Human Teeth Do Not Constitute Dangerous Weapons Under Section 324 IPC: Bombay High Court - 2026-06-03

Anatomy of an Assault: Bombay HC Rules Human Teeth Not a 'Weapon' Under S. 324 IPC

In a significant ruling concerning the interpretation of "dangerous weapons" in criminal law, the Bombay High Court's Aurangabad Bench has quashed criminal proceedings involving allegations of assault. The court determined that biting does not qualify as causing hurt by means of a "dangerous weapon" under Section 324 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC), effectively narrowing the scope for such charges in future litigation.

Background: A Family Feud

The dispute arose from a long-standing property rift between the applicants (the Solankar family) and the respondent, a daughter-in-law, regarding land, a house, and a brick kiln. The disagreement escalated on April 26, 2020, when the complainant attempted to stop the applicants from transporting bricks via JCB, citing a pending court case.

What began as an argument allegedly devolved into physical confrontation. The complainant claimed that the applicants assaulted her and her brother, specifically alleging that the accused used their teeth to bite them—an injury the FIR characterized as an assault with a weapon. This led to the registration of a case under Sections 324, 323, 504, and 506 read with Section 34 of the IPC.

Arguments: The Battle Over Definition

The applicants argued that the medical evidence confirmed only "simple injuries" consistent with contact with hard and blunt objects, not tools for cutting or stabbing. Relying on the Supreme Court’s judgment in Shakeel Ahmed vs. State of Delhi , the defense contended that human teeth cannot be legally classified as a "dangerous weapon" under the IPC, thus failing to satisfy the ingredients of Section 324.

Conversely, the prosecution and the respondent insisted that the court should allow the trial to proceed. They argued that because the teeth were used to intentionally cause injury, it was a factual question for the Medical Officer to determine if they acted as an instrument of "offence" in the circumstances.

Legal Analysis

The Court delved into the specific language of Section 324 IPC, which covers injuries caused by instruments of shooting, stabbing, cutting, or those likely to cause death. The Bench noted that the medical report failed to identify any characteristics consistent with a human bite (such as curve-specific marks), describing the injuries merely as "contused lacerated wounds."

The Court maintained that Section 324 is reserved for specific, dangerous instruments. By equating a human bite to such weapons, the law would be overextended. Since the injuries were found to be simple in nature, dragging the applicants through a trial for a higher-level offence was deemed an "abuse of the process of law."

Key Observations

The judgment clarifies the judiciary's stance on how specific physical actions are classified:

• "Teeth of human being cannot be considered as deadly weapon as per the description of deadly weapon enumerated under Section 324 of the Indian Penal Code."
• "The dimensions given cannot match with the injury that might be caused by human teeth. The natural curve in case of bite is not noted."
• "Enmity or disputes are in fact, double edged weapons, which may cut both of them."
• "It would be an abuse of process of law to ask the applicants to face the trial, as the ingredients of offence under Section 324 of the Indian Penal Code are not attracted."

Final Decision and Implications

The Aurangabad Bench allowed the application, quashing the proceedings in Regular Criminal Case No.163/2020 .

This decision sets a clear precedent for lower courts: the mere assertion of a "bite" incident does not automatically elevate a simple assault case to the more serious charge of Section 324 IPC. It serves as a reminder that the invocation of specific criminal sections must strictly align with the statutory definitions of weaponry and intent, rather than personal grievances between parties. For legal practitioners, this highlights the necessity of meticulous medical forensics when challenging the gravity of charges in FIRs.