Patna High Court
Chaurasi Manjhi And Anr. vs State Of Bihar on 1 August, 1969
Equivalent citations: AIR1970PAT322, 1970CRILJ1235, AIR 1970 PATNA 322, 1971 BLJR 296
Author: N.L. Untwalia
Bench: N.L. Untwalia
ORDER N.L. Untwalia,J.
1. The prosecution case is that on the 30th August, 1965, at about 8 A.M. when Dasrath Manjhi (P.W. 1) was returning to his house from village Ram-chandrapur, near a well of Aman Mandal in his village Sonudih Gangati, petitioner Jagdish Manjhi dealt a lathi blow on his left hand, injuring his left ring finger from behind, and petitioner Chaurasi Manjhi dealt two lathi blows on each of his thighs, whereupon petitioner Jagdish Manjhi gave a lathi blow on the root of his neck. P.W. 1 fell down. Petitioner Jagdish Manjhi rode on his chest and bit his lower lip with teeth, causing bleeding injury. A first information report was lodged, but the Police submitted a final report, saying that it was a case under Section 323, Indian Penal Code which was non-cognisable. The case proceeded on trial upon a complaint filed by P.W. 1. The defence was that the prosecution case was not true. Both the Courts, believing the prosecution evidence have found the petitioners guilty. Petitioner Chaurasi Manjhi has been convicted under Section 323 of the Penal Code and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for two months. Petitioner Jagdish Manjhi has been convicted under Section 324 of the Penal Code and has been sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for six months.
2. The only point which could be urged, and has been urged, in support of this application in revision is that for a toothbite conviction of petitioner Jagdish Manjhi under Section 324 of the Penal Code is not legal. It has also been urged that the sentence imposed upon the petitioners is excessive.
2-A. The relevant words in Section 324 of the Penal Code are:--
"Whoever ............ voluntarily causes hurt by means of any instrument for......
cutting ......... shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to three years or with fine or with both."
The question is whether tooth is an instrument for cutting within the meaning of Section 324 of the Penal Code. There is no authority on the point either way, Some indication of it is to be found in an unreported decision of the Bombay High Court given by Beaumont, C. J. and Sen, J., in the book of Ratanlal and Dhirajlal "Law of Crimes", under Section 326 of the Penal Code. The case noticed there is that where a mistress refused to accompany her paramour, who got enraged and bit off the tip of her nose and dislocated one of her teeth, a sentence of two months' rigorous imprisonment was enhanced to one of fourteen months. It is, of course, not very clear from this line alone as to whether the biting on the tip of the nose was considered as a grievous injury caused by teeth or whether the dislocation of one of her teeth was caused by some other instrument. I cannot, therefore, be sure upon that line mentioned in the annotation of the book referred to above.
3. Considering the question, however, myself with reference to the meaning of the words "instrument" and "tooth" in Webster's Third New International Dictionary, I have come to the conclusion that tooth will be an instrument for cutting. According to the said dictionary, "instrument" means "a means whereby something is achieved, performed, or furthered". Although tooth is a part of the body, but there is no difficulty in taking the view that it is a means whereby something is achieved, performed or furthered, and, therefore, it can be characterised as an instrument within the meaning of Section 324 of the Penal Code as also under Section 326, if grievous injury is caused by tooth. According to the same dictionary "tooth" means "one of the hard bony appendages that are borne on the jaws or in many of the lower vertebrates on other bones in the walls of the mouth or pharynx and serve esp. for the prehension and mastication of food and as 'weapons of offence and defence" (the underlining (here in ' ') is mine). Reading the dictionary meaning of the words "instrument" and "tooth"
therefore, I have unhesitatingly come to the conclusion that for simple injury caused by tooth bite, the offender will be guilty under Section 324 of the Penal Code. If grievous injury is caused by such bite, he will be guilty under Section 326 of the Penal Code. In my opinion, therefore, petitioner Jagdish Manjhi has rightly been convicted under Section 324 of the Penal Code. It may also be added that according to the finding, he has caused simple injury by lathi blow to Dasrath Manjhi. There would have been no difficulty, therefore, in convicting him under Secton 323 of the Penal Code.
4. , Having considered the facts, the circumstances and the nature of the injury caused to Dasrath Manjhi (P. W. 1) I think, it will be no use sending petitioner Chaurasi Manjhi to jail again. It is said that he has been in jail for about a week. While maintaining his conviction under Section 323 of the Penal Code, I reduce his sentence of imprisonment to the period already undergone. Petitioner, Jagdish Manjhi was the greater aggressor out of the two. He deserves more severe sentence than the one which stands after my modification of petitioner Chaurasi Manjhi. Jagdish Manjhi's case also deserves some concession in regard to the period of sentence. I, therefore, while maintaining his conviction under Section 324 of the Penal Code, reduce his sentence of imprisonment from six months to three months rigorous imprisonment.
5. Subject to the above modification in the sentences of the two petitioners, this application in revision is dismissed.