Searching Case Laws & Precedent on Legal Query.....!
Analysing the retrieved Case Laws
Scanned Judgements…!
Searching Case Laws & Precedent on Legal Query.....!
Analysing the retrieved Case Laws
Scanned Judgements…!
Shaken tooth as an instrument of injury - The sources indicate that a human tooth, including a shaken or dislocated tooth, can be considered an instrument for causing injury under Section 325 of IPC. It has been held that the tooth is instrument for cutting and serves as weapons of offence and defence ["Chhabi Nath VS State of U. P. - 2023 0 Supreme(All) 1975"], and since there is an allegation of dislocation of the tooth on account of the violence employed or criminal force used, the allegation would prima facie be regarded as disclosing the offence under Section 325, I. P. C. ["Yenduri Radhakrishnamurthy VS G. Mahalatchayya - Andhra Pradesh"]. Additionally, the injury caused by a tooth bite is an offence under Sections 324 or 326 IPC depending upon whether injury is simple or grievous ["Lakshmana Reddy Yane Lakshmi Reddy, S/o. Gadilingappa VS State Of Karnataka, by SPP High Court Of Karnataka - Karnataka"].
Main points from case law - Courts have distinguished between grievous injuries caused by blunt versus sharp weapons, with injuries from human teeth generally falling under Section 325 when the injury is grievous but not deadly enough to qualify as Section 326. Several judgments have clarified that teeth of a human being cannot be considered as deadly weapons as per the description of deadly weapons enumerated under Section 326 IPC ["Chhabi Nath VS State of U. P. - 2023 0 Supreme(All) 1975"], and injuries caused by human teeth or bites are typically categorized under Section 325 when they are grievous but not lethal.
Whether shaken or dislocated tooth falls under Section 325 - The injury to a shaken or dislocated tooth, especially when it results in dislocation or fracture, has been recognized as causing grievous hurt. The courts have held that a loosened or dislocated tooth was later extracted and the dentist examined to prove that fact, and the court found the accused guilty under Section 325 of IPC ["RAMAPPA vs THE STATE OF - Karnataka"]. Such injuries are considered grievous but do not meet the criteria of Section 326, which pertains to sharp or deadly weapons.
Analysis and conclusion - Based on the evidence and judicial interpretations, a shaken or dislocated tooth does fall within the ambit of Section 325 of IPC as an instrument causing grievous hurt. It is not classified as a deadly weapon or as causing grievous injury with a sharp or lethal instrument (Section 326). The injuries inflicted via human teeth, including shaken or dislocated teeth, are generally treated as grievous hurt under Section 325, provided they are grievous but not deadly.
References:- ["Lakshmana Reddy Yane Lakshmi Reddy, S/o. Gadilingappa VS State Of Karnataka, by SPP High Court Of Karnataka - Karnataka"]- ["Chhabi Nath VS State of U. P. - 2023 0 Supreme(All) 1975"]- ["Yenduri Radhakrishnamurthy VS G. Mahalatchayya - Andhra Pradesh"]- ["RAMAPPA vs THE STATE OF - Karnataka"]
In the heat of an altercation, injuries like a shaken or dislodged tooth can lead to serious legal consequences. But does such an injury bring the case under Section 325 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS), which deals with voluntarily causing grievous hurt? This question often arises in assault cases involving bites or blows to the mouth. While BNS has replaced the Indian Penal Code (IPC), the principles from IPC Sections 320, 325, and 326 remain relevant for interpretation.
This article examines whether a shaken tooth constitutes grievous hurt under these provisions and if human teeth qualify as dangerous weapons. We'll draw from judicial precedents and legal definitions to provide clarity—note: this is general information, not specific legal advice. Consult a lawyer for your case.
Grievous hurt is outlined in Section 320 IPC (corresponding to BNS provisions on hurt), listing specific injuries such as:- Emasculation- Permanent privation of sight or hearing- Fracture or dislocation of a bone or toothMathai VS State Of Kerala - 2005 1 Supreme 215
A shaken tooth or dislodged tooth typically falls under dislocation of a tooth, making it grievous hurt if medically confirmed. As one judgment notes, dislocation of a tooth is considered grievous hurt under Section 320 IPC Mathai VS State Of Kerala - 2005 1 Supreme 215.
However, Section 325 IPC/BNS punishes voluntarily causing grievous hurt (up to 7 years imprisonment), while Section 326 escalates punishment for grievous hurt by dangerous weapons or means. The distinction hinges on the instrument used—not just the injury's severity Sunda Ram VS State - 2006 Supreme(Raj) 173.
