1. Conviction and sentencing for offences under Sections 341, 392 read with 397, and 506(ii) of the IPC — Appeal against modification of sentence. (Para 1 , 2 )
Back
Next 
2025 Supreme(SC) 1359
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
B.V. NAGARATHNA AND SATISH CHANDRA SHARMA, JJ.
K. Balaji – Appellant
Versus
State rep. By the Inspector of police – Respondent
Criminal Appeal No. 1157 of 2018
Decided on : 30-01-2025
The Court held that a small knife does not constitute a 'deadly weapon' under Section 397 of the IPC. Consequently, the conviction under Section 397 was set aside, while the conviction under Section 392 (robbery) was upheld, with the sentence reduced to the period already undergone.
Headnote:(A) Indian Penal Code, 1860 - Sections 341, 392, and 397 - Conviction under robbery charges - Appellant convicted for offences under Sections 341, 392 read with 397, and 506 (ii) of IPC; sentence of 8 years reduced to 7 years by High Court - On appeal, the Court determined the knife used was not a deadly weapon, leading to the conclusion that the charge under Section 397 was incorrectly framed. Thus, conviction under Section 392 upheld but sentence reduced to time already served. (Paras 10-12, 15)
(B) Legal principle - The determination of whether a weapon is 'deadly' is crucial in framing charges under IPC. (Paras 7-8, 10)
(C) Importance of evidence - The burden of proof lies with the prosecution to establish elements of the charge beyond a reasonable doubt. (Paras 10, 12)
Facts of the case:
The appellant was charged with robbery and the use of a deadly weapon, specifically a small knife. The High Court modified the sentence from 8 to 7 years, while the appellant served approximately 4 years and 8 months.
Findings of Court:
The Court held that the knife was not a deadly weapon, subsequently confirming the conviction under Section 392 and reducing the sentence to the time already served.
Issues: Whether the knife used was a 'deadly weapon' under Section 397 IPC and sufficiency of punishment under Section 392 IPC.
Ratio Decidendi: The Court found that the knife did not qualify as a deadly weapon, concluding that the charge under Section 397 was improperly framed, and therefore, it upheld the conviction under Section 392 with a reduced sentence reflecting time served.
Result: Appeal allowed in part.
Legal Category Hierarchy
Table of Contents
2. Whether a small knife constitutes a deadly weapon under Section 397 IPC — Request to reduce sentence under Section 392 IPC to period already undergone. (Para 7 , 8 , 9 )
3. A small knife not causing injury cannot be termed a deadly weapon under Section 397 IPC — Section 392 IPC prescribes no minimum punishment. (Para 10 , 11 , 12 , 13 )
4. Conviction under Section 397 IPC requires the use of a deadly weapon or the causing or attempting to cause death or grievous hurt. (Para 10 , 12 )
5. Conviction under Section 392 IPC confirmed — Sentence reduced to the period already undergone — Other convictions affirmed. (Para 15 )
6. Does the possession of a small knife automatically attract the minimum sentence under Section 397 IPC?
No. For Section 397 IPC to apply, the offender must use a deadly weapon or cause or attempt to cause grievous hurt or death. A small knife that cannot be termed a deadly weapon within the scope of the section does not attract this provision. (Para 10 , 12 )
7. What is the sentencing range for robbery under Section 392 IPC?
Section 392 IPC provides that whoever commits robbery shall be punished with rigorous imprisonment for a term which may extend to ten years and shall also be liable to fine, with no minimum punishment prescribed. (Para 13 )
8. Can a court reduce a sentence to the period already undergone if no minimum sentence is prescribed?
Yes, in the interest of justice, if the offence has no prescribed minimum punishment, the court may reduce the sentence to the period of incarceration already completed by the appellant. (Para 13 , 14 )
ORDER :
1. Being aggrieved by the judgment and order dated 21.12.2016 passed by the Madras High Court in Criminal Appeal No.607/2009 modifying the sentence awarded under Section 392 read with Section 397 of the INDIAN PENAL CODE , 1860 ("IPC") and affirming the remaining sentences awarded by the Trial Court, the appellant is before this Court.
2. In Sessions Case No.77/2009 on the file of the learned Special Judge, Special Court for Bomb Blast Cases, Coimbatore, the appellant being the sole accused was charged for the offences under Sections 341 , 392 read with 397, and 506 (ii) of the IPC. The Trial Court by its judgment dated 16.09.2009 convicted the appellant/accused for the offences under Sections 341 , 392 read with 397, and 506 (ii) of the IPC and sentenced him (i) to undergo simple imprisonment for 15 days and imposed a fine of Rs.250/- and in default of payment of fine, further 7 days of imprisonment for the offence under Section 341 IPC; (ii) undergo rigorous imprisonment for 8 years, with a fine of Rs.5,000/-and in default of payment of fine, simple imprisonment of 3 months for the offence under Section 392 of the IPC read with Section 397 of the IPC; and (iii) to undergo rigorous imprisonment for one year with a fine of Rs.1000/- and in default of payment of the fine, one month simple imprisonment for the offence under Section 506 (ii) of the IPC. It was ordered that the accused has to undergo the punishment concurrently.
3. The appellant/accused being aggrieved by the judgment of conviction and sentence imposed by the Trial Court, preferred Criminal Appeal No.607/2009 before the High Court.
4. The High Court partly allowed the appeal and while confirming the conviction, imposed a sentence of seven years under Section 392 read with Section 397 of the IPC, instead of eight years as imposed by the Trial Court. Consequently, the appellant has completed about four years and eight months in jail.
5. Thereafter, by interim order dated 19.02.2021, this Court granted bail to the appellant subject to certain terms and conditions.
6. We have heard learned counsel appearing for the appellant and learned counsel for respondent/State and perused the material on record.
7. During the course of submissions, appellant's counsel drew our attention to the fact that the framing of charge under Section 397 of the IPC was erroneous inasmuch as the knife which was recovered from the appellant/accused was not at all a deadly weapon. Alternatively, it was contended that it was a small knife and there is no proof of the fact that the said knife was a deadly weapon. Consequently, Section 397 of the IPC could not have been invoked as against the appellant herein. Elaborating on the said submission, learned counsel for the appellant contended that PW1 and PW2, who are stated to be the victims, have not adverted to any injury suffered by them during the course of the incident. In the circumstances, the charge against the appellant under Section 397 of the IPC would not arise at all and even otherwise the prosecution has failed to prove the case under Section 397 of the IPC. Hence the punishment imposed on the appellant by the Trial Court as well as the reduced sentence by the High Court is incorrect.
8. Learned counsel for the appellant further submitted that the punishment imposed under Section 392 of the IPC for robbery states that the said punishment could extend upto ten years. The appellant has already completed about four years and eight months of incarceration. In the circumstances, the impugned judgment(s) may be modified by allowing this appeal by holding that offence under Section 392 of the IPC has been proved and restricting the punishment to the period already undergone.
9. Per contra, learned counsel appearing for the respondent/State submitted that there is no merit in this appeal; that PW1 and PW2, who are victims, as well as PW3 and PW5, have consistently deposed against the appellant herein. The charge under Section 397 of the IPC was
