Crl. Revision No.2089 of 2010 ::1:: IN THE PUNJAB AND HARYANA HIGH COURT AT CHANDIGARH Crl. Revision No.2089 of 2010 Date of decision: 28.10.2010 Ram Singh .. Petitioner Versus State of Punjab .. Respondent Present:- Mr.D.R.Singla, Advocate, for the petitioner. Mr.A.P.S. Mann, Addl.A.G., Punjab. * * * * S.S. SARON, J. The reply by way of affidavit of Shivraj Singh Nandgarh, Depty Superintendent, Sub Jail, Barnala, filed today in the Court is taken on record. Heard counsel for the parties. The petitioner has been convicted by both the Courts below for the offences under Section Section 326 of Indian Penal Code (IPC-for short). The allegation against the petitioner is that he gave a bite with his teeth on the lower lip of the complainant-Ram Singh son of Mohinder Singh and the lip of the complainant got removed. The injury on the person of the complainant-Ram Singh was held to be grievous in nature. In Shakeel Ahmeed v. State, Delhi (2004) 10 SCC 103, it was held by the Supreme Court that human teeth are not deadly weapon and even though injuries caused were grievous, the conviction was altered to one from Section 326 read with Section 34 IPC and Section 325 IPC to one under Section 325 read with Section 34 IPC. In the present case, admittedly, the injury Crl. Revision No.2089 of 2010 ::2:: attributed to the petitioner is that he bit the lower lip of the complainant with his teeth. Therefore, in view of Shakeel Ahmed's case (supra), the same would be an offence punishable under Section 325 IPC. In terms of the custody certificate that has been filed, the petitioner has undergone 7 months and 23 days of imprisonment up to 27.10.2010. He has been convicted by the Courts below for 2 years rigorous imprisonment for the offence under Section 326 IPC; besides, fine of Rs.3,000/- and in default of payment of fine, to further undergo 3 months imprisonment. He has also been sentenced to 6 months rigorous imprisonment for the offence under Section 323 IPC; besides, fine of Rs.500/- and in default of payment of fine, to further undergo 15 days imprisonment. Lastly, he has been sentenced to 6 months rigorous imprisonment for the offence under Section 379 IPC; besides, fine of Rs.500/- and in default of payment of fine, to further undergo 15 days imprisonment. All the sentences were ordered to run concurrently. It is submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the fine has already been deposited. As has already been noticed that the offence which is made out against the petitioner would be one which is punishable under Section 325 IPC. Learned counsel for the State, has however, submitted that the petitioner had by biting the lip of the complainant, removed the entire lip. Therefore, even though the offence is one which is punishable under Section 325 IPC, the same would not warrant the reduction of sentence of imprisonment. Learned counsel for the petitioner has, however, submitted that Dr.Sunita Goel (PW-1) in her cross-examination submitted that there was no mark of injury on the lower lip of the complainant-Ram Crl. Revision No.2089 of 2010 ::3:: Singh and that he had undergone plastic surgery. In the facts and circumstances of the case, it would be just and expedient that while holding that the petitioner has committed the offence punishable under Section 325 IPC, he is convicted for the said offence under Section 325 IPC and that his sentence is reduced to that already undergone. Besides, he is ordered to pay a compensation of Rs.10,000/- to the complainant-Ram Singh which would include the fine that has already been deposited being converted to that of compensation. Accordingly, by altering the conviction from one to under Section 326 IPC to that under Section 325 IPC, the sentence of imprisonment is reduced to that already undergone for the offence under Section 325 IPC. Besides, the petitioner shall pay compensation of Rs.10,000/- in all to the petitioner, which shall be deposited in the trial Court and paid to the complainant. The fine already paid shall be treated as compensation payable to te complainant. The sentence under Sections of 323 and 379 IPC shall remain intact and shall run concurrently. The petitioner, if not wanted in any other case, shall be set at liberty. The learned trial Court shall summon the complainant and pay the compensation to him. (S.S. SARON) JUDGE October 28, 2010 sukhpreet