Find a Lawyer

Criminal Miscellaneous No. 1066-5 of 1984, decided on 2nd September, 1984.

---S.326--interpretation of statutes--'Teeth' held, not "instrument" within meaning of S. 326, P.P.C. and injury caused therewith would be punishable under S. 325, P.P.C. and not under S. 326, P.P.C.- [Interpretation of statutes].

---S. 497--Penal Code (XLV of 1860), S.325--Bail, grant of--Occurrence a sudden affair and preceded by exchange of abuses immediately before petitioner caused injury to complainant--Petitioner also attributed knife in F.I.R. but in supplementary statement of injured, charged to teeth bite--Question of guilt of petitioner, held, requiring further inquiry in circumstances--Bail allowed.

S. Iqbal-ud-Din Ahmad Shah for Petitioner.

Daud Qureshi for the State.

Malik Muhammad Din and Sarder Ahmad Khan; Amicus Curiae.

This is an application for bail by Allah Bachaya in case under section 324/326, P.P.C. registered at P.S. Saddar Bahawalpur vide F.I.R. No.185/84 wherein it was alleged that the petitioner gave a knife blow on the nose of Faiz Bakhsh complainant cutting the left nostril. In his supplementary statement recorded on the same day the complainant stated that the petitioner had cut his nose with teeth. Muhammad Nawaz and Haq Nawaz the eye-witnesses supported the version given in. the supplementary statement of the complainant.

2. On 30-8-1984, the learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that teeth are not instruments for cutting and therefore the act of the petitioner being not punishable under section 326, P.P.C., the case comes out of the prohibitory clause. Learned counsel for the State had opposed the contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner.

3. Since during the arguments, a question of general importance i.e. whether teeth are instruments for cutting cropped up, therefore I asked Malik Muhammad Din and Sardar Ahmad Khan, Senior Advocates of Bahawelpur Division to appear and address the Court as amici curiae. They have appeared today and assisted the Court with appreciable ability. They are of the view that the teeth are not the instruments for cutting.

4. I have considered the arguments addressed at the bar with care. I feel persuaded to hold that prima facie teeth are not instruments for cutting and the act of the petitioner may not a punishable under section 326, P.P.C. The provisions of the section may be quoted advantageously:-

"Section 326-- Voluntarily causing grievous hurt by 'dangerous weapons or means-- Whoever, except in the case provided for by section 335, voluntarily causes grievous 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 substance which it is deleterious to the human body to inhale, swallow, or to receive into the blood, or by means of any animal shall be punished with (imprisonment for life) or with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to ten years, and shall also be liable to fine."

For the purposes of the case in hand, the words "by means of any instrument for shooting, stabbing or cutting" are of great significance. The material and important question for determination therefore, is whether the teeth are instruments for cutting or not. For that the dictionary meanings of the relevant words may be reproduced conveniently: -

(i) instrument to prepare, provide, tool.

(ii) teeth: hard process within mouth attached in a row of each jaw in most verteberates except birds, having pointed edges, grinding surface and serving primarily for the cutting/ tearing or trituration of solid food and secondly as weapon of attack or defence.

According to Medical jurisprudence by Moodi, lacerated wounds are tears, split produced by blows from the blunt objects and missile, by violent fall on sharp hard surface and by teeth. From the dictionary meanings of the relevant words given above and the opinion of the Expert, I am convinced that the teeth are not instruments for cutting. I am also of the view that teeth being part of human body and not manmade are not instrument within the meaning of section 326, P.P.C. Since in the case in hand I am of the view that injuries with teeth are not by any instrument or by means mentioned in section 326, P.P.C., the petitioner prima facie is liable under section 325, P.P.C. for causing grievous hurt. Now the question arises whether the petitioner deserves concession of bail in this case or not. I find that the teeth being not instrument for cutting, the application of section 326, P.P.C. is at least doubtful; that the petitioner is the paternal-uncle of the complainant; that before the infliction of the injury the petitioner was quarrelling with his wife when the complainant came in the house of the petitioner and tried to separate them; that abuses were exchanged immediately before the petitioner caused injury to the complainant; that the occurrence was all of sudden that in the F.I.R. it has been stated that the petitioner has given injury with knife but in the supplementary statement it was stated that he had cut the nose with teeth.

For what has been stated above, I am of the view that they question of the guilt of the petitioner requires further enquiry. He is therefore, allowed bail in the sum of Rs.10,000 with one surety in the like amount to the satisfaction of A.C. Duty Magistrate, Bahawalpur.

S.G.D. Bail granted.

Find a Lawyer Near You

Dealing with a matter like this? Connect with a verified advocate in your city — free on SJP Lawyers Directory.