Back
NARENDRA KUMAR VYAS
Narayan Prasad, S/o. Gareeba Sao Gupta – Appellant
Versus
State of Madhya Pradesh – Respondent
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
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.
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
