ORDER The Crl.M.C is filed seeking to quash the FIR and further proceedings in Crime No.255 of 2020 registered at the Anchalummoodu Police Station, alleging commission of the offences punishable under Sections 341, 294(b), 323 and 324 of IPC. The allegation is that, at 5.30 p.m on 08.03.2020, the petitioner wrongfully restrained the de facto complainant and his father, abused them and attempted to slap the de facto complainant, which he warded off and thereupon, the petitioner caused hurt to the de facto complainant by biting his left hand above the wrist. 2. The learned Counsel for the petitioner advanced an interesting and unique argument that Section 324, which is the only non-bailable offence, is not attracted since hurt is alleged to have been caused by biting the de facto complainant’s hand. In elaboration, the learned Counsel submitted that, teeth are not instruments for cutting and therefore, hurt caused by a bite will not attract the offence under Section 324. 3. The learned Public Prosecutor countered the argument and submitted that the relevant aspect to be considered is the manner in which, and not the object with which, hurt was caused. Reliance is placed on the decision of the High Court of Bihar in Chaurasi Manjhi v State of Bihar [AIR 1970 Patna 322] in support of the contention. 4. In order to answer the issue arising for consideration, it is necessary to have a close scrutiny of Section 324, which reads as under: “324. Reliance is placed on the decision of the High Court of Bihar in Chaurasi Manjhi v State of Bihar [AIR 1970 Patna 322] in support of the contention. 4. In order to answer the issue arising for consideration, it is necessary to have a close scrutiny of Section 324, which reads as under: “324. Voluntarily causing hurt by dangerous weapons or means.—Whoever, except in the case provided for by section 334, voluntarily causes hurt by means of any instrument for shooting, stabbing or cutting, or any instrument which, used as 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 explosive substance, or by means of any substance which it is deleterious to the human body to inhale, to swallow, or to receive into the blood, or by means of any animal, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to three years, or with fine, or with both.” From the wording of Section 324 it is clear that an offence under the Section will be attracted if hurt is caused voluntarily by means of any instrument of shooting, stabbing or cutting, which, if used as a weapon of offence, is likely to cause death. The question therefore is whether tooth/teeth falls within the meaning of the term “instrument for cutting”. While considering this question, it is essential to have an overview regarding the types of teeth and their functions: Teeth are categorised into four; Incisors - Incisors are the eight teeth in the front center of the mouth (four on both bottom and top). These are typically the first adult teeth that a child will get, coming in when the child is between six and eight years old. Incisors are the teeth that you use to bite into your food. Canines - Canines are the next teeth that develop in the mouth. Canines are four in number and are the sharpest teeth, used for tearing apart food. Premolars - Premolars are used for tearing and crushing food. Unlike incisors and canines, premolars have a flat biting surface. There are eight premolars in total. Molars - Molars are the largest teeth. Their function is similar to that of the premolars, to grind, tear, and crush food. Premolars - Premolars are used for tearing and crushing food. Unlike incisors and canines, premolars have a flat biting surface. There are eight premolars in total. Molars - Molars are the largest teeth. Their function is similar to that of the premolars, to grind, tear, and crush food. Molars have a large flat biting surface which makes them perfect for this job. The human jaws are built on the principle of a pair of tongs. Power is applied near the joint, while the work is performed at the opposite extremity of the jaw levers. When chewing we have an almost direct application of the power of the muscles, as they nearly overlie the third molars. There is a vast difference between chewing and biting. According to an article published in Scientificamerican.com, had a mechanical engineer designed the human frame, he would no doubt have built the jaws after the fashion of a nutcracker, with the muscles placed at the ends of the jaw levers, and the teeth between these ends and the joint or fulcrum, so that a powerful bite could be obtained with a very small expenditure of muscular effort. 4. The meaning of the word 'instrument' as per the Oxford Dictionary is ‘tool or equipment, especially one for precision work’. An instrument need not always be a mechanical device. The function of teeth being to bite and chew food, it can also be termed as an instrument for cutting, especially when it is used to bite and cause hurt to another person. It cannot be denied that human teeth can be, and are used, as a weapon of attack or defence. 5. Incidentally, a question may arise as to whether teeth, even if taken to be an instrument for cutting, is likely to cause death, if used as a weapon. Scientific studies reveal that a human adult's maximum biting force ranges from 520-1178 newtons depending on factors such as age and gender. It requires less than 200 newtons to bite through a raw carrot. Studies also reveal that biting through a finger requires so much force that attempts often lead to partial-amputation; a bite that doesn't completely sever the finger. But supposing the bite injury is caused to a vital part of the body leading to profuse bleeding, or resulting in septicemia, the injury is likely to cause death. 6. Studies also reveal that biting through a finger requires so much force that attempts often lead to partial-amputation; a bite that doesn't completely sever the finger. But supposing the bite injury is caused to a vital part of the body leading to profuse bleeding, or resulting in septicemia, the injury is likely to cause death. 6. This question was considered by the Patna High Court in Chaurasi Manjhi v. State of Bihar [ AIR 1970 Pat 322 ] and it was held as follows: “3. Considering the question, however, myself with reference to the meaning of the words “instrument” and “tooth” in Webster's Third New International Dictionary, I have come to the conclusion that tooth will be an instrument for cutting. According to the said dictionary, “instrument” means “a means whereby something is achieved, performed, or furthered”. Although tooth is a part of the body, but there is no difficulty in taking the view that it is a means whereby something is achieved, performed or furthered, and, therefore, it can be characterised as an instrument within the meaning of Section 324 of the Penal Code as also, under Section 326, if grievous injury is caused by tooth. According to the same dictionary “tooth” means “one of the hard bony appendages that are borne on the jaws or in many of the lower vertebrates on other bones in the walls of the mouth or pharynx and serve esp. for the prehension and mastication of food and as “weapons of offence and defence” (the underlining (here in ‘’) is mine). Reading the dictionary meaning of the words “instrument” and “tooth” therefore, I have unhesitatingly come to the conclusion that for simple injury caused by tooth bite, the offender will be guilty under Section 324 of the Penal Code. If grievous injury is caused by such bite, he will be guilty under Section 326 of the Penal Code. In my opinion, therefore, petitioner Jagdish Manjhi has rightly been convicted under Section 324 of the Penal Code. It may also be added that according to the finding, he has caused simple injury by lathi blow to Dasrath Manjhi. If grievous injury is caused by such bite, he will be guilty under Section 326 of the Penal Code. In my opinion, therefore, petitioner Jagdish Manjhi has rightly been convicted under Section 324 of the Penal Code. It may also be added that according to the finding, he has caused simple injury by lathi blow to Dasrath Manjhi. There would have been no difficulty, therefore, in convicting him under Section 323 of the Penal Code.” The same view was followed by the Allahabad High Court in Jamil Hasan v. State [1974 Cri LJ 867] and reiterated by the Chattisgarh High Court in Harichandra v. State of M.P. [2011 SCC OnLine Chh 285]. Therefore, the contention that human bite injury will not attract the offence under Section 324 IPC is liable to be rejected. Consequently, the Crl.M.C fails and is accordingly dismissed.