JUDGMENT 1. - The Judicial Magistrate Malpura convicted the petitioner, Devalal, for the offence under section 326, IPC and sentenced him to one year R.I. and a fine of Rs. 250/-. This conviction and sentence was confirmed by the Sessions Judge, Tonk by his judgment dated 17th April, 1990. Against this decision the petitioner has preferred this revision petition. 2. The facts of the case lie in a very narrow compass. The injured Gokul & the accused Devalal had a short quarrel about the share in the crop in lie of wages for the labour done by Gokul. Upon this quarrel the appellant caught hold of Gokul and gave a teeth bite on the left ear of Gokul, with the result that a part of the ear measuring 1.5" x 0.2" was severed. This injury has been described by the doctor as a lacerated wound caused by a blunt object. This was grievous in nature and as it was a lacerated wound he said that the opinion will have to be given that it was caused by a blunt object. He gave opinion that the injury could have been caused by eating away with the teeth. 3. The question which has been raised by the learned counsel for the petitioner is that the lacerated wound could be caused by a blunt object only and merely because it is teeth bite it cannot be termed as an injury by a sharp or dangerous weapon used in cutting, stabbing etc. He has placed reliance on Mohd. Hamid and others v. State of Raj., WLN (UC) 1974 page 342 In this case the doctor opined that the teeth bite injury was caused by blunt weapon and the benefit was given to the accused and he was convicted under section 323 IPC instead of s. 324 IPC. In the circumstances no opinion was expressed on the question whether teeth bite was or was not by sharp edged weapon. In the present case the doctor has described the injury as lacerated wound and has said that because of the lacerated wound it would have to be described as caused by blunt object. At the same time he has said that such injury is generally possible by the incisor tooth and incisor tooth is also known as cutting tooth. According to him an injury by incisor will not be known as injury caused by sharp object. At the same time he has said that such injury is generally possible by the incisor tooth and incisor tooth is also known as cutting tooth. According to him an injury by incisor will not be known as injury caused by sharp object. 4. This matter came to be considered in Chaurasi Munjhi & another v. State of Bihar, AIR 1970 Patna 322 , and referring to the meaning of the words `instrument and teeth' it was held that there is no difficulty in taking the view that tooth is a means whereby something is achieved, performed or furthered and therefore it can be characterised as an instrument within the meaning of sections 324, IPC and 326, IPC. For a simple injury caused by teeth offence will be under section 324, IPC and for grievous injury caused by such a bite he would be guilty for the offence under section 326, IPC. 5. The Allahabad High Court in Jamil Hasan v. The State, 1974 Cr.LJ page 867 has taken the view that tooth is an instrument for cutting and serves as weapon of offence and defence and consequently an injury caused by teeth bite would be an offence under section 324 and 326, IPC depending upon whether the injury is simple or grievous. Considering the meaning of instrument it was observed that it cannot be said that instrument can only mean some mechanical device, wholly apart from the human anatomy. When human hands can be used as instrument for causing a hurt and even grievous hurt there is no reason why human teeth should be deprived of that quality. 6. While dealing with the nature of weapon used for causing injury the words used in sections 324 and 326, IPC are that whosoever voluntarily caused 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 etc. The nature of the weapon used will determine the nature of the offence committed and not the description of an injury which may be incised wound or lacerated wound. A weapon supposed to be sharp edged but not having clean cut edges may sometimes not cause an incised wound. It is the instrument used which would determine the nature of the offence. A weapon supposed to be sharp edged but not having clean cut edges may sometimes not cause an incised wound. It is the instrument used which would determine the nature of the offence. In the present case it can be said that the injury was caused by teeth bite and I have no hesitation in accepting the view of the learned Judges of the Patna and Allahabad High Courts and holding that human teeth can be said to be instrument for cutting and as such if a simple injury is caused by teeth bite then the offence would be under section 324, IPC and if the grievous injury is caused by teeth bite then the offence would be under section 326 IPC. 7. In the present case it is established that the injury caused was grievous injury and hence offence has been rightly said to be one under section 326, IPC and the contention of the petitioner that the injury is by blunt object is not proper. 8. The learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the occurrence took place in the year 1977 and a long time has passed and the petitioner has also remained in Jail for a period of about 4 months. Considering all these circumstances it can be said that the sentence already undergone by him can be said to be sufficient for the offence committed by him. He shall deposit the fine of Rs. 250/- imposed on him within a period of one month from today. In default of payment of fine he shall undergo rigorous imprisonment for two months. 9. In the result, the revision petition is partly allowed. The conviction under section 326, IPC of the accused is upheld. The sentence is modified to that of already undergone by the petitioner. The petitioner shall deposit fine of Rs. 250/-within one month. He shall be released forthwith if not required in other case. In default of payment of fine he would undergo rigorous imprisonment for two months.Revision Partly Allowed. *******