Back
VIBHA KANKANWADI, SANJAY A. DESHMUKH
Tanaji Shivaji Solankar – Appellant
Versus
State of Maharashtra through the Officer In-charge – Respondent
ORDER
Vibha Kankanwadi, J.—Present application has been filed for quashment of proceedings in Regular Criminal Case No.163/2020 pending before learned Judicial Magistrate First Class, Omerga, Dist. Osmanabad arising out of First Information Report vide Crime No.132/2020 dated 26.04.2020 registered with Police Station, Omerga, Dist. Osmanabad/Dharashiv, for the offence punishable under Sections 324, 323, 504, 506 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860.
2. Heard learned Advocate Mr. R.R. Karpe holding for learned Advocate Mr. S.P. Dhobale for applicants, learned APP Mr. N.R. Dayama for respondent No.1 and learned Advocate Mr. N.L. Jadhav for respondent No.2. Perused affidavit-in-reply of respondent No.2 Smt. Maya Satish Solankar.
3. It has been vehemently submitted on behalf of applicants that perusal of First Information Report and charge sheet is not disclosing the ingredients of offence punishable under Section 324 of the Indian Penal Code and other Sections are non cognizable in nature. The First Information Report is the result of concoction and previous disputes. Perusal of injury certificate issued by Sub District Hospital, Omerga would show that when the informan
Teeth of human being cannot be considered as deadly weapon.
Human teeth bite injury does not attract Section 324 IPC as teeth not 'instrument' thereunder; IPC trial valid despite invalid SC&ST investigation; hostile victim testimony usable if corroborated.
Important points:Expression "any instrument which used as a weapon of offence is likely to cause death" has to be gauged taking note of the heading of the Section. What would constitute a 'dangerous ....
Prosecution must provide reliable evidence, including original injury reports, to establish guilt beyond reasonable doubt; inconsistencies and lack of corroborating evidence may lead to acquittal.
Teeth are not considered deadly weapons under Section 326 IPC, and injuries caused by biting may fall under Section 325 IPC for grievous hurt.
Serious offenses, particularly those under IPC Section 307, cannot be quashed based solely on mutual agreements; courts must consider societal impacts and evidence relevancy.
The court emphasized that the determination of whether a stone is a dangerous weapon depends on the specific facts of the case and requires evidence.
When an accused is convicted for a higher offense, they should not be convicted for a lesser included offense arising from the same incident.
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
