The use of a knife during the commission of a robbery qualifies as the use of a 'deadly weapon' under Section 397 of the IPC, irrespective of the type or dimensions of the knife.

JUDGMENT :

VIBHU BAKHRU, J.

1. The present appeal arises out of a judgement dated 31.05.2017 passed by the Learned ASJ, (North-East), Karkardooma Courts, whereby the Appellant has been convicted for the offences under Sections 397/392/411/34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (hereafter ‘IPC’). By an order dated 08.06.2017, the appellant has been sentenced to seven years of rigorous imprisonment for the offence under Section 397 IPC; three years of rigorous imprisonment and fine of Rs.1000/- for the offence under Section 392 IPC and in default, simple imprisonment for one month; and simple imprisonment for six months for the offence under Section 411 IPC and a fine of Rs.500/- and in case of default, to undergo simple imprisonment for fifteen days. All the sentences are directed to run concurrently.

2. The case set up by the prosecution is that on 04.06.2014, at around 3-3:30 AM, two persons (including the appellant) had surrounded the Complainant (Mr. Rohit) near Tikona Park, while he was on his way to the dairy of his employer and had started to take out currency notes out of his pocket. The complainant resisted and as a result, one of the said persons put a knife on the complainant’s back and the other person took two currency notes of Rs.500/- from the pocket of the complainant and ran away. It is stated that in the meanwhile, the owner of the dairy, one Sh Praveen, reached the spot of the incident and both of them – the complainant and Praveen – apprehended one of the said persons near the place of incident. Thereafter, Praveen dialed 100 and informed the police about the incident. Consequently, Ct. Sanjeev and Ct. Ram Kishan reached at the spot while on beat duty. The apprehended person was then searched by Ct. Sanjeev and a currency note of Rs.500/- and a knife was found in his possession. The apprehended person was identified as one Mr. Sonu (the appellant) and he disclosed that the other assailant, who had managed to escape from the spot of the incident, was named Akbar.

3. Pursuant to the aforesaid events, an FIR was lodged under Sections 392/397/34 IPC. Subsequently, a final report under Section 173 of the CrPC was filed, and the offence under Section 411 of the IPC was also added to the offences alleged against the accused.

4. During the trial, the prosecution examined the following witnesses: PW-1 (the complainant), PW-2 (Sh Praveen – the owner of the Dairy), PW-3 (HC Brigender Singh, no.812 RB, Security, Delhi), PW-4 (Ct. Sanjeev Kumar, Beat Constable), PW-5 (HC Dhanraj, Duty Officer at the concerned Police Station), PW-6 (SI Yogesh) and PW-7 (Ct. Ajay Singh). The statement of the accused Sonu was also recorded under Section 313 of the Cr.P.C., wherein he denied all the allegations levelled against him.

5. The Trial Court, after perusing the evidence, held the appellant guilty under Sections 392/397/411 of the IPC. The Trial Court observed that the testimony of the witnesses was consistent with the prosecution’s version and it was sufficient to prove that the appellant had put a kitchen knife on his back while robbing Rs.1000/- from his pocket. The Trial Court further held that nothing could be noted down from the cross examination of the said witnesses, which would create an iota of suspicion against the prosecution’s version of the incident. The Trial Court further observed that in his cross examination, the accused (appellant) did not dispute that he, along with his accomplice (the co-accused), was present at the incident spot and that the co-accused had managed to escape therefrom. The Trial Court further held that the accused had also failed to establish any doubt as to his involvement in the incident by his statement under Section 313 of the Cr.P.C., wherein he had stated that he was falsely implicated in the case at the instance of PW-2. The Trial Court further held that the use of a knife during the commission of the robbery amounts to the use of a “deadly weapon” within the meaning under Section 397 of the IPC and