1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JODHPUR ORDER S.B.CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION NO. 666/2007 (Pawan Kumar V/s State of Rajasthan) Date of Order : 20/07/2007 PRESENT HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE H.R.PANWAR Dr. S.S.Jodha, for the petitioner. Mr. Ashok Upadhyay, P.P. BY THE COURT:- Issue notice for final disposal. Mr. Ashok Upadhyay, public prosecutor is directed to accept notice. He accepts the notice for the State. Learned counsel for the petitioner has supplied copy of the revision petition to public prosecutor. With the consent of learned counsel for the parties, the revision petition itself is finally heard and decided at the admission stage. By the instant criminal revision petition under Section 397 r/w Section 401 Cr.P.C., the petitioner has challenged the order dated 21.06.2007 passed by Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Anupgarh, district Sriganganagar (for short 'the trial court' hereinafter) whereby the trial court framed additional charge 2 against the petitioner for the offence under Section 326 IPC on an application filed by prosecution under Section 216 Cr.P.C. Heard learned counsel for the parties. It is contended by learned counsel for the petitioner that the injury alleged to have been caused to the complainant is a teeth bite and teeth is not a deadly weapon and therefore, the injury caused by teeth bite would not fall in the definition of grievous injury by sharp edged weapon. Learned counsel for the petitioner has relied on a decision of Hon'ble Supreme Court in Shakeel Ahmed Vs. State, Delhi 2004 SCC (Cri.) 1759 wherein the Apex Court held that injuries, no doubt are grievous as the phalanx of the index finger has been snipped off. But the allegation is that the assailant had bitten the index finger and caused the said injury. Teeth of a human being cannot be considered as deadly weapon as per the description of deadly weapon enumerated under Section 326 IPC. Hence the offence cannot escalate to Section 326. It can best remain only at Section 325 IPC and on these premises, the conviction from Section 326 IPC was altered to Section 325 IPC r/w Section 34 IPC. In the instant case, injured Rajkumar stated that the injury was caused by teeth bite by the present petitioner on the index finger. The facts of the case are almost identical to that of the case in Shakeel Ahmed Vs. State, Delhi (supra). In this view 3 of the matter, the trial court fell in error in framing charge against the petitioner for the offence under Section 326 IPC instead under Section 325 IPC for causing injury by teeth bite. In view of the aforesaid discussion, the revision petition is allowed. The order impugned dated 21.6.2007 framing charge against the petitioner for the offence under Section 326 IPC is set aside and instead charge under Section 325 IPC for causing injury by teeth bite is made out. (H.R.PANWAR),J. rp