Back
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
(From the High Court Of Madhya Pradesh at Gwalior)
N.V. RAMANA, CJI., A.S. BOPANNA, HIMA KOHLI, JJ.
Ram Ratan – Appellant
Versus
State of Madhya Pradesh – Respondent
Criminal Appeal No. 1333 of 2018
Decided On : 17-12-2021
Indian Penal Code, 1860 – Sections 392 and 397 read with Section 11/13 of Madhya Pradesh Dakaiti Aur Vyapharan Pravbhavit Kshetra Adhiniyam, 1981 – Robbery – Conviction and sentence – Use of weapon to constitute offence under Section 397 IPC does not require that ‘offender’ should actually fire from firearm or actually stab if it is a knife or a dagger but mere exhibition of same, brandishing or holding it openly to threaten and create fear or apprehension in mind of victim is sufficient – Other aspect is that if charge of committing offence is alleged against all accused and only one among ‘offenders’ had used firearm or deadly weapon, only such of ‘offender’ who has used firearm or deadly weapon alone would be liable to be charged under Section 397 IPC – Benefit of interpretation raised on scope of Section 397 IPC to hold aggressor alone as being guilty, will be available to appellant if there is no specific allegation against him – Motorcycle was recovered at instance of appellant that certainly constitutes offence under Section 392 IPC – Conviction and sentence modified. (Paras 17, 18, 21, 24, 15 and 26)
Facts of the case:
Appellant is assailing the judgment dated 23.02.2017 passed by the High Court of Madhya Pradesh in Criminal Appeal. Though the said appeal was disposed of by the High Court along with the companion appeal, the consideration herein is limited to the case against the appellant herein who was arrayed as first accused before the trial court.
Findings of Court:
It is no doubt true, that the appellant had participated in the offence of committing robbery since ultimately the motorcycle was hidden at a place which was known to the appellant and the property seizure memo indicates that the motorcycle was recovered at the instance of the appellant that certainly constitutes an offender under Section 392 IPC.
Result : Appeal allowed in part.
Key Points: - The Supreme Court held that use or display of a weapon to threaten can constitute an offence under Section 397 IPC, even if the weapon is not fired or used to cause injury (!) (!) . - Only the offender who actually used a deadly weapon can be liable under Section 397 IPC; others cannot be vicariously punished under 397 unless specifically alleged and proven that they used or employed the weapon (!) (!) (!) (!) . - In this case, the appellant was found to have participated in robbery under Section 392 IPC, but the charge under Section 397 IPC and MPDVPK Act 11/13 could not be sustained against him; the Court sustained the conviction under 392 but set aside 397 against the appellant (!) (!) (!) . - The sentence for the appellant was modified to reflect the period already served, with the 7-year rigorously imposed under 397 set aside, and imposition limited to the sentence actually undergone for 392 (!) (!) . - The motorcycle and mobile were recovered; the gun used was alleged to be used only by one co-accused (Raju alias Rajendra), who was convicted under Arms Act; the appellant was not proven to have used the firearm (!) (!) . - The evidence from PW-1 (complainant) and the FIR supported that all three accused participated in robbery, with only one using the firearm; thus only that offender could be punished under 397 IPC (!) (!) (!) . - The Court emphasized that if there is no allegation against a particular accused under 397 IPC, benefit of the limiting interpretation applies to that accused (!) .
JUDGMENT :
A.S. BOPANNA, J.
1. The appellant is before this Court in this appeal assailing the judgment dated 23.02.2017 passed by the High Court of Madhya Pradesh in Criminal Appeal No. 691/2013 titled Ram Ratan vs. State of Madhya Pradesh. Though the said appeal was disposed of by the High Court along with the companion appeal, the consideration herein is limited to the case against the appellant herein i.e. Ram Ratan who was arrayed as the first accused before the trial court.
