IMPORTANT POINT
Teeth are not considered deadly weapons under Section 326 IPC, and injuries caused by biting may fall under Section 325 IPC for grievous hurt.

JUDGMENT :

Hon'ble Umesh Chandra Sharma, J.-Heard Sri K.N. Pandey, and Santosh Kumar Yadav, learned counsel for the revisionist, learned A.G.A for the State and perused the record.

2. This criminal revision has been preferred by the convicted accused-revisionist against the judgment and order of conviction and sentencing dated 28.8.1992 passed by Judicial Magistrate-I, Bareilly in Criminal Case No. 884 of 1992 - State v. Chhabi Nath and others, by which the accused-revisionist was convicted under Section 326 I.P.C and was sentenced to three years rigorous imprisonment without awarding any amount of fine and also against the judgment and order passed by Additional District & Sessions Judge-IX, Bareilly in Criminal Appeal No. 86 of 1992-Chhabi Nath v. State of U.P., by which the learned A.S.J. has affirmed the conviction of the convicted revisionist but reduced the sentence from 3 years to 1½ years rigorous imprisonment and Rs. 1,000/- fine with default stipulation to undergo three months additional incarceration in case of non deposition of fine.

3. In revision the convict-revisionist has taken ground that the lower Court and the lower appellate Court have not considered the statements of the complainant and the witnesses which were contradictory against the First Information Report. The learned trial Court has acquitted the co-accused on the basis of doubtful statements of complainant and the witnesses, but the same benefit has not been given to the revisionist. The conviction of the revisionist is against the weight of evidence on record, which is bad in law. The sentence is too severe, hence the revision be allowed and the order of conviction, sentencing and fine as well be set aside.

4. In brief, facts of the case are that on 31.7.1988 at the time of incident, the victim Tilak Ram was caught hold by both the convicted accused Chhabi Nath and Dharam Pal. The accused Chhabi Nath gnawed the nose of Tilak Ram with his teeth. Another accused Dharam Pal was exonerated and was acquitted from the charge. No cross appeal had been preferred by the State against his acquittal.

5. During the course of trial following witnesses were examined.

(i). P.W 1 - Tilak Ram, victim (informant) has proved the F.I.R version (Ex.Ka-1) beyond any reasonable doubt.

(ii) P.W 2 - Ram Murti Lal and P.W. 3 Har Prasad, independent witnesses have deposed in favour of prosecution and have also proved the prosecution version.

(iii) P.W 4 - Dr. S.V. Ahmed, who had examined the injured had proved his injury report (Ex.Ka-2), and has opined that the injuries of the informant was grievous in nature and the nose of the informant has permanently been disfigured.

(iv) P.W 5 - Aichal Singh, has proved theChik F.I.R (Ex.Ka-3), Case Kaymi G.D (Ex.Ka-4), Site Plan (Ex.Ka-5) and charge-sheet (Ex.Ka-6).

6. After closure of the evidence, statements of the accused persons were recorded under Section 313 Cr.P.C, in which they denied the prosecution versions, charge and evidences adduced by the prosecution, but they refused to produce any evidence in defence. The appellate Court as well as the trial Court had given concurrent finding regarding the facts of the case and have concluded that the convict-revisionist - Chhabi Nath bit the nose of the informant - Tilak Ram by his teeth and caused grievous injury to him, which disfigured his nose and face, which is covered under Section 326 I.P.C. Though, no defence evidence was produced by the convict-revisionist, but it was argued from the defence side that the alleged injury would have been caused by falling on broken piece of glasses and scattered bamboo, which was not accepted by both the Courts below.

7. During the course of argument only one point has been argued by the learned counsel for the revisionist that in several cases the Hon'ble Apex Court and High Courts have held that since the teeth of a human being is not a deadly weapon as defined under Section 326 I.P.C, hence, if any injury by teeth biting occurs, the same would not a