: Interpretation of what constitutes a deadly weapon under Section 326 IPC.

Headnote:DEADLY WEAPON - Conviction Alteration under IPC - Section 326, Section 325, Section 34 IPC - The court discussed the definition of a deadly weapon under Section 326 IPC and concluded that human teeth cannot be considered as a deadly weapon. Therefore, the conviction was altered to Section 325 IPC. The court also modified the sentence accordingly.
Fact of the Case:
The appellant was convicted under Section 326 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code for causing grievous injuries by biting off the index finger.
Finding of the Court:
The court altered the conviction to Section 325 IPC as human teeth cannot be considered as a deadly weapon.
Issues:
Whether human teeth can be considered as a deadly weapon under Section 326 IPC.
Ratio Decidendi:
The court interpreted the definition of a deadly weapon and applied it to the case at hand.
Final Decision:
The conviction was altered to Section 325 IPC and the sentence was modified accordingly.

Judgement Key Points

Key Points: - The court held that human teeth cannot be considered a deadly weapon under Section 326 IPC, so the conviction was altered to Section 325 IPC (!) .

What is the status of human teeth as a deadly weapon under Section 326 IPC?

What is the appropriate section and sentence after altering the conviction from Section 326/34 IPC to Section 325/34 IPC?

What is the consequence for non-payment of fine and allocation of fine to the injured in this case?

ORDER

1.Leave granted.

2. The appellant stands convicted under Section 326 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code. Injuries, no doubt, are 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 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.

3. The said change of the count of offence warrants change of the quantum of sentence also. In the interest of justice we deem it necessary to imposesentence of rigorous imprisonment for period of 6 months besides fine of Rs 10,000. The sentence is accordingly modified. If he defaults in payment of fine he shall undergo imprisonment for further period of three months. In case the fine amount is realised the victim shall be paid sum of Rs 8000 out of the said fine amount. The trial court shall see that the said amount is paid to the injured in case the fine amount is realised from the appellant. The appellant shall surrender to his bail. However, we may add that the jail authorities shall determine whether any further period remains to be undergone by him to complete the sentence imposed now on him.

4. The appeal is disposed of in the above terms.

Click Here to Read the rest of this document

2001 Supreme(SC) 911

Supreme Court Of India( K.T. THOMAS AND R.P. SETHI, JJ.) SHAKEEL AHMED - Appellant; Versus STATE, DELHI-Respondent. Criminal Appeal No. 671 of 2001 decided on July 9, 2001

: Interpretation of what constitutes a deadly weapon under Section 326 IPC.

What is the status of human teeth as a deadly weapon under Section 326 IPC?

What is the appropriate section and sentence after altering the conviction from Section 326/34 IPC to Section 325/34 IPC?

What is the consequence for non-payment of fine and allocation of fine to the injured in this case?

Supreme Court Of India
( K.T. THOMAS AND R.P. SETHI, JJ.)
SHAKEEL AHMED - Appellant;
Versus
STATE, DELHI-Respondent.
Criminal Appeal No. 671 of 2001
decided on July 9, 2001