In a recent ruling, the Bombay High Court clarified that human teeth do not qualify as a "dangerous weapon" under Section 324 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC), which pertains to voluntarily causing hurt using dangerous weapons or means.
The court observed that while a bite may cause injury, teeth are a natural part of the human body and cannot be equated with weapons specifically categorized as dangerous under the law.
A bench comprising Justices Vibha Kankanwadi and Sanjay Deshmukh quashed criminal proceedings against a family of five, drawing on the Supreme Court’s ruling in Shakeel Ahmed (2004). In that judgment, the apex court held that human teeth do not qualify as a "deadly weapon" under Section 326 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC), which pertains to causing grievous hurt using a dangerous weapon.
Applying this precedent to the present case, the bench observed:
“The Hon’ble Supreme Court in Shakeel Ahmed considered whether human teeth could be classified as a deadly weapon under Section 326 IPC and held in the negative, as such weapons are not included in the statutory description under that provision. Notably, the primary distinction between Sections 324 and 326 IPC lies in the degree of injury—‘hurt’ versus ‘grievous hurt’—and the corresponding punishment. Thus, the reasoning in Shakeel Ahmed is equally applicable to cases under Section 324 IPC.”
The case stemmed from a property dispute within the Solankar family, involving their daughter-in-law, Maya, who had approached the court seeking a share in the family assets, which included agricultural land, a residential house, and a brick kiln.
On April 26, 2020, Maya confronted her brother-in-law, Tanaji Shivaji Solankar, while he and other family members were preparing to transport bricks from the kiln. She objected to the transportation, insisting it be halted until the court resolved the property dispute.
The situation escalated into a physical altercation. Maya alleged that Tanaji, his wife Vanmala, and his father Shivaji assaulted her. She claimed Vanmala bit her on the right hand, while Tanaji and Shivaji allegedly attacked her brother, Laxman Mane, who intervened during the scuffle. Tanaji was also accused of biting Laxman on the left forearm.
Medical examinations, however, revealed that the injuries sustained by Maya and Laxman were minor, categorized as simple contused lacerated wounds. Based on Maya’s complaint, a First Information Report (FIR) was registered against the Solankar family under Sections 324 (voluntarily causing hurt by dangerous weapons), 323 (voluntarily causing hurt), 504 (intentional insult), 506 (criminal intimidation), and 34 (common intention) of the Indian Penal Code (IPC). The accused later approached the High Court seeking to quash the proceedings.
The Court, after examining the medical records, noted that the injuries were attributed to a "hard and blunt object" and not to human teeth. It concluded that the injuries were not caused by any dangerous weapon and, therefore, did not attract Section 324 of the IPC. Accordingly, it found no grounds to allow the proceedings under that provision to continue.
Advocates RR Karpe and SP Dhobale represented the Solankar family.
Additional Public Prosecutor NR Dayama appeared for the State.
Advocate NL Jadhav appeared for the complainant
