Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
V.G.ARUN, J.
SREEKUMAR S/O.NATARAJAN, NANDANAM - PETITIONER
Vs.
STATE OF KERALA REP BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR - RESPONDENTS
Crl.MC.No.3078 OF 2020(D)
Decided O : 14TH DAY OF AUGUST 2020
Indian Penal Code, 1860 - Sections 341, 294(b), 323 and 324 –Quash of FIR and further criminal proceedings - Wrongful restraint – Bite by human teeth – Meaning of the word 'instrument' -Petitioner wrongfully restrained the de facto complainant and his father, abused them and attempted to slap the de facto complainant, which he warded off and thereupon, the petitioner caused hurt to the de facto complainant by biting his left hand above the wrist - whether teeth, even if taken to be an instrument for cutting, is likely to cause death, if used as a weapon.
Finding of the Court:
Human adult's maximum biting force ranges from 520-1178 newtons depending on factors such as age and gender. It requires less than 200 newtons to bite through a raw carrot. Studies also reveal that biting through a finger requires so much force that attempts often lead to partial-amputation; a bite that doesn't completely sever the finger. But supposing the bite injury is caused to a vital part of the body leading to profuse bleeding, or resulting in septicemia, the injury is likely to cause death – contention that human bite injury will not attract the offence under Section 324 IPC is liable to be rejected.
Result : Appeal dismissed
Based on the provided legal document, the key points are as follows:
The case involves a petition to quash FIR and criminal proceedings related to an incident where the petitioner allegedly wrongfully restrained the de facto complainant and his father, and caused hurt to the complainant by biting his hand (!) .
The petitioner’s argument was that the hurt caused by biting does not attract the offence under Section 324 IPC because teeth are not instruments for cutting (!) (!) .
The prosecution countered that the manner of causing hurt is relevant, and relied on the interpretation that teeth can be considered instruments for cutting, as they are used for biting and tearing food, and can be weapon-like in attack (!) (!) (!) .
The legal interpretation of "instrument" in Section 324 IPC was examined, with the understanding that an instrument is a tool or means that can achieve a certain act. Teeth, by their function and use, can be classified as instruments for cutting or causing injury (!) (!) .
The court considered the physical capability of human teeth, noting that a human bite can exert significant force, potentially causing severe injury or death if vital parts are involved (!) (!) .
The court referenced authoritative dictionary definitions, which support the view that teeth can be considered instruments for cutting, as they serve as weapons of offence and defence (!) (!) .
The court concluded that the injury caused by a bite falls within the scope of Section 324 IPC, which addresses voluntarily causing hurt by means likely to cause death, if the injury is caused by an instrument that can be used as a weapon of offence (!) (!) .
The court dismissed the contention that human bite injuries do not attract Section 324, affirming that such injuries can indeed constitute an offence under this section (!) .
As a result, the petition to quash the FIR and proceedings was rejected, and the legal position that human bite injuries can attract the offence under Section 324 IPC was upheld (!) .
Let me know if you need further analysis or assistance.
ORDER
The Crl.M.C is filed seeking to quash the FIR and further proceedings in Crime No.255 of 2020 registered at the Anchalummoodu Police Station, alleging commission of the offences punishable under Sections 341, 294(b), 323 and 324 of IPC. The allegation is that, at 5.30 p.m on 08.03.2020, the petitioner wrongfully restrained the de facto complainant and his father, abused them and attempted to slap the de facto complainant, which he warded off and thereupon, the petitioner caused hurt to the de facto complainant by biting his left hand above the wrist.
2. The learned Counsel for the petitioner advanced an interesting and unique argument that Section 324, which is the only non-bailable offence, is not attracted since hurt is alleged to have been caused by biting the de facto complainant’s hand. In elaboration, the learned Counsel submitted that, teeth are not instruments for cutting and therefore, hurt caused by a bite will not attract the offence under Section 324.
3. The learned Public Prosecutor countered the argument and submitted that the relevant aspect to be considered is the manner in which, and not the object with which, hurt was caused. Reliance is placed on the decision of the High Court of Bihar in Chaurasi Manjhi v State of Bihar [AIR 1970 Patna 322] in support of the contention.
4. In order to answer the issue arising for consideration, it is necessary to have a close scrutiny of Section 324, which reads as under:
From the wording of Section 324 it is clear that an offence under the Section will be attracted if hurt is caused voluntarily by means of any instrument of shooting, stabbing or cutting, which, if used as a weapon of offence, is likely to cause death. The question therefore is whether tooth/teeth falls within the meaning of the term “instrument for cutting”. While considering this question, it is essential to have an overview regarding the types of teeth and their functions:
Incisors - Incisors are the eight teeth in the front center of the mouth (four on both bottom and top). These are typically the first adult teeth that a child will get, coming in when the child is between six and eight years old. Incisors are the teeth that you use to bite into your food.
Canines - Canines are the next teeth that develop in the mouth. Canines are four in number and are the sharpest teeth, used for tearing apart food.
Premolars - Premolars are used for tearing and crushing food. Unlike incisors and canines, premolars have a flat biting surface. There are eight premolars in total.
Molars - Molars are the largest teeth. Their function is similar to that of the premolars, to grind, tear, and crush food. Molars have a large flat biting surface which makes them perfect for this job.
The human jaws are built on the principle of a pair of tongs. Power is applied near the joint, while the work is performed at the opposite extremity of the jaw levers. When chewing we have an almost direct application of the power of the muscles, as they nearly overlie the third molars. There is a vast difference between chewing and biting. According to an article published in Scientificamerican.com, had a mechanical engineer designed the human frame, he would no doubt have built the jaws after the fashion of a nutcracker, with t
SupremeToday
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
