{"id":197113,"date":"2018-06-18T17:54:27","date_gmt":"2018-06-18T12:24:27","guid":{"rendered":"http:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/?p=197113"},"modified":"2018-06-25T10:43:17","modified_gmt":"2018-06-25T05:13:17","slug":"recovery-of-the-weapon-is-not-an-essential-ingredient-for-conviction-under-section-397-ipc","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2018\/06\/18\/recovery-of-the-weapon-is-not-an-essential-ingredient-for-conviction-under-section-397-ipc\/","title":{"rendered":"Recovery of the weapon is not an essential ingredient for conviction under Section 397 IPC"},"content":{"rendered":"

Delhi High Court: <\/strong>A Single Judge Bench comprising of Pratibha M. Singh, J. dismissed a criminal appeal while upholding the conviction and sentence of the appellant (accused) inter alia<\/em> for the offence punishable under Section 397 IPC.<\/p>\n

The appellant was accused of robbery by the use of a deadly weapon- a knife. It was alleged that the appellant along with other co-accused entered the house of the victims, threatened them with a knife and robbed their house. On victim’s information, FIR was registered, the appellant was apprehended, arrested, charged, tried, convicted and sentenced by the trial court inter alia<\/em> under Section 397 IPC. The appellant approached the High Court challenging the decision of the trial court contending that since the deadly weapon (a knife in this case) was not recovered, the appellant could not have been convicted under the section.<\/p>\n

The High Court referred to a long catena of decisions to reach a conclusion that recovery of the weapon was not essential to convict the appellant under Section 397. The Court relied on Ashfaq <\/em>v. State (NCT of Delhi), <\/em>(2004) 3 SCC 116<\/a><\/strong> wherein the Supreme Court referred to Phool Kumar <\/em>v. State<\/em> (UT of Delhi)<\/em>, (1975) 1 SCC 797 <\/a><\/strong>wherein it was held, \u201c… what is essential to satisfy the word \u2018use\u2019 for the purpose of Section 397 is the robbery being committed by an offender who was armed with deadly weapon which was within the vision of the victim so as to be capable of creating a terror in the mind of the victim\u2026 knife is equally a deadly weapon, for purposes of Section 397<\/em>\u201d. The High Court referring to its earlier decisions held, the fact that the knife was not recovered would not matter as long as eye-witnesses to the crime are able to convincingly and consistently recount the fact that they were threatened by the sight of the accused wielding the knife while parting with their belongings. Placing reliance on the precedents and discussions held therein, the Court held, recovery of the weapon is not essential for conviction for an offence under Section 397 IPC. <\/em>The Court, while holding that ingredients required for conviction under Section 397 were satisfied by the testimonies of prosecution witnesses, upheld the conviction and sentence awarded by the trial court and dismissed the appeal. [Murlidhar v.\u00a0 State,2018 SCC OnLine Del 9401<\/a>, dated 01-06-2018]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"

Delhi High Court: A Single Judge Bench comprising of Pratibha M. Singh, J. dismissed a criminal appeal while upholding the conviction and <\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":8808,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"closed","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"_jetpack_memberships_contains_paid_content":false,"footnotes":""},"categories":[3,10],"tags":[30558,3009,30559,2519,30557],"class_list":["post-197113","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-casebriefs","category-highcourts","tag-ingredient","tag-recovery","tag-section-397-ipc","tag-Sentence","tag-weapon"],"yoast_head":"\nRecovery of the weapon is not an essential ingredient for conviction under Section 397 IPC | SCC Times<\/title>\n<meta name=\"robots\" content=\"index, follow, max-snippet:-1, max-image-preview:large, max-video-preview:-1\" \/>\n<link rel=\"canonical\" href=\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2018\/06\/18\/recovery-of-the-weapon-is-not-an-essential-ingredient-for-conviction-under-section-397-ipc\/\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"Recovery of the weapon is not an essential ingredient for conviction under Section 397 IPC\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:description\" content=\"Delhi High Court: A Single Judge Bench comprising of Pratibha M. Singh, J. dismissed a criminal appeal while upholding the conviction and\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2018\/06\/18\/recovery-of-the-weapon-is-not-an-essential-ingredient-for-conviction-under-section-397-ipc\/\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:site_name\" content=\"SCC