Back
2018 Supreme(MP) 945
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH AT JABALPUR
J.P. GUPTA, J.
Ram Niranjan and Others – Appellants
Versus
State of M.P. – Respondent
Cri. Rev. No. 2300 of 2018
Decided On : 29-09-2018
Advocate Appeared:
For the Appellant : Narendra Nikhare.
For the Respondent: C.K. Mishra.
: Human teeth do not qualify as a deadly weapon under section 326 of the Indian Penal Code.
Headnote:Assault - Framing of Charges - Indian Penal Code, Section 326, Section 506, Section 34 - The court analyzed the prosecution's case and the contention of the applicants regarding the applicability of section 326 of the Indian Penal Code. It referred to the Supreme Court's decision in Shakeel Ahmed vs. State of Delhi (2004) 10 SCC 103, which held that human teeth cannot be considered a deadly weapon under section 326. The court concluded that no charge could be framed under section 326 against the applicants and directed that charges for an offense punishable under section 325 be framed instead.
Fact of the Case:
The revision was filed against an order framing charges under sections 326 and 506 of the Indian Penal Code. The applicants contended that no offense punishable under section 326 was made out against them.Finding of the Court:
The court accepted the contention raised by the applicants and set aside the charges framed under sections 326 and 506/34 of the Indian Penal Code.Issues:
Whether charges under section 326 were justified based on the facts presented.Ratio Decidendi:
Human teeth cannot be considered a deadly weapon as per section 326 of the Indian Penal Code.Final Decision:
Charges for an offense punishable under section 325 were to be framed against the applicants.JUDGMENT :
J.P. GUPTA, J.
1. This revision under section 397/401 of the Criminal Procedure Code has been filed by the applicants against an order dated 18-4-2018 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Beohari, District Shahdol in S.T. No. 202/2016 whereby the trial court has framed charges against applicant Rakesh Mishra under sections 326, 506 Part II of the Indian Penal Code and against applicant Rajesh Mishra, Ram Niranjan under sections 326 read with section 34 and 506 of the Indian Penal Code respectively.
2. As per the prosecution story on 24-7-2016, near about 9:00 P.M. on the field of the complainant Meera Mishra, the applicants came and assaulted her husband. The complainant interfered to save her husband thereupon applicant Rajesh Mishra bit the thumb of left hand and caused fracture and thereafter extended threat with dire consequence to kill her husband.
3. The learned counsel for the applicant contended that no offence punishable under section 326 of the Indian Penal Code is made out against any of the applicants in view of the law laid down by the Supreme Court in the case of Shakeel Ahmed vs. State of Delhi, (2004) 10 SCC 103 wherein it has been held that the teeth of a human being cannot be considered as deadly weapon as per the description of deadly weapon enumerated under section 326 of the Indian Penal Code. Hence the offence cannot escalate to section 326. It can best remain only at section 325 of the Indian Penal Code.
4. It is submitted that in the case in hand, the applicant Rakesh Mishra had bitten the thumb of the left hand of the complainant causing fracture to the same, therefore, against applicant Rakesh Mishra, an offence punishable under section 325 is made out and so far as other accused persons are concerned, considering the facts, it cannot be inferred that they had common intention with co-accused Rakesh Mishra to cause the aforesaid injury, therefore, no charge can be framed under section 326/34 of the Indian Penal Code against them.
5. The learned Government Advocate for the State, however, opposes the aforesaid contention but is unable to point out any contrary law laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in this regard.
6. Having considered the law laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Shakeel Ahmed (supra) and considering the facts of the present case, the contention raised by the learned counsel for the applicants is accepted. The trial court has committed a legal error in framing the charge under section 326 of the Indian Penal Code against the applicant Rakesh Mishra. Prima-facie, a charge for an offence punishable under section 325 of the Indian Penal Code is made out against him. Similarly, as far as other accused namely; Ram Niranjan and Rajesh Mishra are concerned, it cannot be said that Rakesh Mishra caused the aforesaid injury to the victim in furtherance of the common intention of the other co-accused. He suddenly bit the thumb of the left hand of the victim. Therefore, against the accused/applicants Ram Niranjan and Rajesh Mishra, no charge can be framed for an offence punishable under section 326/34 of the Indian Penal Code.
7. Accordingly, the impugned order so far as it relates to framing of charge against the applicants Rakesh Mishra for an offence punishable under section 326 of the Indian Penal Code and against applicants Ram Niranjan and Rajesh Mishra for an offence punishable under section 326/34 of the Indian Penal Code respectively is concerned, the same is set aside and it is directed that against the applicants a charge for an offence punishable under section 325 be framed.
8. After quashment of the charges for the offences punishable under sections 326 and 326/34 of the Indian Penal Code respectively against the applicants, the case will be remitted back to the Judicial Magistrate First Class concerned. Accordingly, the Additional Sessions Judge is directed to send back this case to the J.M.F.C. concerned in accordance with the provisions of 228(1)(a) of the