2. The appeal before the High Court was filed by the appellant, being aggrieved by the judgment dated 31.07.2013 passed by the Special Judge (MPDVPK Act) 1981, Sheopur in Special Case No. 13/2013 (Old Case No. 26/2012). Through the said judgment, the trial court has convicted the appellant along with the other two accused namely, Chotu and Raju alias Rajendra under Section 392 and 397 of Indian Penal Code (“IPC” for short) read with Section 11/13 of Madhya Pradesh Dakaiti Aur Vyapharan Pravbhavit Kshetra Adhiniyam 1981 Act (“MPDVPK Act, 1981” for short) and sentenced the appellant and other accused to rigorous imprisonment of 7 years with fine of Rs. 1000/ in default of the same, to undergo imprisonment for a further period of 4 months. The co-accused Raju alias Rajendra was further convicted and sentenced under Section 25 (1B) (a) of Arms Act to one-year rigorous imprisonment with fine of Rs. 500/- in default of the same, to further undergo 2 months rigorous imprisonment. Though all the three accused had filed the respective appeals before the High Court against the said conviction and sentence, the co-accused Chotu died during the pendency of his appeal, due to which the said appeal abated. As noted above, though the appeal of Raju alias Rajendra was also considered by the High Court through the common judgment, the present appeal is filed by the appellant alone and as such the conviction and sentence of the appellant based on the contentions put-forth on his behalf only are adverted to in this judgment.
3. The brief facts are that one, Rajesh Meena lodged a complaint on 27.06.2012, alleging that on the intervening night of 26-27/6/2012, while he was sleeping in the hut constructed in the field to guard the crops, at about 02:30 a.m. the appellant along with Raju alias Rajendra and Chotu came to him and woke him up. The said Raju alias Rajendra was having a gun with him and on pointing the same towards the chest of the complainant, demanded to part with the money. The complainant informed that he did not have any money, due to which the key of his motorcycle was snatched and the said Raju alias Rajendra also took out the mobile phone from the pocket of his shirt. Thereafter, all the three accused persons forced the complainant to sit on the motorcycle along with them. When they reached the village Nanawat, the motorcycle got punctured and therefore all the persons compelled the complainant to get down from the motorcycle and the motorcycle was taken away. By the said time since it was dawn, his uncle named Tulsiram was passing by to milk the buffaloes. The complainant narrated the incident, following which, steps were taken to lodge the complaint. The police having taken action, recovered the motorcycle as also the mobile phone and apprehended the accused. The police on completing the investigation filed the charge-sheet against the appellant for the offences under Sections 392/397 of IPC and under Sections 11/13 of MPDVPK Act, 1981.
4. The trial court framed charges through the order dated 26.02.2013 under Sections 392/397 of IPC and Sections 11/13 of MPDVPK Act, 1981 against the appellant and Chotu, while an additional charge under Section 25 (1B) (a)/27 of the Arms Act was framed against the other co-accused namely, Raju alias Rajendra. The appellant and his co-accused having pleaded not guilty, stood trial in the matter.
5. The trial court having noted the evidence tendered through PW-1 to PW-12, the documents which were marked and the material object
Use of weapon to constitute offence under Section 397 IPC does not require that ‘offender’ should actually fire from firearm or actually stab if it is a knife or a dagger but mere exhibition of same,....
The actual user of a deadly weapon during a robbery is solely liable under Section 397 IPC, while others involved may face lesser charges if not directly implicated.
The broad interpretation of the use of weapons in armed robbery under Section 397 of IPC, emphasizing that the mere display of a weapon or any action inducing fear in the victim's mind is sufficient ....
The court clarified that for conviction under Section 397 IPC, the prosecution must prove grievous injury and involvement of five persons, which was not established in this case.
The prosecution failed to prove the use of a deadly weapon during the commission of robbery, leading to the court's ruling to overturn the conviction.
The testimonies of the prosecution witnesses are consistent in relation to all material particulars and there exists no ground whatsoever for the modification of the impugned judgment dated 22.02.202....
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
