Human teeth not a dangerous weapon: Bombay HC after woman alleges being bit by sister-in-law
Mumbai (PTI): Human teeth cannot be considered as a dangerous weapon which would cause serious harm, the Bombay High Court said quashing an FIR filed on a woman's complaint against her in-laws wherein she alleged her sister-in-law bit her.
The complainant's medical certificates show there was only simple hurt caused by teeth marks, Justices Vibha Kankanwadi and Sanjay Deshmukh of the HC's Aurangabad bench said in the order on April 4.
As per the FIR lodged in April 2020 on the woman's complaint, during a scuffle, one of her sisters-in-law bit her, thus causing her harm with a dangerous weapon.
The accused were booked under relevant sections of the Indian Penal Code for causing harm with dangerous weapons, hurting someone and causing injury.
The court in its order said, "Human teeth cannot be said to be a dangerous weapon."
It allowed a petition filed by the accused and quashed the FIR.
Under section 324 of the Indian Penal Code (causing hurt using a dangerous weapon), the hurt should be by means of an instrument that is likely to cause death or serious harm, the HC said.
The medical certificates of the complainant in the present case show there was only simple hurt caused by teeth marks, the court said.
It would be an abuse of the process of law to make the accused face trial when the offence under section 324 is not made out, the HC said and quashed the FIR.
The court noted there appears to be a property dispute between the accused and the complainant.
Let the Truth be known. If you read VB and like VB, please be a VB Supporter and Help us deliver the Truth to one and all.
Bhojshala case: Disputed structure built from remains of pre-existing temples, claims ASI
Indore (PTI): The ASI has told the Madhya Pradesh High Court that a massive structure dating back to the Paramara kings' rule existed at the disputed Bhojshala temple-Kamal Maula mosque complex, and the current structure was built from the remains of temples.
The Archaeological Survey of India (ASI) made the claim on Tuesday based on its 98-day scientific survey and over 2,000-page report.
The Hindu community considers Bhojshala a temple dedicated to Vagdevi (Goddess Saraswati), while the Muslim side claims the monument as the Kamal Maula Mosque. The disputed complex is protected by the ASI.
During the hearing before Justices Vijay Kumar Shukla and Alok Awasthi of the HC's Indore bench, Additional Solicitor General Sunil Kumar Jain, representing the ASI, presented a detailed account of the scientific survey conducted two years ago at the complex.
Referring to the ASI's survey report, he said, "Retrieved architectural remains, sculptural fragments, large slabs of inscriptions with literary texts, Nagakarnika inscriptions on pillars, etc, suggest that a large structure associated with literary and educational activities existed at the site. Based on scientific investigations and archaeological remains recovered during the investigations, this pre-existing structure can be dated to the Paramara period."
It can be said that the existing structure was made from the parts of earlier temples, based on scientific investigations, survey and archaeological excavations conducted, study and analysis of retrieved finds, study of architectural remains, sculptures, and inscriptions, art and sculptures, Jain said quoting the report.
Summarising the report, he also drew the court's attention to the fact that the archaeological study identifies that many architectural components, such as pillars and beams, were originally part of temple structures before being repurposed for a mosque.
"The evidence of this transition includes Sanskrit and Prakrit inscriptions that were damaged or hidden, alongside sculptures of deities and animals that were often mutilated or defaced," Jain contended.
The report also states that "all Sanskrit and Prakrit inscriptions are older than the Arabic and Persian inscriptions, indicating that users or engravers of the Sanskrit and Prakrit inscriptions occupied the place earlier".
In light of the Muslim side's earlier objections, the bench wanted to know why there were some discrepancies in the ASI's responses regarding the status of the disputed complex in the cases filed over the years.
The Additional Solicitor General argued that earlier studies of the complex involved only officials, while the current survey involved scientists and the use of advanced technologies such as Ground Penetrating Radar (GPR).
The hearing in the Bhojshala case will continue on Wednesday.
The high court has been regularly hearing four petitions and one writ appeal regarding the religious nature of the Bhojshala temple-Kamal Maula mosque complex since April 6.
