Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR
NARENDRA KUMAR VYAS, J.
Narayan Prasad, S/o. Gareeba Sao Gupta – Appellant
Versus
State of Madhya Pradesh - Respondent
CRA No. 3168 of 1999
Decided on : 18-09-2024
(A) Indian Penal Code – Sections 394 and 397 – Criminal Appeal against conviction and sentence – Appellant convicted for robbery and armed robbery – Conviction under Section 397 set aside due to lack of grievous injury and absence of five persons in commission of the offence – Conviction under Section 394 upheld – Sentence reduced from 7 years to 1 year and 6 months considering age and first-time offender status. (Paras 20, 21, 22)
Facts of the case: The appellant was convicted for robbery involving a knife, where the victim was assaulted and money was taken. The trial court found sufficient evidence to support the conviction under Section 394 but questioned the applicability of Section 397 due to the nature of injuries. (Paras 1-6)
Findings of Court: The court upheld the conviction under Section 394, finding the prosecution proved its case beyond reasonable doubt, but found the conviction under Section 397 unsustainable due to lack of grievous injury and requisite number of offenders. (Paras 20, 21)
Issues: Whether the prosecution proved the case beyond reasonable doubt, and whether the non-examination of a witness related to the seizure was fatal for the prosecution. (Paras 11, 12)
Ratio Decidendi: The court emphasized that the evidence of injured witnesses holds significant value and that the prosecution must prove the use of a deadly weapon for conviction under Section 397. (Paras 14, 20)
Result: Criminal appeal partly allowed; conviction under Section 397 set aside, conviction under Section 394 maintained with reduced sentence.
JUDGMENT :
1. This Criminal Appeal under Section 374 (2) of CrPC has been filed against the judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 28.10.1999 passed by Second Additional Sessions Judge, Ambikapur in Sessions Trial No. 64 of 1995 by which the appellant has been convicted under Sections 394 and 397 of the Indian Penal Code and has been sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for 7 years and to pay fine of Rs. 200/- under Section 394 of the IPC, rigorous imprisonment for 7 years and to pay fine of Rs. 200/- under Section 397 of the IPC with default stipulations.
Prosecution Case
2. The necessary facts for disposal of the present appeal in short are that on 23.03.1994 an information (Ex.P-5) was received at Police Station Ambikapur in connection with robbery at the point of knife and admission of injured Pramod Shukla in District Hospital Ambikapur, thereafter, the Police registered information in Rajnamcha (Ex.P-1) and reached the hospital and recorded the statement of injured wherein he has stated that on 23.03.1994 at about 7.45, while he was going to duty at forest barrier then the appellant along along with co-accused stopped him and demanded money for drinking liquor and when he denied to give money then the appellant caused injury by knife on the various parts of his body and looted Rs. 2000/- from his pocket. On the complaint of injured, Police registered the FIR (Ex.P-9) under Crime No. 268 of 1994 under Section 307, 392 and 34 of the IPC. During investigation, dying declaration statement of injured was also registered before Executive Magistrate thereafter the injured was sent to hospital for medical treatment under Ex.P-13. The appellant was arrested and knife under (Ex.P-10) was seized from the appellant. After completion of the investigation, charge sheet was filed before the Court of Judicial Magistrate Ambikapur, who in turn committed the case to the Court of Sessions Judge, Ambikapur which was registered as Sessions Case No. 64 of 1995.
3. The prosecution in order to prove the guilt of the appellant examined 9 witnesses, Kashiram (PW-1), Rajesh Sahi (PW-2), constable Ramanand Singh (PW-3), injured Pramod Shukla (PW-4), Dr. K.K. Bhutani (PW-5),Mulwar Pandey (PW-6), Annu @ Shrawan Kashyap (PW-7), Sub Inspector G.P. Annat (PW-8) and Dilip Pandey (PW-9) and exhibited the documents statement of kashiram (Ex.P-1), dying declaration (Ex.P-2), MLC of injured (Ex.P-3), Expert opinion (Ex.P-4), information of admission by the hospital (Ex.P-5 and Ex.P-6), statement of Annu (Ex.P-7), query made by police (Ex.P-8), FIR (Ex.P-9), seizure memo (Ex.P-10), Map (Ex.P-11), querry (Ex.P-12), arrest memo (Ex.P-13).
4. The prosecution examined injured victim as PW-1 who has stated in the chief examination that the accused has looted Rs. 2000/-from him and assaulted with knife, as a result of which he sustained injuries on the chest, stomach and hand. The witness was cross examined wherein he has stated that he has seen Narayan Gupta, present appellant assaulted him with knife. Dr. J.K. Bhutani (PW-5) deposed that he has examined the injured on 24.01.1994 wherein he found the following injuries on the body of the injuries as :-
(II) Incised wound in the size of ½ x ½ cum on the right side of abdomen and depth will be given by G. Surgeon
(III) Abrasion in the size of 3x3 cm at forearm
Injury No. 1 and 2 were caused by hard and blunt object and he was advised for general surgeon.
5. Dilip Pandey (PW-9) Investigating Officer who has stated in his evidence that seizure of knife from the appellant was made by Ajit Patle, and the seizure memo (Ex.P-10) has been written by Ajit Patle wherein he has put his signature and he identified the same as he has worked with him.
6. The appellant has examined Narayan Prasad Gupta (DW-1),Rajaram Dubey (DW-2),Sheela (DW-3) and constable Alwar Marshal (DW-1) and compounder B.P. Sahu (DW-2) and exhi
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.
1. The term ‘offender’ under Section 397 IPC is confined to the ‘offender’ who uses any deadly weapon and use of deadly weapon by one offender at the time of committing robbery cannot attract Section....
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 main legal point established in the judgment is that for the offence under Section 397 IPC, the victim must have noticed the deadly weapon used by the offender to establish the element of 'use of....
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 ....
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 mere exhibition of a knife threatens a victim, sufficing to establish an offence under Section 397 IPC.
It is trite law that even if the weapon of offence is shown after snatching had taken place for running away along with snatched article, offence under Section 397 IPC is attracted.
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
