The Himachal Pradesh High Court ruled human teeth are not a dangerous weapon under IPC Section 324, setting aside that conviction while upholding guilt under Sections 354, 341, and 323, partly allowing the accused’s appeal.
The Himachal Pradesh High Court has ruled that injuries inflicted by human teeth do not qualify as being caused by a “dangerous weapon” under Section 324 of the Indian Penal Code, and on that basis set aside an accused’s conviction under that section while upholding convictions for offences such as outraging modesty, wrongful restraint and simple hurt.
A Single Judge Bench of Justice Rakesh Kainthla partly allowed the accused’s appeal, modifying the Trial Court’s judgment to acquit him under Section 324 IPC, while confirming guilt under Sections 354, 341 and 323 IPC.
The Court found that the trial court erred in treating a bite injury as one caused by a weapon or instrument contemplated by Section 324 IPC. The matter arose from allegations that the prosecutrix was intercepted on her way home, restrained, physically assaulted, bitten on the face and subjected to an attempt to disrobe by the accused. The prosecution had initially charged offences including attempt to rape, wrongful restraint, hurt, and offences under the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act.
Following trial, the accused was acquitted of attempt to rape and of charges under the SC/ST Act, but convicted for outraging modesty and related offences. On appeal to the High Court, the accused raised several objections, pointing to alleged inconsistencies in the statements of the victim and her daughter-in-law, the lack of independent witnesses despite nearby habitation, and claims that the victim had turned hostile.
It was also argued that medical evidence did not decisively support the prosecution’s case and that the inquiry was procedurally flawed because it was not carried out by a Gazetted Officer, an issue relevant to the SC/ST Act offences. The State defended the convictions, arguing that the trial court’s conclusions were reasonable and based on consistent, corroborated evidence.
ALSO READ: Karnataka HC Halts Action Against BJP’s Anantkumar Hegde in Road Rage Assault Case
The State further submitted that any defect in investigation under the SC/ST Act would not invalidate proceedings for IPC offences, and maintained that, despite some inconsistencies attributable to the passage of time, the victim’s testimony was reliable and supported by medical findings and the daughter-in-law’s account.
The High Court, on review of the record, held that the victim’s testimony could not be discarded simply because she had been treated as hostile or because of minor discrepancies. Citing settled principles, the Court reiterated that a hostile witness’s evidence is not wiped out and may be relied upon to the extent it supports the prosecution. The Court found the victim’s consistent account that the accused restrained, assaulted and attempted to disrobe her corroborated by the daughter-in-law’s testimony that she found the victim distressed, without her salwar and bearing visible injuries.
The Court dismissed the argument about the absence of independent witnesses, noting there was no proof anyone was nearby or could have heard her cries, particularly since the victim said her mouth had been gagged. It further observed that minor embellishments or inconsistencies in testimony, especially after a lapse of time, do not render a prosecution case unreliable if the central narrative remains intact.
ALSO READ: Woman Lawyer in Moradabad Court Attacked with Acid by Two Youths, FIR Filed
Regarding medical evidence, the Court noted that the injuries recorded bite marks and abrasions were consistent with the victim’s description of an assault and struggle. That the injuries might also have resulted from a fall did not undermine the prosecution’s case, since the victim had stated she was pushed in the incident. On the contention about investigation by a non‑Gazetted Officer, the Court held that even if that irregularity affected proceedings under the SC/ST Act, it would not necessarily vitiate prosecution under the IPC, consistent with settled Supreme Court authority.
However, on the specific point of conviction under Section 324 IPC, the Court conducted a detailed statutory and precedential analysis of the requirement that hurt be caused by a “dangerous weapon or means.” Relying on decisions of the Supreme Court and various High Courts, it concluded that human teeth cannot be treated as an instrument of cutting nor as a dangerous weapon within the meaning of Sections 324 or 326 IPC.
As a result, injuries from biting fall within simple hurt under Section 323 IPC rather than Section 324 IPC. The Court therefore set aside the conviction under Section 324 IPC while upholding convictions for wrongful restraint, simple hurt and outraging modesty. It maintained the remaining sentence, observing that the punishment imposed by the trial court for those offences was not excessive given the circumstances of the incident.
Case Title: Mohan Singh v. State of H.P.
FOLLOW US FOR MORE LEGAL UPDATES ON YOUTUBE