( 1 ) THIS judgment will dispose ofcr. A. 23/83andcr. A. 68/83. The appellants were convicted under Sec. 392 and sentenced with the aid of Sec. 397 Indian Penal Code to rigorous imprisonment for seven years. Hence, these appeals.

( 2 ) ON 4-10-1981 at about 3. 00 p. m. the accused appellants threatened Ram Sumer (Public Witness 4) near the public latrine in Subzi Mandi with knives and relieved him of a purse which contained Rs. 73. 00 and two receipts. When accused had gone about 20 paces Ram Sumer raised an alarm. The public chased the accused, apprehended them and recovered knives. Ram Sumer snatched his purse from accused Bishan. The public had also given beatings to the accused persons. In the meanwhile, the police had been informed by one Ganga Ram Pradhan. SI Om Prakash (Public Witness 5) came and arrested the accused who were smelling of liquor. Ram Sumer produced before him the purse, currency notes and receipts. He also got the accused examined by a medical officer. Shiv Dayal (Public Witness 1) corroborated the version of Ram Sumer.

( 3 ) THE case of the accused Bishan is that Ganga Ram Pradhan was inimical to Bishan and he falsely implicated him. The ace of Lalla accused is that he had consumed some liquor and was standing amongst the spectators.

( 4 ) IT was pointed out that the police claimed that there was on the spot a large number of people but the police produced only the complainant and sweeper Shiv Dayal, while other independent witnesses were available. It is also in evidence that the accused persons were drunk and were falsely implicated. Ganga Ram who is said to be inimical to Bishan and as whose instance the accused were implicated was also present there, but the police withhold him. . It was urged that the prosecution case was false. The learned trial Judge was. however, of the view that Shiv Dayal is a resident of the same place and had come to use the public latrine when the occurrence took place and had seen Bishan snatching the purse from Ram Sarup and then running away. The learned Judge believed the story put forward by Ram Sumer and Shiv Dayal. It was urged before him that the knives recovered in the case are meant for cutting vegetables and they were not deadly weapons. The learned Judge observed that the knives were no doubt meant for cutting vegetables, but they could be used as a weapon of offence and if they are so used they were capable of causing death and penetration of blade of such a knife in the vital organ could be fatal. He, therefore, held that the knives that were recovered were deadly weapons.

( 5 ) AS far as the merits of the case are concerned, the learned counsel for the appellants did not have much to say. Indeed. I see no reason to disbelieve the testimony of Ram Sumer and Shiv Dayal and the police officers as to the sequence of arrest and recovery made by the police in the aforesaid manner. The sole question that was earnestly urged before me was whether the weapons recovered could be considered deadly weapons so as to attract the provisions of Sec. 3971pc. According to the recovery memo, the knives that were recovered from both the accused were knives meant for cutting vegetables, though the blade of one was 6" long and of the other was 3" long. Can such weapons be described as deadly weapons ?

( 6 ) THE learned counsel for the accused cited Balik Ram v. The State, 1983 (5) DRJ 12. In that decision, I have observed as follows :

"knives are weapons available in various sizes and may just cause little hurt or may be the deadliest. They are not deadly weapons per se such as would ordinarily result in death by their use. What would make a knife deadly is its design or the manner of its use such as is calculated to or is likely to produce death. It is, therefore. a question of fact to be proved and prosecution should prove that the knife used by the accused was a deadly one. "the learned Additional Public Prosecutor Shri D. R. Sethi, on the other hand, drew my attent