Back
High Court Of Delhi
JAI PARKASH - Appellant
Versus
STATE OF DELHI - Respondent
CRIMINAL APPEAL 244 of 1979
Decided On : 03/19/1981
CRIMINAL LAW - ROBBERY - SECTION 392, 397 INDIAN PENAL CODE - CONVICTION - ENHANCEMENT OF SENTENCE - USE OF DEADLY WEAPON - INTERPRETATION - SECTION 397 INDIAN PENAL CODE - MINIMUM PUNISHMENT - PROOF OF REAL NATURE OF WEAPON.
Fact of the Case:
Jai Parkash, the appellant, was convicted and sentenced to four years of rigorous imprisonment for robbery under Section 397 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) and three years of rigorous imprisonment for robbery under Section 392 of the IPC. The appellant challenged the conviction and sentence, arguing that the prosecution failed to establish his guilt beyond a reasonable doubt.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the appellant's guilt was established beyond a reasonable doubt based on the testimony of eyewitnesses, including the victim, Inderjit, who identified the appellant in court and during an identification parade. The court also found that the appellant used a pistol during the robbery, which constituted a deadly weapon under Section 397 of the IPC.
Issues: 1. Whether the prosecution established the appellant's guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. 2. Whether the appellant used a deadly weapon during the robbery, thereby attracting the minimum punishment under Section 397 of the IPC.
Ratio Decidendi: 1. The court held that the prosecution successfully established the appellant's guilt beyond a reasonable doubt based on the consistent and reliable testimony of eyewitnesses, including the victim's identification of the appellant in court and during an identification parade. The court found no reason to disbelieve the victim's testimony, which was corroborated by other witnesses. 2. The court interpreted the term "uses" in Section 397 of the IPC broadly, holding that it is not necessary for the offender to actually use the deadly weapon to cause harm. It is sufficient if the offender holds out the deadly weapon to terrorize or frighten the victim to obtain property. In this case, the court found that the appellant's threatening of the victim with a pistol constituted the use of a deadly weapon.
Final Decision: The court dismissed the appellant's appeal against the conviction under Section 392 of the IPC. However, the court enhanced the sentence from four years to seven years of rigorous imprisonment, exercising its revisional powers, to reflect the minimum punishment prescribed under Section 397 of the IPC for robbery committed with a deadly weapon.
( 1 ) ON August 31, 1973 Shri V. S. Aggrwal, Additional Sessions Judge, Delhi convicted the present appellant Shri Jai Parkash in respect of commission of offences punishable under section 392 and 397 of the Indian Penal Code (in short I. P. G ). On 3rd September 1979 said learned Additional Sessions Judge, after hearing arguments, sentenced Jai Parkash appellant to undergo R. I. For four years for the offence punishable under Section 397 I. P. G. and 3 years R. I. for offence punishable under Section 392 I. P. G.
( 2 ) INDERJIT (Public Witness 2) is sweet-meat seller. In 1978 he was carrying on that business at shop No. WZ-150-A Khanipur, Delhi. On Tuesday, Feb ruary 21, 1978 at about 1 115 PM aforesaid Inde jit was taking meals on a platform attached to his shop. Roshan Lal (Public Witness 3) who as a friend helps Inderjit in the working of the shop was also taking meals. Ghhotu alias Ram Sanehi, an employee of the shop was also there.
( 3 ) CASE of the prosecution in brief is that two persons, who were subsequently found on investigation to be present appellant Jai Parkash and one Bhagirath, came on the shop of Inderjit. They asked for prasad of the value of Rs. 1. 25. Inderjit gave them Prasad which was taken by the present appellant. Thereafter both of them requested for Burfi weighing 1 kilogram duly packed. Inderjit weighed 1 kilogram Burfi, packed the same and handed over to one of them, who kept the same in a motor car parked at some distance. Thereafter one of them requested Inderjit that latter should handover Jalaibi worth 50 paisc. Inderjit acceded to their request and both of them ate those jalaibics , while standing in front of the shop. Inderjit was asked by them as to what they had to pay to the former. Inderjit told the amount to be Rs. 16. 75. Jai Parkash appellant, with the ostensible object of taking out money put his hand in his pockets. But instead of money he took out a pistol, threatened Inderjit and directed the latter to handover whatever he had with him at that time. Inderjit was having about Rs. 250. 00 in his pocket and cheque of Rs. 40. 00 in cash box. He handed over the entire amount to Jai Parkash appellant. Both appellant and his companion Bhagirath threatened Inderjit that the latter should not disclose about the occurrence, to any one. Vipin Kumar (Public Witness 4) who carries on his business in a shop just opposite shop of Inderjit was present. He was also threatened by both the appellant and his accomplice and was directed to go inside the shop. On account of that Vipin retreated to his shop.
( 4 ) ON the following day i. e. February 22, 1978 Inderjit (Public Witness 2) went to the Police Station Patel Nagar at about 12. 40 PM and handed over a written complaint in Hindi which is Ex. Public Witness PWI/a to S. I. Ramesh Kumar (PWI) who then was working as duty officer in the said Police Station. On the basis of that complaint formal F. f. R. No. 132 under Section 392 read with Section 34 I. P. G. was recorded. A copy of the F. I. R. was handed over to S. I. Sohanpal Singh Public Witness PW5 for investigation. Sohan Pal S. I. Police went to the spot and prepared site plan and also recorded statements of witnesses. He received a wireless message in the month of March 1978 from the Superintendent of Police Sonepat to the effect that one of the accused persons had been arrested. He went to Sonepat. It was Bhagirath who had been arrested. On his application to Chief Judicial Magistrate Bhagirath was transferred to Delhi Jail. He made an application to Shri I. C Tewari Metropolitan Magistrate for holding identification parade in respect of Bhagirath. That identification parade was held on 20th May 1978 and Bhagirath was correctly identified by Vipin, Inderjit and Ram Sanehi.
( 5 ) ON May 30, 1978 Bhagirath, in respect of whom remand in Police custody was obtained, on interrogation made a disclosure statement that he had concealed cash box in the bushes near a park in Naraina Indu
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
