Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
MANOJ KUMAR OHRI
Azam – Appellant
Versus
State (Nct Of Delhi) – Respondent
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. conviction based on eyewitness accounts. (Para 1 , 2) |
| 2. arguments presented regarding the absence of the weapon. (Para 4 , 5) |
| 3. court's interpretation of 'deadly weapon' under ipc. (Para 6 , 8 , 9 , 10 , 12) |
| 4. final ruling dismissing the appeal. (Para 17) |
JUDGMENT :
1. By way of the present appeal, the appellant seeks to assail the judgement of conviction dated 20.05.2024 vide which he has been convicted for offences punishable under Sections 392/397/411/34 IPC and order on sentence dated 06.07.2024 vide which he has been directed to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of 3 years for the offence punishable under Sections 392 /34 IPC alongwith payment of fine of Rs.5,000/- in default whereof, he was directed to further undergo simple imprisonment for a period of 60 days; rigorous imprisonment for a period of 7 years for the offence punishable under Sections 397 IPC and rigorous imprisonment for a period of 1 year for the offence punishable under Sections 411 IPC alongwith payment of fine of Rs.5,000/- in default whereof, he was directed to further undergo simple imprisonment for a period of 60 days. The benefit of Section 428 Cr.P.C. has also been provided to
The mere exhibition of a knife threatens a victim, sufficing to establish an offence under Section 397 IPC.
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.
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 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 ....
Brandishing a weapon during a robbery qualifies as 'using' it under Section 397 IPC, justifying charges even without weapon recovery; the fear instilled in victims is paramount.
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 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.
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,....
The main legal point established in the judgment is the requirement for the prosecution to prove the guilt of the accused beyond reasonable doubt. The court emphasized the lack of conclusive evidence....
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
