Document Fragment View

Matching Fragments

10. PW-Dr. Jeet Raj has stated that he examined the complainant brought by Constable Raghubir Singh of Police Station Lakhanpur on 06.05.2005 at 7.20 PM and noted following injuries on the person.

1. Outer margin of left pinna (central part about ½" x 2" is chopped off bleeding+(irregular margin) patient was referred to dental surgeon to R/o Human bite or otherwise.

2. He opined that injury is grievous in nature caused by blunt object and duration is fresh at the time of examination at 7.20 pm. He has admitted certificate EXPW-JR.

The witness was recalled for re-examination at the instance of the prosecution. In re-examination on 25.05.2008, he identified the injured Vijay Kumar in the trial court. He stated that as a matter of fact the injury was inflicted to the injured on his right ear which can be clearly seen by naked eye. In cross-examination on 29.12.2009, by the defence, he has stated that he has put in 25 years of service as Medical Officer. He did not see the injury form prepared by the police. He examined the patient in the emergency room of SDH Kathua and noted the injury. He has admitted that he had mentioned injury no. 1 in the certificate EXPW-JR on the left outer margin pinna and not on the right pinna. But, in fact the injury was inflicted on the right ear, which can be clearly seen by naked eye. He has admitted that the Certificate EXPW-JR is not correct with respect to the left ear. The injured was referred to dental surgeon. He issued the certificate EXPW-JR without getting the expert opinion or the report of the dental surgeon. He has admitted that in a case of human bite, there may be mark of lower front teeth and upper front teeth with depiction of actual size of teeth.

29. It is evident from the afore-quoted observation of Hon‟ble Supreme Court that a human tooth does not fall under the definition of a dangerous weapon within the meaning of Section 324 or 326 of the Penal Code and if grievous hurt is caused by a human bite, the offence would likely fall under Section 325 of the Penal Code. No doubt, the severity of the injury, particularly the chopping of a body part, is a relevant consideration, but the charge must be based on the means used i.e., the teeth, which are a part of the human body and not a deadly weapon per se. Based on the principle of law enunciated by the Apex Court in Shakeel Ahmed, although a human tooth may be described as an instrument or weapon in a broad sense, but it cannot automatically be treated as a deadly weapon within the scope of Sections 324 or 326 of the Penal Code because human tooth being a natural part of the human body, cannot be equated with weapons specifically categorised as a dangerous weapons in law. Therefore, if "hurt" or "grievous hurt" is caused by a human bite, Sections 324 or 326 of the Penal Code would not be attracted and the charge would fall within the limits of "hurt" and "grievous hurt" as envisaged under Section 323 or 325 of the Penal Code.

35. Another staggering circumstance which goes against the prosecution and needs attention is that PW Dr. Jeet Raj, who examined the injured, had referred him to the dental surgeon to verify whether it was a human bite or otherwise. However, he issued the medical certificate EXPW-JR without obtaining the expert opinion or report of the dental surgeon. PW Dr. Jeet Raj has admitted in his cross-examination that in the case of a human bite, there may be marks of lower front teeth and upper front teeth with depiction of the actual size of the teeth. In view of contradictions and discrepancies in the prosecution evidence and the prosecution case, the absence of expert opinion from the dental surgeon shrouds the entire prosecution case in doubt.