Back
2014 Supreme(Del) 1882
High Court of Delhi
S. MURALIDHAR, J.
Seetal & Others
Versus
State (Nct of Delhi)
CRL.A. Nos. 94 of 2010, 661 of 2009, 717 of 2009, 916 of 2009
Decided on : 08-08-2014
For the Appellant:Suman Chauhan, Advocate.
For the Respondent: Rajat Katyal, APP.
The judgment established the significance of victim perception and the accused's possession of a deadly weapon in determining the offence under Section 397 IPC.
Headnote:
Robbery - Conviction under Sections 395/397 of IPC and Section 27 of the Arms Act, 1959 - Phool Kumar v. Delhi Administration AIR 1975 905, Ashfaq v. State 2004(3) SCC 116 - The court discussed the interpretation of 'uses any deadly weapon' under Section 397 IPC and the requirement for the weapon to be visible and capable of creating terror in the victim's mind. The judgment highlighted the importance of victim perception and the accused's possession of a deadly weapon during the commission of the crime.
Fact of the Case:
The prosecution proved the case against the Appellants beyond all reasonable doubt for the offences under Sections 395/397 of IPC and Section 27 of the Arms Act. The accused were involved in a robbery at a factory, during which they threatened and injured the labourers.
Finding of the Court:
The court found the prosecution's evidence clear and cogent, establishing the guilt of the Appellants for the charged offences. The identification of the accused and the presence of deadly weapons during the robbery were crucial factors in the court's decision.
Issues: Identification of the accused, interpretation of 'uses any deadly weapon' under Section 397 IPC, and the completion of the robbery.
Ratio Decidendi: The court emphasized the importance of victim perception and the accused's possession of a deadly weapon during the commission of the crime. The judgment clarified that the recovery of the weapon and its display to witnesses were not essential to establish the offence under Section 397 IPC.
Final Decision: The appeals were dismissed, and the Appellants were directed to surrender forthwith to serve out the remainder of their sentence.
1. These appeals are directed against the judgment dated 25th March 2009 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge (‘ASJ‘) convicting the Appellants for the offences under Sections 395/397 of IPC and Section 27 of the Arms Act, 1959 and the order on sentence of the same date convicting each of them to undergo rigorous imprisonment (‘RI‘) for seven years for the offences under Sections 395/397 and RI for three years along with a fine of Rs. 1,000 and in default, to undergo simple imprisonment (‘SI‘) for one month for the offence under Section 27 of the Arms Act.
2. The case of the prosecution is that Kailash Sharma (PW-1) was the owner of a factory, manufacturing aluminium wires located at Haiderpur, New Delhi. Among the labourers working for him were, Sanjay Kumar (PW-8), Tulsi Ram (PW-9), Dalip Paswan (PW-10), Manchit Paswan (PW-11) and Baba Paswan (PW-12). The said labourers used to sleep in the factory. On 23rd August 2004, Kailash Sharma along with his brother, Sunder Lal (PW-2) had gone for a surprise inspection to the factory at around 12 midnight or 12:15 am. They noticed two persons removing aluminium wires from the factory. They tried to apprehend the two persons and also raised an alarm. When questioned about the removing of aluminium wires, one of the persons ran away. When the other person was tried to be apprehended, he gave a knife blow on the nose of PW-2. The person who gave the knife blow was apprehended at the spot and with the help of public persons was also given beatings. The person who was apprehended at the spot was identified as Veerpal, accused No.4 (A-4), the Appellant in Crl. A. No. 717 of 2009. Two bundles of aluminium wires sought to be taken away were recovered from the spot under seizure memo PW-1/D. The police also reached there subsequently and recorded the statements of PWs 1 and 2. The knife recovered from the spot was Ex.P-8. The ladder used for climbing the wall of the factory was seized along with one lock and a pair of chappal under seizure memo (Ex.PW1/C). 3. At the instance of A-4, on 23rd August 2004, Sub Inspector Dharambir Singh (PW-14), the Investigating Officer (‘IO‘) of the case along with Constable Surender and Constable Satish (PW-13) apprehended Sheetal (A-1), the Appellant in Crl. A. No. 94 of 2010, Narender (A-2), the Appellant in Crl. A. No. 661 of 2009, Netrapal (A-3), the Appellant in Crl. A. 916 of 2009 and Romu (A-5) from a kabari shop in Jahangirpuri, Delhi. Pursuant to the disclosure statements made by the aforesaid accused, four knives were recovered.
4. A-1, A-2, A-3 and A-5 were produced with faces muffled before the learned Metropolitan Magistrate (‘MM‘) [Mukesh Vats] (PW-7) on 8th September 2004 for the Test Identification Parade (‘TIP‘). In the TIP proceedings in respect of A-1(Ex.PW7/A) PW-1 correctly identified A-1. The other three accused, i.e., A-2, A-3 and A-5 declined to participate in the TIP on the ground that their photographs had been taken in the police station. They were, however, informed that their refusal to participate in the TIP could lead to an adverse inference being drawn against them.
5. The prosecution examined 14 witnesses. During the course of trial, A-5 expired and the case against him stood abated.
6. In their statements under Section 313 Cr.PC, the four remaining accused denied their involvement and claimed that they had been falsely implicated.
7. The learned trial Court, on an analysis of evidence, found that the prosecution had proved the case against the Appellants beyond all reasonable doubt and convicted them for the offences with which they were charged and sentenced them in the manner indicated hereinbefore.
8. At the outset, it must be mentioned that while A-2, A-3 and A-4 were on bail during the pendency of the appeals, bail was declined to A-1.
9. Learned counsel for the Appellants first submitted that in the present cases, the conviction under Section 397 IPC was unsustainable in law since the knives that
