HP High Court: Biting Not an Offence Under S.324 IPC; Teeth Not a ‘Dangerous Weapon’

Shimla – The Himachal Pradesh High Court, while partially allowing a criminal revision petition, has ruled that an injury caused by human teeth does not constitute an offence under Section 324 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC), as teeth cannot be classified as a "dangerous weapon" or an "instrument for cutting."

Justice Rakesh Kainthla upheld the conviction of the accused for house-trespass and outraging the modesty of a woman but set aside the conviction under Section 324 IPC, modifying the lower court's judgment. The court affirmed that the testimony of a victim, corroborated by a promptly filed FIR and medical evidence, is sufficient for conviction, even if a related witness turns hostile.

Background of the Case

The case dates back to March 5, 2007, when the petitioner, Khelo Ram, was accused of trespassing into the victim's house late at night while her husband was away. The prosecution alleged that Khelo Ram entered her room, molested her, and bit her on the cheek. When the victim screamed for help, her brother-in-law rushed to her aid, causing the accused to flee.

The Trial Court convicted Khelo Ram for offences under Sections 451 (house-trespass), 354 (assault to outrage modesty), 323 (voluntarily causing hurt), and 324 (voluntarily causing hurt by dangerous weapons) of the IPC. The conviction and sentence were subsequently upheld by the Additional Sessions Judge, Chamba. Aggrieved by these concurrent findings, Khelo Ram filed the present revision petition before the High Court.

Arguments Before the High Court

The petitioner’s counsel argued that the lower courts had failed to appreciate the evidence correctly. Key contentions included: - The victim had made material improvements in her testimony. - The victim's brother-in-law was declared hostile and had admitted he could not identify the accused in the dark. - The medical officer had conceded that the bite mark could have been self-inflicted.

The State, represented by the Additional Advocate General, countered that the concurrent findings of the lower courts were well-founded. They argued that the FIR was lodged promptly, ruling out any possibility of fabrication, and that the victim's testimony was strongly corroborated by medical evidence and the statement of her brother-in-law.

High Court's Analysis and Ruling

Justice Kainthla, while exercising the limited scope of revisional jurisdiction, conducted a thorough review of the evidence and legal precedents.

On Witness Credibility

The Court rejected the petitioner's argument that the victim's testimony was unreliable due to alleged omissions in her initial police statement. Justice Kainthla noted, "It is apparent that the defence can use the statement to contradict a witness if the statement is proved... who recorded her statement under Section 162 of Cr.P.C. were not asked about these omissions." The Court emphasized that the proper procedure for proving contradictions was not followed, thereby leaving the victim's testimony unshaken.

Regarding the brother-in-law (PW-1) being declared hostile, the Court cited Supreme Court precedent to hold that the evidence of a hostile witness is not completely erased. His testimony, which corroborated the prosecution's case after he was declared hostile, was deemed reliable.

"The testimony of a hostile witness is not effaced from the record and the version which is as per the prosecution evidence or the defence version can be accepted if corroborated by other evidence on record."

Interpretation of Section 324 IPC

The most significant part of the judgment was the Court's analysis of whether a human bite constitutes an offence under Section 324 IPC. After reviewing a series of judgments from various High Courts, Justice Kainthla concluded that human teeth do not fall within the definition of "any instrument for shooting, stabbing or cutting."

The Court observed:

"The predominant view of the High Courts in the country is that injury caused by teeth does not fall within the purview of Section 324 of the IPC. I respectfully agree with the same. Hence, the learned Trial Court erred in convicting and sentencing the accused of the commission of an offence punishable under Section 324 of the IPC."

The Court reasoned that while a bite can cause simple hurt (Section 323) or even grievous hurt (Section 325), it cannot be escalated to an offence involving a "dangerous weapon" under Section 324.

Final Verdict

The High Court partly allowed the revision petition. The key outcomes are: 1. Acquittal under Section 324 IPC: The conviction and sentence for causing hurt by a dangerous weapon were set aside. 2. Conviction Upheld: The convictions under Sections 451 (house-trespass), 354 (outraging modesty), and 323 (simple hurt) were upheld. 3. Sentence Confirmed: The sentences of six months simple imprisonment for offences under Sections 451 and 354, and three months for the offence under Section 323, were confirmed to run concurrently.

The court described the act of trespassing into a woman’s house in the middle of the night as a "grave offence," deeming the six-month sentence not excessive but rather lenient.