Times\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:publisher\" content=\"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/scc.online\/\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:published_time\" content=\"2018-06-18T12:24:27+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2018-06-25T05:13:17+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:image\" content=\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2016\/10\/Delhi-HC.jpg\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:width\" content=\"1329\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:height\" content=\"888\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:type\" content=\"image\/jpeg\" \/>\n<meta name=\"author\" content=\"Bhumika Indulia\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:card\" content=\"summary_large_image\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:label1\" content=\"Written by\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data1\" content=\"Bhumika Indulia\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:label2\" content=\"Est. reading time\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data2\" content=\"2 minutes\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\/\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2018\/06\/18\/recovery-of-the-weapon-is-not-an-essential-ingredient-for-conviction-under-section-397-ipc\/\",\"url\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2018\/06\/18\/recovery-of-the-weapon-is-not-an-essential-ingredient-for-conviction-under-section-397-ipc\/\",\"name\":\"Recovery of the weapon is not an essential ingredient for conviction under Section 397 IPC | SCC Times\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"2018-06-18T12:24:27+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2018-06-25T05:13:17+00:00\",\"author\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/#\/schema\/person\/919ec47cc1b871b362af05740398033a\"},\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2018\/06\/18\/recovery-of-the-weapon-is-not-an-essential-ingredient-for-conviction-under-section-397-ipc\/#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2018\/06\/18\/recovery-of-the-weapon-is-not-an-essential-ingredient-for-conviction-under-section-397-ipc\/\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2018\/06\/18\/recovery-of-the-weapon-is-not-an-essential-ingredient-for-conviction-under-section-397-ipc\/#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"Recovery of the weapon is not an essential ingredient for conviction under Section 397 IPC\"}]},{\"@type\":\"WebSite\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/#website\",\"url\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/\",\"name\":\"SCC Times\",\"description\":\"Bringing you the Best Analytical Legal News\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"SearchAction\",\"target\":{\"@type\":\"EntryPoint\",\"urlTemplate\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/?s={search_term_string}\"},\"query-input\":{\"@type\":\"PropertyValueSpecification\",\"valueRequired\":true,\"valueName\":\"search_term_string\"}}],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\"},{\"@type\":\"Person\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/#\/schema\/person\/919ec47cc1b871b362af05740398033a\",\"name\":\"Bhumika Indulia\",\"image\":{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/#\/schema\/person\/image\/\",\"url\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2021\/04\/Me-150x150.jpg\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2021\/04\/Me-150x150.jpg\",\"caption\":\"Bhumika Indulia\"},\"url\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/author\/editor_1\/\"}]}<\/script>\n<!-- \/ Yoast SEO Premium plugin. -->","yoast_head_json":{"title":"Recovery of the weapon is not an essential ingredient for conviction under Section 397 IPC | SCC Times","robots":{"index":"index","follow":"follow","max-snippet":"max-snippet:-1","max-image-preview":"max-image-preview:large","max-video-preview":"max-video-preview:-1"},"canonical":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2018\/06\/18\/recovery-of-the-weapon-is-not-an-essential-ingredient-for-conviction-under-section-397-ipc\/","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"Recovery of the weapon is not an essential ingredient for conviction under Section 397 IPC","og_description":"Delhi High Court: A Single Judge Bench comprising of Pratibha M. Singh, J. dismissed a criminal appeal while upholding the conviction and","og_url":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2018\/06\/18\/recovery-of-the-weapon-is-not-an-essential-ingredient-for-conviction-under-section-397-ipc\/","og_site_name":"SCC Times","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/scc.online\/","article_published_time":"2018-06-18T12:24:27+00:00","article_modified_time":"2018-06-25T05:13:17+00:00","og_image":[{"width":1329,"height":888,"url":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2016\/10\/Delhi-HC.jpg","type":"image\/jpeg"}],"author":"Bhumika Indulia","twitter_card":"summary_large_image","twitter_misc":{"Written by":"Bhumika Indulia","Est. reading time":"2 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2018\/06\/18\/recovery-of-the-weapon-is-not-an-essential-ingredient-for-conviction-under-section-397-ipc\/","url":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2018\/06\/18\/recovery-of-the-weapon-is-not-an-essential-ingredient-for-conviction-under-section-397-ipc\/","name":"Recovery