The use of a deadly weapon in robbery establishes the offence under Section 397 IPC, regardless of injury, and a defective charge does not invalidate the conviction.

ORAL JUDGMENT

Heard Sri Vikyath B., learned counsel for the appellant and Sri Channappa Erappa, learned High Court Government Pleader for the respondent.

2. Appeal is filed by the accused who has been convicted for the offence punishable under Section 397 IPC in S.C.No.96/2021, on the file of IV Additional District and Sessions Judge, Hassan, sitting at Channarayapatna, by judgment dated 17.04.2023.

3. Facts in brief which are utmost necessary for disposal of the present appeal are as under:

On 27.01.2021 at about 7.30 a.m., Sri Kumar S.K., lodged a written complaint with Channarayapatna police station based on which a criminal case came to be registered by Channarayapatna town police station for the offence punishable under Section 392 IPC.

4. Complaint averments reveal that the complainant has been doing supervising work in a newly constructed building under Akkibabanna at Mysoru road in front of Nagesh Hospital at Channarayapatna. He used to sleep in the said building along with the workers in the night hours.

5. It is further contended that on 26.01.2021 as usual himself, masons Babu Sheik and Muneer Sheik were sleeping in the said building. At about 5.30 a.m., on 27.01.2021, an unknown person entered inside the building and put them under knife point, threatened them with dire consequences and demanded the valuables to be parted away from them.

6. On account of fear of life threat, complainant parted away sum of Rs.500/- which was in his custody. The said unknown person snatched two mobile phones from Babu Sheik and Muneer Sheik and escaped away from the spot.

7. After receiving such written complaint, Town Police, Channarayapatna having registered the case in Cr.No.26/2021 initially for the offence punishable under Section 392 IPC, continued with the investigation and ultimately filed the charge sheet for the offence punishable under Section 397 IPC, inter alia arrested the accused.

8. On receipt of charge sheet, learned trial Magistrate committed the matter to the Sessions Court.

9. Presence of the accused secured before the Sessions Court and after compliance of Section 207 Cr.P.C., charges were framed. Accused pleaded not guilty. Therefore, trial was held.

10. In order to bring home the guilt of the accused, prosecution examined eleven witnesses as P.Ws.1 to 11, comprising of complainant, mahazar witnesses, police witnesses. Nine documentary evidence were placed on record, which were exhibited and marked as Exs.P.1 to P.9, comprising of seizure mahazar, spot mahazar, complaint, FIR, report and admissible portions of the contradiction in the statements of P.Ws.10 and 11. Voluntary statement given by the accused Ex.P.7, where under M.Os.1 to 4 came to be recovered.

11. On conclusion of recording of evidence, learned Trial Judge recorded the accused statement as is contemplated under Section 313 Cr.P.C., wherein the accused has denied all the incriminatory materials and did not choose to place any written submissions nor he placed any defence evidence.

12. Thereafter learned Trial Judge heard the parties in detail and on cumulative consideration of the oral and documentary evidence on record, convicted the accused for the offence punishable under Section 397 IPC and sentenced him to undergo imprisonment for seven years.

13. Being aggrieved by the same, accused has preferred the present appeal.

14. Sri Vikyath B., learned counsel for the appellant reiterating the grounds urged in the appeal memorandum vehemently contended that the impugned judgment is suffering from serious legal infirmities and therefore, it is to be termed as perverse and sought for setting aside the same and acquit the appellant.

15. He further contended that the material evidence on record would not demand conviction of the appellant for the offence punishable under Section 397 IPC.

16. He further contended that admittedly M.O.1 did not contain any blood stain. In the case of the prosecution the appellant actually assaulted the complainant and other two pers