Delhi High Court: In an appeal filed to assail the judgement of conviction dated 20-5-2024 vide which the appellant was convicted under Sections 392, 397, 411, and 34 of Penal Code, 1860 (‘IPC’) for robbery with attempt to cause death or grievous hurt. A Single Judge Bench of Manoj Kumar Ohri J., dismissed the appeal and upheld the conviction of the appellant under Section 397/392/411/34 IPC stating that simple exhibition, brandishing or even holding sharp-edged weapon i.e. knife openly to generate fear or apprehension in the victim’s mind is sufficient to secure a conviction under Section 397 IPC.
Background:
A FIR was registered on 29-4-2019, where the complainant alleged that when he was returning home on his motorcycle and stopped to receive a call, two boys came on a Pulsar motorcycle and the pillion rider snatched his mobile phone (POCO F-1) from his right hand and at tried to take out his purse from the right-side pocket of his pant. Simultaneously, the driver took out a sharp-edged weapon i.e. knife and asked him to handover whatever he was carrying failing which, he would kill him. Frightened, the complainant took out his purse and the pillion rider forcibly took out sum of Rs 35,000 from the said purse and another mobile phone (JIO Keypad). Thereafter, both the said accused fled from the spot and though the complainant tried to chase them, he could not trace the robbers.
The FIR was initially registered under Sections 392/34 IPC. The appellant (motorcycle driver) and the pillion rider were later arrested in another matter, where they disclosed their involvement in the present case. From the possession of the appellant, the robbed mobile phone (POCO F-1) was recovered, and the other phone (JIO Keypad) was recovered from the pillion rider. Section 411 IPC was added during investigation, and later, Section 397 IPC was also added at the stage of framing of charge. The appellant wasconvicted by judgement dated 20-5-2024 and sentenced to rigorous imprisonment for 3 years with a fine of Rs 5,000under Sections 392/34 IPC, 7 years rigorous imprisonment under Section 397 IPC and 1 year’s rigorous imprisonment with a fine of Rs 5,000 under Section 411 IPC with sentences running concurrently under benefit of Section 428 of Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 (‘CrPC’).
Case Analysis and Decision:
The Court noted that the only contention raised before the Court was whether Section 397 IPC in these facts was made out or not. To attract this Section, the offender had to use any deadly weapon at the time of commission of robbery. The question which arose for consideration was whether a knife or knife-like sharp object was a deadly weapon.
The Court observed that there were two schools of thought on this subject. One line of decisions treated the question as to whether a knife was a deadly weapon, as a factual one, which would take into account its size, design or method of use. However, a Co-ordinate Bench of the Court in Salim v. State (UT of Delhi), 1987 SCC OnLine Del 408, adopted a different line of reasoning and held that the words ‘deadly weapon’ were of common use and did not require any interpretation. It further held that a knife maybe of different types and it was not appropriate to consider only a particular type or size of knife as a deadly weapon.
That Court observed that though in the present case, there was no recovery of weapon, however the testimony of the complainant had been consistent as to the appellant, who was riding the bike, taking out a sharp-edged weapon i.e. Knife, from his pocket and pointing the same at the complainant had asked him to handover whatever he was carrying and threatened to kill him in case he didn’t comply. The complainant also deposed that he got nervous and put his hand in his pocket but the pillion rider snatched the purse and took out Rs 35,000 cash from it. The sharp-edged weapon i.e. Knife, was not used to actually hurt the complainant but that was never a prerequisite for establishing the offence under Section 397 IPC. Simple exhibition, brandishing or even holding it openly to generate fear or apprehension in the victim’s mind is sufficient to secure a conviction under Section 397 IPC.
The Court observed that in the present case, the act of the appellant in brandishing a sharp-edged weapon, i.e. knife, accompanied by a threat of causing harm if the complainant did not part with his valuables, had generated nervousness in the mind of the complainant. The Court thus dismissed the appeal and upheld the conviction of the appellant under Section 397/392/411/34 IPC.
[Azam v. State (NCT of Delhi), 2025 SCC OnLine Del 5349, decided on 8-8-2025]
Advocates who appeared in this case :
For the Petitioner: Shamim A. Khan, Advocate.
For the Respondent: Naresh Kumar Chahar, APP for the State, with Inspector Vinay
Buy Penal Code, 1860 HERE