of the weapon is not an essential ingredient for conviction under Section 397 IPC | SCC Times","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/#website"},"datePublished":"2018-06-18T12:24:27+00:00","dateModified":"2018-06-25T05:13:17+00:00","author":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/#\/schema\/person\/919ec47cc1b871b362af05740398033a"},"breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2018\/06\/18\/recovery-of-the-weapon-is-not-an-essential-ingredient-for-conviction-under-section-397-ipc\/#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2018\/06\/18\/recovery-of-the-weapon-is-not-an-essential-ingredient-for-conviction-under-section-397-ipc\/"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2018\/06\/18\/recovery-of-the-weapon-is-not-an-essential-ingredient-for-conviction-under-section-397-ipc\/#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"Recovery of the weapon is not an essential ingredient for conviction under Section 397 IPC"}]},{"@type":"WebSite","@id":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/#website","url":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/","name":"SCC Times","description":"Bringing you the Best Analytical Legal News","potentialAction":[{"@type":"SearchAction","target":{"@type":"EntryPoint","urlTemplate":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/?s={search_term_string}"},"query-input":{"@type":"PropertyValueSpecification","valueRequired":true,"valueName":"search_term_string"}}],"inLanguage":"en-US"},{"@type":"Person","@id":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/#\/schema\/person\/919ec47cc1b871b362af05740398033a","name":"Bhumika Indulia","image":{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/#\/schema\/person\/image\/","url":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2021\/04\/Me-150x150.jpg","contentUrl":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2021\/04\/Me-150x150.jpg","caption":"Bhumika Indulia"},"url":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/author\/editor_1\/"}]}},"jetpack_featured_media_url":"","jetpack_sharing_enabled":true,"jetpack-related-posts":[{"id":213210,"url":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2019\/04\/04\/del-hc-paper-cutter-blade-not-a-deadly-weapon-so-as-to-constitute-an-offence-under-s-397-ipc\/","url_meta":{"origin":197113,"position":0},"title":"Del HC | Paper cutter blade not a ‘deadly weapon’ so as to constitute an offence under S. 397 IPC","author":"Bhumika Indulia","date":"April 4, 2019","format":false,"excerpt":"Delhi High Court:\u00a0A.K. Pathak, J., modified the appellant's conviction and sentence while allowing his appeal filed against the order of the trial court whereby he was convicted for an offence under Section 397 IPC (robbery or dacoity, with attempt to cause death and grievous hurt). As per the victim, on\u2026","rel":"","context":"In "Case Briefs"","block_context":{"text":"Case Briefs","link":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/category\/casebriefs\/"},"img":{"alt_text":"","src":"","width":0,"height":0},"classes":[]},{"id":261127,"url":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2022\/02\/04\/whether-a-blade-would-be-covered-under-s-397-ipc-as-a-deadly-weapon\/","url_meta":{"origin":197113,"position":1},"title":"Whether a \u2018blade\u2019 would be covered under S. 397 IPC as a deadly weapon? Del HC explains in view of settled position of law","author":"Bhumika Indulia","date":"February 4, 2022","format":false,"excerpt":"Delhi High Court: Mukta Gupta, J., explained under what circumstances would Section 397 of penal Code, 1860 would be attracted. By the instant appeal, the appellant challenged the decision convicting the appellant for offence punishable under Section 397 of Penal Code, 1860. An FIR was registered for the offence punishable\u2026","rel":"","context":"In "Case Briefs"","block_context":{"text":"Case Briefs","link":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/category\/casebriefs\/"},"img":{"alt_text":"","src":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2022\/01\/Delhi_New-logo.jpg?resize=350%2C200&ssl=1","width":350,"height":200,"srcset":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2022\/01\/Delhi_New-logo.jpg?resize=350%2C200&ssl=1 1x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2022\/01\/Delhi_New-logo.jpg?resize=525%2C300&ssl=1 1.5x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2022\/01\/Delhi_New-logo.jpg?resize=700%2C400&ssl=1 2x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2022\/01\/Delhi_New-logo.jpg?resize=1050%2C600&ssl=1 3x"},"classes":[]},{"id":259167,"url":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2021\/12\/28\/explained-section-397-use-weapon\/","url_meta":{"origin":197113,"position":2},"title":"Explained| To constitute a charge under Section 397 IPC, is it necessary to prove that the offender has put the weapon\/firearm to \u201cuse\u201d?