A critical point: injuries from human teeth bites are generally not deemed caused by dangerous weapons. The Supreme Court in Shakeel Ahmed v. State (NCT of Delhi) held, human teeth are not deadly weapon even though injuries were caused grievous hurt Chhabi Nath VS State of U. P. - 2023 0 Supreme(All) 1975. Similarly, the Allahabad High Court in Jamil Hassan v. State of U.P. clarified that injuries caused by teeth bite would be an offence under Sections 324 or 326 IPC depending on whether the injury is simple or grievous, but the teeth themselves are not inherently dangerous weapons Mathai VS State Of Kerala - 2005 1 Supreme 215.
For a shaken tooth from a bite, it may qualify as grievous hurt under Section 320/325, but not automatically under enhanced provisions unless teeth are used as a deadly weapon.
Courts consistently categorize tooth-related injuries carefully:
Further, fracture or dislocation of a bone or tooth can be definitely coming under the ambit of grievous hurt as per Section 320 of IPC Raheema VS State Of Karnataka - 2020 Supreme(Kar) 1123. Yet, without proof of fracture (e.g., X-ray), convictions may downgrade from 326 to 324 IPC Raheema VS State Of Karnataka - 2020 Supreme(Kar) 1123.
In Shakeel Ahmed, even grievous injuries from teeth did not invoke Section 326, reinforcing that teeth are not dangerous weaponsChhabi Nath VS State of U. P. - 2023 0 Supreme(All) 1975. A Madhya Pradesh case echoed: tooth bite injuries fall under Section 324 IPC without needing dangerous weapons ISHWAR LAL VS STATE OF C. G. - 2013 Supreme(Chh) 88.
BNS 2023 modernizes IPC, but core definitions of grievous hurt (e.g., tooth dislocation) persist. One source references Section 325 BNS (corresponding to IPC 428 on animal cruelty, but contextually aligned with hurt provisions), stressing proof of injury severity Julien Joe vs The State of Tamilnadu - 2025 Supreme(Online)(Mad) 73709. For humans, the focus remains on Section 325-like provisions for grievous hurt without dangerous means.
Courts distinguish blunt vs. sharp weapons: causing grievous injury by a blunt weapon (Section 325) and a sharp edged weapon (Section 326) Sunda Ram VS State - 2006 Supreme(Raj) 173. Teeth, being natural, align with non-dangerous means.
Rarely, if evidence shows teeth used in a manner that qualifies as a dangerous weapon (e.g., biting with the intention to cause grievous harm) Chhabi Nath VS State of U. P. - 2023 0 Supreme(All) 1975, higher charges may apply. But merely causing a dislocated or shaken tooth, without evidence of use as a dangerous weapon, does not fall under Section 325 as by means of a dangerous weapon.
Mental injuries do not count as grievous hurt: Mental injury does not fall within the ambit of grievous hurt as defined under Section 320 SISTER MARY VS MICHELLE (JOHNSTON) SINGH - 2007 Supreme(Cal) 38.
In one appeal, conviction shifted from 323 to 325 IPC for tooth dislocation under Section 320's seventh clause Manas Kumar Behera VS State of Orissa - 2015 Supreme(Ori) 65. Another upheld 325 for shaken tooth in mouth injury CHANDGI RAM vs STATE OF HARYANA.
In conclusion, a shaken tooth does not inherently fall under enhanced dangerous weapon ambit but qualifies as grievous hurt under Section 325 BNS/IPC 325. Judicial trends favor measured application based on evidence Sunda Ram VS State - 2006 Supreme(Raj) 173Manas Kumar Behera VS State of Orissa - 2015 Supreme(Ori) 65.
This analysis is for informational purposes. Laws evolve, and outcomes depend on facts. Seek professional legal counsel. References drawn from cited judgments.
#Section325BNS #GrievousHurt #ToothInjuryLaw
of Section 325 of IPC - There is no evidence against accused No.2 that he has assaulted complainant by means of hands and voluntarily ... 325 of IPC is held to be made out - Offence under Section 326 of IPC is not attracted and accused causing injury falls within ambit ... referred above in SHAKEEL AHMED’s case human teeth are not deadly weapon even though injuries caused were grievous - Offences under Section ... “The question is whether the tooth is an instrument for cutting within ....
Result: The revision is partly allowed; conviction under Section 326 IPC is converted to Section 325 IPC with ... 325 IPC. ... 325 IPC. ... Justice Untwalia held that the tooth is instrument for cutting and serves as weapons of offence and defence. Injury by tooth bite is offence under Sections 324 or 326 I.P.C depending upon whether injury is simple or grievous. 11. In Gopal Bhai Chhagan Lal Soni v. ... The conviction under Section 326 I.P.C is con....
became shaken. ... He was also convicted under Section 325 IPC and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for two years and to pay a fine of Rs.1,000/- and in default of payment of fine, to further undergo Amit Rana November 21, 2016 JUDGE amit rana Whether reasoned/speaking Yes/No Whether reportable Yes/No complainant have vehemently opposed the prayer by submitting that it was the petitioner, who was responsible for causing an injury on the mouth of complain....
of Section 325 IPC. ... 325 IPC. ... However, his conviction for the offence under Section 325 IPC was was dislocated, was declared as grievous and the same falls within the ambit ... read with Section 34 IPC.
