( 1 ) UNDER these circumstances in my opinion the learned Magistrate was right when he came to the conclusion that the injuries to Mulshanker were caused by a bite given by accused No. 1 and when he further came to the conclusion that no assault had been committed or no injuries had been caused by Mulshanker to accused No. 1.

( 2 ) THE question then arises as to what offence accused No. 1 can be said to have committed. The offence punishable under sec. 324 of the Indian Penal Code makes punishable causing voluntary hurt by dangerous weapons or means. Under that section the hurt must have been voluntarily caused by means of any instrument for shooting stabbing or cutting or any instrument which used as a weapon of offence is likely to cause death or by means of fire or any heated substance or by means of any poison or any corrosive substance or by means of any explosive substance or by means of any substance which it is deleterious to the human body to inhale to swallow or to receive into the blood or by means of any animal. A hurt caused voluntarily by means of teeth bite cannot be said to have been caused by any instrument for shooting stabbing or cutting or any instrument which used as a weapon of offence is likely to cause death. The rest of the means mentioned in sec. 324 also cannot apply to human teeth used for the purpose of voluntarily causing hurt. Under these circumstances the learned Magistrate with respect to him was in error when he held accused No. 1 guilty of the offence punishable under sec. 324 of the Indian Penal Code. Since accused No. 1 did voluntarily cause hurt to Mulshanker he was rightly held to be guilty by the learned Magistrate but the only offence which can be said to have been committed by accused No. 1 is that of voluntarily causing hurt punishable under sec. 323 of the Indian Penal Code. ]

.