Madhya Pradesh High Court
Khemchand Soni vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 20 March, 2013
Criminal Revision No.2411/2012
20.03.2013 Shri Vaibhav Solanki, counsel for the applicants.
Shri Ajay Tamrakar, Panel Lawyer for the
respondent/State.
Heard on admission.
The applicants have challenged the order dated
27.11.2012 passed by the learned Additional Sessions
Judge, Seoni in S.T. No.161/12, whereby the charges of
the offences punishable under Sections 326 or 326/34 of
IPC were framed against the applicants for causing the
grave injuries to the victim Smt. Chanda Agrawal by teeth
bite alongwith other charges.
Facts of the case relating to the present revision are
that on 4.4.2014, a quarrel took place between the complainant Urmila Agrawal and the applicants. The applicants assaulted the various victims like Urmila Agrawal, Brijkishore Agrawal and Smt. Chanda Agrawal. Medical Officer vide report dated 4.4.2012 found that due to teeth bite distal phalanx of left thumb of Smt. Chanda Agrawal was missing. It was again confirmed in the MLC report on 7.4.2012.
After considering the submissions made by learned counsel for the parties and looking to the facts and circumstances of the case, it appears that there is an x-ray report conducted on 5.4.2012 taken in the Government District Hospital, Seoni in which it was shown that no bony injury was found in the left hand of the victim Smt. Chanda Agrawal. A contradiction arose due to MLC report and x-ray report. Various doctors in the MLC report, found that due to teeth bite, one phalanx in the left hand was disappeared, whereas in x-ray report, it was found that there was no bony injury. However, the doctor who opined in the x-ray report did not say as to whether phalanx was missing or not. It is a question of evidence, it cannot be decided at this stage and therefore prima facie, it cannot be said that no offence punishable under Section 326 of IPC is made out against the applicants either directly or with the help of Section 34 of IPC.
Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the teeth cannot be considered to be a deadly weapon and in support of his contention, the judgment passed by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of "Shakeel Ahmed Vs. State of Delhi" [2004 SCC(10) page 103], {the copy of the judgment provided by the learned counsel for the applicant is downloaded copy from the internet and therefore, if any mistake in the page number or in the order of the concerned magazine may occur} in which, it is decided that the teeth cannot be considered as a deadly weapon. However, in the present case due to the teeth bite if an injury appears to be caused by sharp cutting weapon if nature of injury indicates so and therefore, the present case is not of deadly weapon. Hence, the aforesaid dictum laid by the Hon'ble Apex Court cannot be applied in the present case. Still, it is a matter of fact to consider as to whether the teeth was used as sharp cutting weapon or not. If thumb is chopped by the teeth then, certainly it is a sharp cutting weapon and if bone were broken due to pressure of the teeth then, the teeth can be considered as a hard and blunt object, in absence of sharpness in the teeth. Such type of appreciation cannot be done at this stage whereas it is to be done by the trial Court during the trial. At present, there is no basis by which any interference can be done in the order passed by the learned trial Court because appreciation of evidence cannot be done at this stage.
Under such circumstances, the present revision filed by the applicant cannot be accepted and hence, is hereby dismissed at motion stage.
Copy of the order be sent to the trial Court alongwith its record for information and to proceed with the case.
(N.K. GUPTA) JUDGE pnkj