\u00a0","author":"Prachi Bhardwaj","date":"December 28, 2021","format":false,"excerpt":"Supreme Court: The 3-judge bench of NV Ramana, CJI and AS Bopanna* and Hima Kohli, JJ has elaborated on the question as to whether to be charged under Section 397 IPC, it is necessary to prove that the offender has put the weapon to \u201cuse\u201d. The law laid down by\u2026","rel":"","context":"In "Case Briefs"","block_context":{"text":"Case Briefs","link":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/category\/casebriefs\/"},"img":{"alt_text":"","src":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2021\/07\/MicrosoftTeams-image-7-1.png?resize=350%2C200&ssl=1","width":350,"height":200,"srcset":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2021\/07\/MicrosoftTeams-image-7-1.png?resize=350%2C200&ssl=1 1x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2021\/07\/MicrosoftTeams-image-7-1.png?resize=525%2C300&ssl=1 1.5x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2021\/07\/MicrosoftTeams-image-7-1.png?resize=700%2C400&ssl=1 2x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2021\/07\/MicrosoftTeams-image-7-1.png?resize=1050%2C600&ssl=1 3x"},"classes":[]},{"id":197381,"url":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2018\/06\/25\/the-word-offender-in-section-397-ipc-envisages-individual-liability-and-not-constructive-liability\/","url_meta":{"origin":197113,"position":3},"title":"The word \u2018offender\u2019 in Section 397 IPC envisages individual liability and not constructive liability","author":"Bhumika Indulia","date":"June 25, 2018","format":false,"excerpt":"Delhi High Court: A Single Judge Bench comprising of Anu Malhotra, J., allowed a criminal petition filed against the judgment of the trial court wherein the appellant was convicted under Sections 392 and 397 IPC along with Section 27 of Arms Act. The appellant was alleged to have robbed the\u2026","rel":"","context":"In "Case Briefs"","block_context":{"text":"Case Briefs","link":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/category\/casebriefs\/"},"img":{"alt_text":"","src":"","width":0,"height":0},"classes":[]},{"id":226217,"url":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2020\/02\/26\/bom-hc-robbery-or-dacoity-with-use-of-deadly-weapon-trial-courts-decision-upheld-for-offence-punishable-under-ss-302-392-ipc-deceased-found-with-knife-pierced-in-chest\/","url_meta":{"origin":197113,"position":4},"title":"Bom HC | [Robbery or Dacoity with use of deadly weapon] Trial Court\u2019s decision upheld for offence punishable under Ss. 302 & 392 IPC \u2013 Deceased found with knife pierced in chest","author":"Bhumika Indulia","date":"February 26, 2020","format":false,"excerpt":"Bombay High Court: A Division Bench of Surendra P. Tavade and Ranjit More, JJ., while dismissing the present appeal upheld the trial court\u2019s decision for an offence punishable under Sections 302, 392 read with Section 34 of Penal Code, 1860. Reason for appeal to be preferred Appellant \u2013 Original accused\u2026","rel":"","context":"In "Case Briefs"","block_context":{"text":"Case Briefs","link":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/category\/casebriefs\/"},"img":{"alt_text":"","src":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2016\/09\/Bombay-HC.jpg?resize=350%2C200&ssl=1","width":350,"height":200,"srcset":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2016\/09\/Bombay-HC.jpg?resize=350%2C200&ssl=1 1x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2016\/09\/Bombay-HC.jpg?resize=525%2C300&ssl=1 1.5x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2016\/09\/Bombay-HC.jpg?resize=700%2C400&ssl=1 2x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2016\/09\/Bombay-HC.jpg?resize=1050%2C600&ssl=1 3x"},"classes":[]},{"id":205549,"url":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2018\/11\/20\/combined-impact-of-different-weapons-used-during-robbery-to-be-considered-for-conviction-under-section-397-ipc-del-hc\/","url_meta":{"origin":197113,"position":5},"title":"Combined impact of different weapons used during robbery to be considered for conviction under Section 397 IPC: Del HC","author":"Bhumika Indulia","date":"November 20, 2018","format":false,"excerpt":"Delhi High Court:\u00a0A Single Judge Bench comprising of Mukta Gupta,\u00a0 J. dismissed a bunch of criminal appeals filed against the judgment of the trial court whereby the appellants were convicted under Section 392 read with Section 397 IPC. The appellants were accused of having robbed passengers of a gramin sewa\u00a0vehicle\u2026","rel":"","context":"In "Case Briefs"","block_context":{"text":"Case Briefs","link":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/category\/casebriefs\/"},"img":{"alt_text":"","src":"","width":0,"height":0},"classes":[]}],"amp_enabled":true,"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/197113","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/8808"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=197113"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/197113\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=197113"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=197113"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=197113"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}