Path: Home » NEWS against MEN » 498A/ Domestic Violence » Human Teeth Not Considered a Dangerous Weapon: Bombay High Court Rules in Family Dispute Case

Human Teeth Not Considered a Dangerous Weapon: Bombay High Court Rules in Family Dispute Case

Bombay High Court: Human Teeth Not a Dangerous Weapon in Family Dispute Case

The Bombay High Court recently dismissed a case where a woman accused her sister-in-law of biting her. The court referred to a previous ruling from the Supreme Court in Shakeel Ahmed (2004), which stated that human teeth cannot be considered a deadly weapon under Section 326 of the IPC (Indian Penal Code), which deals with causing severe harm with dangerous weapons.

A bench consisting of Justices Vibha Kankanwadi and Sanjay Deshmukh ruled that this legal precedent applied to the current case as well. The case involved a family dispute between the Solankar family and their daughter-in-law, Maya, who sought a share in the family’s property, which included land, a house, and a brick kiln.

On April 26, 2020, a confrontation occurred between Maya and her brother-in-law, Tanaji Shivaji Solankar, while the family was preparing to move bricks from the kiln. Maya requested they halt the transportation until a court decision on the property dispute. This request led to an argument, during which Maya claimed that Vanmala (Tanaji’s wife) bit her right hand, and Tanaji and his father, Shivaji, assaulted her brother, Laxman Mane. Maya further alleged that Tanaji bit Laxman’s left forearm during the altercation.

The injuries sustained by Maya and Laxman were minor, described as simple contused lacerations. Based on Maya’s complaint, a First Information Report (FIR) was filed against the Solankars on charges under Sections 324, 323, 504, 506, and 34 of the IPC, which cover causing hurt with dangerous weapons, voluntary harm, insult, intimidation, and common intention. The Solankars then approached the High Court to have the case quashed.

The Bombay High Court examined the injuries and noted that they were minor and could not be considered the result of a dangerous weapon. The court reviewed the medical reports and found that the injuries were caused by a “hard and blunt object,” not human teeth. Given this, the court ruled there was no reason to continue the proceedings under Section 326 of the IPC, which deals with serious harm caused by a dangerous weapon.


Case Title: Solankar Family Dispute – Maya Solankar vs. Tanaji Shivaji Solankar & Others

Be a part our social media community:
Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/IndianMan.in?mibextid=ZbWKwL
Instagram:
https://www.instagram.com/indianman.in?igsh=MWZ2N3N0ZmpwM3l3cw==

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *