Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
Manoj Kumar Ohri, J.
Anil Kumar - Appellant
Versus
State (NCT) of Delhi) - Respondent
Cr.A. 885 of 2002
Decided On : 22-02-2024
Robbery - Criminal Law - IPC 392/397, Arms Act 25/54/59 - The court discussed the elements of the offences under IPC 392/397 and the interpretation of 'use of deadly weapon' in the context of robbery. The court referred to previous judgments to establish that the victim must have noticed the deadly weapon to establish the offence under Section 397 IPC. The appellant's conviction under Section 392 IPC was upheld, but he was acquitted of the offence under Section 397 IPC. The appellant's conviction under Section 25 Arms Act was also upheld.
Fact of the Case:
The appellant was convicted for robbery and possession of arms. The prosecution's prime witness testified to the robbery incident on a bus, where the appellant used a knife to steal money from the complainant's pocket. The appellant denied his involvement.
Finding of the Court:
The court upheld the appellant's conviction under Section 392 IPC but acquitted him of the offence under Section 397 IPC. The appellant's conviction under Section 25 Arms Act was also upheld. The appellant's sentence was modified to the period already undergone, and the appeal was allowed to that extent.
Issues: The issues revolved around the elements of robbery and possession of arms, the use of a deadly weapon, and the appellant's involvement in the crimes.
Ratio Decidendi: The court established that for the offence under Section 397 IPC, the victim must have noticed the deadly weapon used by the offender. The court referred to previous judgments to interpret the 'use of deadly weapon' in the context of robbery.
Final Decision: The appellant's conviction under Section 392 IPC was upheld, but he was acquitted of the offence under Section 397 IPC. The appellant's conviction under Section 25 Arms Act was also upheld. The appellant's sentence was modified to the period already undergone, and the appeal was allowed to that extent.
JUDGMENT
1. The present appeal has been instituted under Section 374 Cr.P.C. against the impugned judgment of conviction dated 05.09.2002 and order on sentence dated 07.09.2002 passed by the Sessions Court in Sessions Case No.56/1998 arising out of FIR No.285/1997 under Sections 392/397 IPC and FIR No.286/1997 under Sections 25/54/59 Arms Act both registered at P.S. Bara Hindu Rao, Delhi. Vide the aforesaid judgement and order on sentence, the appellant was convicted for the offence punishable under Sections 392/397 IPC and was sentenced to rigorous imprisonment for a period of seven years and to a fine of Rs.100/-. In default of payment of fine, the appellant was directed to undergo simple imprisonment of three months. The appellant was also convicted for the offence under Section 25 of the Arms Act and was sentenced to rigorous imprisonment for one year. Benefit of Section 428 Cr.P.C was given and the said sentences were directed to run concurrently.
2. After completion of investigation, the challan came to be filed against the present appellant only, as his accomplice could not be arrested. The prosecution cited and examined six witnesses in support of its case. The appellant pleaded not guilty and claimed trial.
3. The facts, as found recorded in the impugned judgment are as under:
"...On 25-10-98 at about 12.25 p.m. Sanjeev Kumar Gupta travelling in Blue Line bus from Gandhi Nagar to Sadar Bazar reached slightly ahead of Azad Mkt. crossing, Near Gurudwara there was a crowd and bus was moving slowly. Accused Anil Kumar was also travelling in the same bus and was standing on the right side of Sanjeev Kumar. One accomplice of Anil Kumar was also with him. Anil Kumar placed a knife in the arm pit of Sanjeev Kumar by his right hand and removed Rs.100 which Sanjeev Kumar was carrying in front pocket of his shirt. Sanjeev Kumar raised alarm and accused with the help of public was brought down from the bus with knife and 100 Rs. Accomplice of accused managed to escaped. Sanjeev Kumar was taking accused with knife and 100 Rs. to P.S. when S.I. Narender Tyagi met him near Azad Mkt. crossing. Accused alongwith knife and 100 rupees was handed over to S.I. Narender who recorded statement of Sanjeev Kumar Gupta and after making endorsement on the same got a case registered. In the meantime S.I. Satpal alongwith Const. Jeet Singh had also reached near S.I. Narender. While patrolling the area and investigation was taken over by him regarding recover of knife and he also got a case registered U/s 25/27 Arms Act."
4. The prime witness of the prosecution was the complainant Sanjeev Kumar, who was examined as PW-3. He deposed that on 25.10.1997 at about 12.25 P.M., he was travelling in a blue line bus from Seelampur to Sadar Bazar. When the bus reached Azad Market Crossing, the appellant put a knife on his left armpit and took out Rs.100 from his pocket. Consequently, he raised alarm and the appellant was caught, brought down from the bus and taken to the police station. The accomplice of the accused however, managed to escape from the spot. The knife as well as Rs.100/- note was seized from the possession of the accused. In his cross- examination, he stated that he had felt some itching when the knife was put and suddenly the cash was taken out from his pocket. He raised noise when he saw that the accused had put a knife on him. He also stated that he was having a small pocket diary in his front pocket from where the amount was taken. He identified the knife (Ex.PW3/1) as well as his signatures on the seizure memo (Ex.PW3/B) and sketch of the knife (Ex.PW3/D). As per the sketch, the length of the knife was measured as 13 inches having a blade of 6 inches and a handle of 7 inches.
5. SI Narender Tyagi was examined as PW6. He stated that on 25.10.1997, he along with Constable Jyoti Swaroop were present at Azad Market Crossing and at about 12.30 pm, the complainant met him and handed over one currency note of Rs.100/-, one knife which was button act
The main legal point established in the judgment is that for the offence under Section 397 IPC, the victim must have noticed the deadly weapon used by the offender to establish the element of 'use of....
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 ....
The court clarified that for conviction under Section 397 IPC, the prosecution must prove grievous injury and involvement of five persons, which was not established in this case.
The actual user of a deadly weapon during a robbery is solely liable under Section 397 IPC, while others involved may face lesser charges if not directly implicated.
The testimony of the complainant as the victim should be accorded great weightage unless there are strong grounds for rejection.
It is trite law that even if the weapon of offence is shown after snatching had taken place for running away along with snatched article, offence under Section 397 IPC is attracted.
Use of weapon to constitute offence under Section 397 IPC does not require that ‘offender’ should actually fire from firearm or actually stab if it is a knife or a dagger but mere exhibition of same,....
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
