section 324 of the Indian Penal Code, there is only the difference of word ‘hurt’ and ‘grievous hurt’ in the respective sections and then the change in the sentence. Therefore, the observations in Shakeel Ahmed (supra) are applicable to the case under Section 324 of the Indian Penal Code also.”
Background of the Case
This case came out of a family property fight between Maya and the Solankar family. Maya is the daughter-in-law of the Solankar family, and she had filed a case asking for her share in their property. The property included a house, land, and a brick kiln business.
On 26th April 2020, Maya saw Tanaji Shivaji Solankar, her brother-in-law, preparing to transport bricks from the kiln. Maya asked him and his family not to take the bricks until the court made a decision on the property matter.
ALSO READ: Delhi High Court: “Passenger Should Protect Luggage From Theft, Not Railways”
This led to an argument. Maya said that Tanaji, his wife Vanmala, and his father Shivaji attacked her. Maya said that Vanmala bit her right hand. She also said that when her brother, Laxman Mane, came to help her, Tanaji and Shivaji beat him, and Tanaji even bit Laxman’s left forearm.
But according to medical reports, both Maya and Laxman only had minor injuries. The doctors described the wounds as “simple contused lacerated wounds.” Maya then filed a police complaint, and an FIR (First Information Report) was registered. The police charged the Solankar family under different IPC sections:
- Section 324: Voluntarily causing hurt by dangerous weapons
- Section 323: Voluntarily causing hurt
- Section 504: Intentional insult
- Section 506: Criminal intimidation
- Section 34: Common intention
Later, the Solankar family approached the Bombay High Court and requested to cancel the case against them.
What the High Court Said
The High Court looked at the facts and medical reports. It found that the injuries were small and not serious. The Court also said that the injuries were caused by a “hard and blunt object” – not by human teeth.
So, the Court said that using Section 324 (about dangerous weapons) in this case was not correct. There was no strong reason to continue the case under that section.
Lawyers RR Karpe and SP Dhobale represented the Solankar family in the High Court. Advocate NL Jadhav appeared for Maya, the complainant.
Additional Public Prosecutor NR Dayama appeared for the State.
CASE TITLE:
Tanaji Shivaji Solankar and Others vs. State of Maharashtra
Would You Like Assistance In Drafting A Legal Notice Or Complaint?
CLICK HERE
Click Here to Read Our Reports on Waqf
FOLLOW US ON YOUTUBE FOR MORE LEGAL UPDATES