325, 296(b) and 351(3) of BNS, 2023. ... attract the offence under Section 296(b) of BNS. ... As regards the offence under Section 325 of BNS (corresponding to Section 428 of IPC), it is seen that the calf was injured in the leg. This Court had also perused the photographs. There is nothing in the allegations and in the photographs to suggest that the animal was rendered useless. ... The learned counsel for the petitioners would submit that the alleg....
bite will fall within the ambit of Section 325 I.P.C. ... Injured – Sharda, in her statement recorded under Section 161 Cr.P.C. stated that the petitioner had caused tooth bailable offence; and the injury later-on is attributed to Raju co- On behalf of the petitioner, it is submitted that the injury given by tooth ... Instant application has been preferred under Section p style="position:absolute;white-space:pre;margin:0;padding:0;top:448pt;
It highlighted the distinction between causing grievous injury by a blunt weapon (Section 325) and a sharp edged weapon (Section ... In case, a grievous injury is caused either by a blunt or a sharp edged weapon, then the case will be covered under Section 326, IPC. According to Section 320, the fracture of a tooth comes under the definition of "grievous injury". ... Sections 325 and 326, IPC deal with the causing of grievous injury. However, the difference between th....
325 IPC. ... The accused is held guilty of causing injury of section 325 IPC.” ... 325 IPC, but maintained the order of sentence releasing the petitioner on probation under section 323 IPC, while dismissing the appeal failed to bring home the guilt of accused for offence under section 325 IPC, Section 325 IPC cannot be sustained where the injury, p style="position:absolute
CRIMINAL LAW - QUASHING OF PROSECUTION - SECTION 325/120B OF THE INDIAN PENAL CODE - MENTAL INJURY NOT COVERED UNDER GRIEVOUS ... Final Decision: The court quashed the prosecution against the petitioners under Section 325/120B of the Indian Penal Code, ... 325 of the Indian Penal Code. ... Injury, if any, as alleged in the instant case caused in mind does not fall within the ambit of Section 320 of the Indian Penal Code. ... Nos. 1 and 2 fall within the mischief of #....
Submission of the counsel for the applicant that as no dangerous weapon was used by the applicant in causing injury to the complainant, his conviction under Section 324 IPC is not sustainable in law, has no force because even the tooth bite injury comes within the purview of that Section. ... On the other hand, counsel for the respondent/State supports the judgment impugned and submits that for bringing home the offence under Section 324 IPC, use of dangerous weapon is not necessary and tooth#....
Fracture or dislocation of a bone or tooth can be definitely coming under the ambit of grievous hurt as per Section 320 of IPC. Further more as per Section 320 of IPC if fracture or other injuries stated in the said Section 320 of IPC it can be said that it is grievous hurt. Therefore, if it is to be held sustaining grievous hurt by the victim to attract Section 326 of IPC then the fact of grievous hurt must be proved by placing cogent evidences.
He had contended that without making the payment of the charges, the petitioner was asking the first informant to allow his sons to play in play station. As one tooth was partly broken, the crime was registered under section 325 of I.P.C. The record shows that the petitioner was arrested on 4.5.2018 in that crime and on the same day, the J.M.F.C. granted bail to him. Considering the circumstance that the shop is situated in village Wadgaon, there are two political rival groups and there was possibility of involvement due to political rivalry, the detaining authority could n....
C. Whether the Apar Mukhya Adhikari, Zila Panchayat was responsible for collecting the tax at source under Section 206 C(1C) of Income Tax Act. 1. The present appeal has been filed against the judgment and order dated 28.9.2015 passed the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Allahabad Bench, Allahabad in ITA No. 10/Alld/2015 for the Assessment Year 2011-12 in which following questions of law are framed: B. Whether the term "Parking Lot", "Toll Plaza", "Mining and quarrying" include "Tahbazari". "A. Whether the "Tehbazari" comes within the ambit of Section 206 C(1C).
The offence committed by appellant-Deepak @ Rahul comes within the ambit of Section 325 of IPC, which is punishable with imprisonment upto seven years and fine. Thus, it cannot be said that appellant-Deepak @ Rahul had any intention/knowledge to cause death of Satish.
Therefore we find that the proper section attracted will be section 325 IPC and not 323 IPC. Dislocation of tooth which comes under clause “seventhly” under section 320 IPC is “grievous hurt”. Since, we find that the conviction of the appellant under section 323 IPC is unsustainable, we set aside the same and instead, convict the appellant under section 325 IPC, and sentence him to undergo rigorous imprisonment for six months for that offence.
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
