Back
V.G.ARUN
SREEKUMAR S/O. NATARAJAN, NANDANAM – Appellant
Versus
STATE OF KERALA REP BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR – Respondent
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
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
