*Acquits man convicted for biting off victim’s ear
Excelsior Correspondent
JAMMU, July 24: In a significant ruling, the High Court of Jammu & Kashmir and Ladakh has acquitted a man who had been convicted by the trial court and appellate court for grievously injuring another person by allegedly biting and severing his ear during a land dispute in 2005. Moreover, the High Court held that human teeth cannot be considered a dangerous weapon within the meaning of Section 326 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC), and therefore, conviction under that provision was unsustainable in law.
The judgment was delivered by Justice Rajesh Sekhri while allowing a criminal revision petition filed by Satish Kumar alias Babbal, who had been sentenced to one year’s imprisonment and a fine of Rs 3,000 for voluntarily causing grievous hurt under Section 326 IPC and one month’s imprisonment under Section 341 RPC for wrongful restraint.
The incident occurred on May 6, 2005, when complainant Vijay Kumar was accompanying the Tehsildar and other officials for the demarcation of his land at Keerian Ramnagar. He alleged that while he was heading to meet the Tehsildar, he was intercepted by Satish Kumar and two others-his uncle and cousins-who physically assaulted him due to an ongoing land dispute.
Vijay Kumar claimed that during the altercation, Satish Kumar bit off a portion of his right ear, causing bleeding and grievous injury. A case was registered at Police Station Lakhanpur under Sections 341 and 326 IPC. The trial court convicted the appellant, and the conviction was upheld by the Principal Sessions Judge, Kathua.
After hearing counsels for both the sides, Justice Rajesh Sekhri pointed out several inconsistencies in the prosecution’s case, adding “the First Information Report (FIR) did not mention that the appellant had bitten the complainant’s ear. There was confusion about whether the injury was on the left or right ear”.
“The medical certificate initially stated the injury was on the left ear, while later re-examination (years later) said it was the right ear – based only on visual inspection in court, not any clinical record.
The dental surgeon’s expert opinion-which was supposed to verify whether the injury was caused by a human bite-was never obtained”, the High Court said.
Justice Sekhri cited the Supreme Court’s decision in Shakeel Ahmed Vs State (2004) where it was held that a human teeth does not qualify as a dangerous weapon within the meaning of Section 326 IPC. Consequently, grievous hurt caused by a bite would fall under Section 325 IPC, not 326.
Rejecting the earlier judgments of the trial and appellate courts that had relied on older High Court rulings equating human teeth to offensive weapons, the High Court observed, “the language used in Sections 324 and 326 IPC clearly refers to instruments other than body parts. Therefore, the use of a tooth-even if it results in grievous injury-does not attract these Sections”.
While acknowledging that the High Court’s revisional jurisdiction is limited and does not typically extend to reappreciating evidence, Justice Sekhri held that it could intervene if findings of the lower courts were perverse, based on misreading of evidence or legal errors.
In light of contradictions in witness statements, the absence of medical corroboration and misapplication of law, the High Court found that the conviction under Section 326 IPC was not legally sustainable. Accordingly, the High Court allowed the revision petition, set aside the conviction and sentence and acquitted the appellant of all charges.
Follow our WhatsApp channel
