Court’s Decision: The Delhi High Court modified the appellant’s conviction, holding him guilty under Section 394 IPC instead of Section 397. This change resulted from the finding that the appellant was not the one who inflicted stab injuries on the victim. Consequently, the sentence was reduced to five years of rigorous imprisonment with a fine of ₹5,000, and in default, two months of simple imprisonment.
Facts: The case stemmed from an incident on the night of April 24, 2003, when the victim, Rajesh, was attacked by three individuals as he was returning home. His bicycle touched one of the assailants, leading to an altercation where he was beaten and robbed of ₹600. During this altercation, one of the attackers inflicted stab wounds on Rajesh. The appellant, along with two co-accused, was charged under various sections of the IPC, including Section 394 (robbery) and Section 397 (robbery with dangerous weapon use).
Issues: The primary issues were (1) whether the evidence sufficiently proved the appellant’s involvement in the stabbing and (2) the appropriateness of his conviction and sentence under Section 397, given the specifics of his alleged role in the incident.
Petitioner’s Arguments: The appellant argued that his conviction was flawed due to material contradictions in witness testimonies and procedural lapses, such as delay in conducting the Test Identification Parade (TIP) and the failure of the police to seize blood-stained clothes of the key witness, PW-2 Bahadur.
Respondent’s Arguments: The Additional Public Prosecutor contended that minor contradictions in witness testimonies were insufficient to discredit the prosecution’s case, asserting that the evidence firmly supported the appellant’s guilt and justified his initial conviction under Section 397.
Analysis of the Law: The court examined Sections 394 and 397 IPC, emphasizing that Section 397 requires the direct use of a deadly weapon by the convicted individual. Here, the court noted that the stabbing had been carried out by another assailant, not the appellant.
Precedent Analysis: The court referred to Bhim Rao Anna Ingawle vs. State of Maharashtra, where it was observed that minor contradictions in testimony do not undermine the credibility of evidence as long as they do not substantially affect the case.
Court’s Reasoning: The court reasoned that the prosecution had proven beyond a reasonable doubt that the appellant, in furtherance of common intention, participated in the robbery and inflicted fist and leg blows on the victim. However, since he was not the stabber, the conviction under Section 397 was inappropriate and was thus modified to Section 394 IPC.
Conclusion: The court modified the conviction to Section 394 IPC and adjusted the sentence to five years of rigorous imprisonment, with a fine of ₹5,000. The court also granted the appellant the benefit under Section 428 CrPC, allowing time spent in custody to count toward his sentence.
Implications: This decision underscores the importance of precise evidence regarding individual roles in crimes involving multiple perpetrators, especially under Section 397 IPC. The ruling clarifies that to convict under Section 397, there must be clear proof of direct use of a deadly weapon by the accused.
