Teeth Not a Deadly Weapon U/S 324 of IPC

Source: High Court of Himachal Pradesh 

Why in News? 

The bench of Justice Rakesh Kainthla in Khelo Ram v. State of Himachal Pradesh (2025) partly allowed a criminal revision petition, upholding convictions under Sections 452, 354, and 323 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (IPC) while setting aside conviction under Section 324 IPC, ruling that human teeth cannot be considered deadly weapons. 

What was the Background of Khelo Ram v. State of Himachal Pradesh (2025) Case? 

• The case originated from an incident on March 5, 2007, when the accused Khelo Ram allegedly trespassed into the victim's house at night while she was sleeping with her 4-year-old child. 
• The victim reported that her husband had gone to attend a marriage, leaving her alone at home with her child around 11:30 p.m. 
• According to the prosecution case, the accused entered the unlocked room, caught hold of the victim's arm, started kissing her, and bit her cheek when she shouted for help. 
• The victim's brother-in-law came to her rescue upon hearing her cries, causing the accused to flee the scene. 
• The matter was immediately reported to police, and an FIR was registered under Sections 452, 354, 324, and 323 IPC. 
• Medical examination revealed bite marks on the victim's cheek and pain and tenderness in the neck. 
• The Trial Court convicted the accused on all charges, imposing concurrent sentences of simple imprisonment ranging from three to six months. 
• The Sessions Court dismissed the accused's appeal, concurring with the Trial Court's findings. 
• The accused then filed a criminal revision petition before the High Court challenging both judgments. 

What were the Court's Observations? 

On Revisional Jurisdiction: 

• The Court emphasized that revisional jurisdiction under Section 397 CrPC is extremely narrow and cannot be exercised like appellate jurisdiction. 
• The Court cited Supreme Court precedents establishing that revisional courts can only rectify patent defects, errors of jurisdiction, or law, and cannot re-appreciate evidence in the absence of perversity. 
• Justice Kainthla noted that concurrent findings of two courts require exceptional circumstances to warrant interference in revision. 

On Evidence Appreciation: 

• The Court found that the victim's testimony was credible and corroborated by medical evidence and her brother-in-law's statement. 
• Regarding alleged improvements in the victim's testimony, the Court held that since the investigating officer was not questioned about omissions under Section 162 CrPC, contradictions could not be established. 
• The Court clarified the proper procedure for proving contradictions, requiring the investigating officer's testimony when a witness denies making previous statements. 

On Hostile Witness Testimony: 

• The Court ruled that testimony of hostile witnesses is not automatically rejected but can be accepted to the extent it supports either prosecution or defense if corroborated. 
• The victim's brother-in-law, though declared hostile, had admitted facts supporting the prosecution case and was not properly contradicted with his previous statement. 

On Section 324 of IPC and Human Teeth: 

• The Court extensively analyzed various High Court judgments and Supreme Court precedent in Shakeel Ahmed v. State of Delhi (2004), concluding that human teeth cannot be considered deadly weapons under Section 324 IPC. 

What is Section 324 of IPC? 

About: 

• Section 324 of IPC deals with voluntarily causing hurt by dangerous weapons or means.  
• It states that whoever, except in the case provided for by section 334, voluntarily causes hurt by means of any instrument for shooting, stabbing or cutting, or any instrument which, used as a weapon of offence, is likely to cause death, or by means of fire or any heated substance, or by means of any poison or any corrosive substance, or by means of any explosive substance or by means of any substance which it is deleterious to the human body to inhale, to swallow, or to receive into the blood, or by means of any animal, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to three years, or with fine, or with both. 

Provision under BNS: 

• Section 118 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS), 2023 deals with the offence of voluntarily causing hurt or grievous hurt by dangerous weapons or means.  
• It replaces/combines what used to be Sections 324 & 326 of the IPC.

What is a Deadly Weapon under Criminal Law? 

Legal Definition: 

• Under Sections 324 and 326 of the Indian Penal Code, a deadly weapon refers to specific categories of instruments used to cause hurt or grievous hurt. The provisions define these as: 
  • "Any instrument for shooting, stabbing or cutting, or any instrument which, used as a weapon of offence, is likely to cause death" 

Categories of Deadly Weapons: 

1. Instruments for Shooting:

• Firearms, guns, rifles 
• Any device that propels projectiles 

2. Instruments for Stabbing:

• Knives, daggers, swords 
• Sharp pointed objects designed to pierce 

3. Instruments for Cutting:

• Blades, machetes, axes 
• Any sharp-edged tool capable of slicing 

4. Instruments Likely to Cause Death:

• Heavy blunt objects like iron rods, hammers 
• Any tool that, when used offensively, poses lethal risk 

5. Other Specified Means:

• Fire or heated substances 
• Poison or corrosive substances 
• Explosive substances 
• Deleterious substances (harmful to inhale, swallow, or absorb) 
• Animals (when used as weapons) 

What Does NOT Constitute a Deadly Weapon: 

• The Khelo Ram case clarified several important exclusions: 

Human Body Parts: 

• Teeth, fists, feet are not considered deadly weapons. 
• The Supreme Court in Shakeel Ahmed v. State of Delhi (2004) definitively ruled that human teeth cannot be classified as deadly weapons. 

Key Legal Reasoning: 

• The term "instrument" in the IPC refers to external tools, not body parts. 
• The language "by means of any instrument" implies something separate from the human body.