Injury Caused By Human Teeth Does Not Attract S.324 IPC: Himachal Pradesh High Court - 2025-08-30

Legal Awareness & Information.

HP High Court: Injury from Human Bite Not an Offence Under Section 324 IPC

Shimla, HP – The Himachal Pradesh High Court, while largely upholding the conviction of a man for house-trespass and outraging a woman's modesty, has ruled that an injury caused by human teeth does not fall under the purview of Section 324 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC), which pertains to voluntarily causing hurt by dangerous weapons.

The bench of Justice Rakesh Kainthla modified the conviction of the petitioner, Khelo Ram, acquitting him of the charge under Section 324 IPC but sustaining the convictions for house-trespass (Section 451 IPC), outraging modesty (Section 354 IPC), and causing simple hurt (Section 323 IPC).

Case Background

The case dates back to March 5, 2007, when the petitioner, Khelo Ram, was accused of trespassing into the victim’s home late at night. The victim was sleeping alone with her minor child. The prosecution alleged that Khelo Ram entered her room, caught her, kissed her, bit her cheek, and molested her. Her screams alerted her brother-in-law, causing the accused to flee.

The Trial Court convicted Khelo Ram under Sections 451, 354, 323, and 324 of the IPC, and the conviction was upheld by the Additional Sessions Judge, Chamba. The present revision petition was filed before the High Court challenging these concurrent findings.

Arguments Before the High Court

The petitioner’s counsel argued that the lower courts had erred in their judgment, pointing to several alleged discrepancies: * The victim had made significant improvements in her testimony in court compared to her initial police statement. * The victim's brother-in-law, a key witness, was declared hostile by the prosecution and had admitted he could not identify the accused in the dark. * The medical officer had conceded during cross-examination that the bite mark on the victim's cheek could have been self-inflicted.

The State, however, contended that the concurrent findings of the lower courts were well-reasoned. It was argued that the victim’s testimony was consistent and corroborated by medical evidence and the fact that an FIR was lodged promptly, ruling out any possibility of fabrication.

High Court's Legal Analysis

Justice Kainthla began by reiterating the limited scope of the High Court's revisional jurisdiction, emphasizing that it cannot re-appreciate evidence like an appellate court unless there is a patent legal error or perversity in the findings.

The court systematically addressed and dismissed the defense's arguments:

• On Witness Testimony: The court held that to challenge a witness's testimony based on omissions in their police statement, the defense must follow the procedure under Section 162 of the Cr.P.C. by proving the prior statement through the investigating officer. Since this was not done, the victim's testimony could not be discredited.
• On Hostile Witness: Relying on Supreme Court precedents, the judgment clarified that the testimony of a hostile witness is not entirely erased from the record. The court can rely on parts of it that are corroborated by other evidence. In this case, the brother-in-law's testimony supported the core prosecution case.
• On Medical Evidence: The court agreed with the Trial Court that the medical officer’s suggestion of a self-inflicted bite on the cheek was "highly improbable." The presence of the bite mark itself served as strong corroboration for the victim’s account.

Pivotal Ruling on Section 324 IPC

The most significant legal point in the judgment was the interpretation of Section 324 of the IPC. The court examined whether human teeth could be considered an "instrument for... cutting" or a dangerous weapon under the section.

"It was laid down by the Delhi High Court in Neetu Bhandari v. State, 2019 SCC OnLine Del 11383 , that the injury caused by the teeth does not fall within the definition of Section 324 of the IPC," the court noted.

After reviewing a series of judgments from the Supreme Court ( Shakeel Ahmed v. State ) and various High Courts, Justice Kainthla concluded:

"Thus, 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."

Final Verdict

The High Court partially allowed the revision petition. It set aside the conviction and sentence under Section 324 of the IPC, acquitting Khelo Ram of that charge.

However, the convictions and the concurrent sentences of six months simple imprisonment under Sections 451 (house-trespass) and 354 (outraging modesty), and three months under Section 323 (simple hurt) were upheld. The court deemed the sentence appropriate, observing that "trespassing into the house in the middle of the night was a grave offence."