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 to invoke the provisions of the section.

JUDGMENT

Swarana Kanta Sharma, J.

1. By way of present appeal under Section 374(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, the appellant impugns judgment dated 12.12.2007 and order on point of sentence dated 13.12.2007 vide which the appellant has been convicted and sentenced for committing offences punishable under Section 392/397 of Indian Penal Code, 1860 ('IPC').

2. Briefly stated, the facts of the present case are that an information was received at P.S. Kalyan Puri, Delhi, that a thief had been apprehended in A-Block, near Balmiki Mandir, Trilok Puri, Delhi, after which the concerned police official had arrived at the site of incident, where one Subhash Kumar and Ram Singh had detained the accused/appellant Faimud, alongwith a purse and a buttondar knife which they had recovered from the accused. The accused alongwith the said purse and knife had then been handed over to the concerned police official. The complainant Subhash Kumar's statement was recorded, who stated that while he was enroute the market to purchase goods and had reached near Aggarwal Sweet House, the accused had pointed a knife at him, threatening to kill him if he raised an alarm, after which, the accused had forcibly taken out the complainant's purse from the pocket of his shirt and had begun to flee from the spot. Thereafter, the complainant had raised an alarm, leading to the apprehension of the accused with the help of other persons present at the spot. During the course of investigation, the identity of the accused was revealed as Faimud and on search, the purse belonging to the complainant, containing Rs. 265/- along with one visiting card of Subhash Chandela and three business cards of Subhash Kumar were recovered, all of which were found in the complainant's purse. The buttondar knife and the case property were duly sealed by the investigating officer, and an FIR was registered under Section 392/397 of IPC and Section 25 of Arms Act. The accused was arrested, and after investigation, chargesheet was filed against the accused and charges were framed.

3. Learned Trial Court had convicted the appellant under Section 392/397 of IPC and sentenced him to rigorous imprisonment for seven years, alongwith payment of fine of Rs. 2000/- and in default of payment of same, he was sentenced to undergo a simple imprisonment for two months. He was further sentenced to rigorous imprisonment for two years for committing offence under Section 25 of Arms Act and payment of fine of Rs.2000/- and in default of payment of same, he was sentenced to undergo a simple imprisonment for two months.

4. Aggrieved by the aforesaid judgment and order on sentence, the present appeal was preferred. The appeal was admitted vide order dated 08.07.2009 and his sentence was suspended vide order dated 22.02.2010.

5. Learned counsel for appellant argues that the judgment had been passed by ignoring the cardinal principles of criminal jurisprudence and the accused was convicted on the basis of presumptions. It is also argued that there was no evidence against the accused to convict him for the alleged offence and the only basis for his conviction is the disclosure statements, which is not permissible in law. It is also stated that there is no independent witness who supports the case of prosecution. It is further argued that the learned Trial Court has failed to appreciate that PW-5 had deposed that the Investigating Officer had completed all the proceedings in the police station instead of the place of occurrence. It is also stated that there are material contradictions in the statements of witnesses in relation to the colour of the purse, wherein PW-3 has testified that the colour of the purse was green whereas PW-5 did not remember the colour of the purse. It is further stated that the purse, that is the main evidence in the entire case of the prosecution, only had Rs.18/- in it at the time of alleged incident. It is also stated that the learned Trial Court has failed to appr