Court’s Decision
The Delhi High Court dismissed the appeal against conviction under Sections 392, 397, 411, and 34 of the IPC. The Court held that the appellant’s act of brandishing a knife during the robbery, even without causing actual injury or recovery of the weapon, satisfied the requirements of Section 397 IPC. Relying on Supreme Court precedents, it reiterated that mere exhibition of a deadly weapon in a manner intended to create fear is sufficient to sustain conviction under the provision. The sentence of 7 years’ rigorous imprisonment for Section 397 IPC, along with concurrent sentences for other offences, was upheld.
Facts
The incident occurred on 29 April 2019, when the complainant was returning home on his motorcycle. After stopping to receive a call, two men on a Pulsar motorcycle approached him. The pillion rider snatched the complainant’s mobile phone (POCO F-1) and attempted to take his purse. Simultaneously, the driver, identified as the appellant, brandished a sharp-edged weapon (knife) and threatened to kill the complainant if he did not hand over his belongings. The robbers took ₹35,000 in cash and another mobile phone (JIO Keypad) before fleeing.
The appellant and a co-accused (a child in conflict with law) were arrested in another case, during which they disclosed involvement in the present offence. The stolen POCO F-1 phone was recovered from the appellant, while the JIO phone was recovered from the co-accused. Based on the evidence, the trial court convicted the appellant.
Issues
- Whether, in the absence of recovery of the knife, the prosecution had proved that a “deadly weapon” was used for the purpose of Section 397 IPC.
- Whether the recovery of the stolen POCO F-1 mobile phone from the appellant was duly proved.
Petitioner’s Arguments
The defence contended that the prosecution failed to establish that the weapon used was a “deadly weapon,” especially since it was never recovered. They relied on Balak Ram v. State and Samiuddin @ Chotu v. State, arguing that the nature of the weapon must be proved, including its size, design, and capability to cause death. The complainant, during cross-examination, admitted uncertainty about whether the sharp-edged object was a knife. Further, no judicial Test Identification Parade (TIP) of the mobile phone was conducted, creating doubt over its recovery.
Respondent’s Arguments
The State argued that the complainant’s testimony was consistent, credible, and fully identified the appellant as the motorcycle rider who brandished the knife and threatened him. The refusal of the appellant to participate in TIP, claiming prior exposure at the police station, was noted. Testimonies from witnesses, including the complainant’s relatives and the seller of the mobile phone, corroborated the recovery of the stolen property. The prosecution submitted that non-recovery of the knife did not dilute the applicability of Section 397 IPC, relying on Supreme Court judgments in Phool Kumar v. Delhi Administration and Ashfaq v. State.
Analysis of the Law
Section 397 IPC mandates a minimum 7-year sentence if, during robbery or dacoity, the offender uses a deadly weapon or causes/attempts to cause grievous hurt.
The Court noted two lines of case law:
- Earlier Delhi High Court decisions like Balak Ram and Samiuddin @ Chotu held that whether a knife is a deadly weapon is a factual question requiring proof of its dimensions or use.
- Supreme Court rulings in Phool Kumar and Ashfaq established that a knife is inherently a deadly weapon, and actual injury or recovery is unnecessary; mere brandishing to create fear suffices.
The Court preferred the Supreme Court’s interpretation, reaffirmed in subsequent Delhi High Court cases (Salim, Seetal, Sonu, Shehzad), which clarified that categorising knives by size for Section 397 purposes is unnecessary.
Precedent Analysis
- Phool Kumar v. Delhi Administration (1975) 1 SCC 797 – Held that a knife is a deadly weapon; brandishing it to terrorise victims is sufficient.
- Ashfaq v. State (2004) 3 SCC 116 – “Uses” in Section 397 includes displaying a weapon to instill fear; actual use to cause injury is not required.
- Salim v. State (Delhi Admn.) (1988) 14 DRJ 85 – Knife need not be of a particular size to be considered deadly.
- Seetal v. State (2014) 215 DLT 60 – Non-recovery of knife irrelevant if witnesses testify to threats using a knife.
- Sonu v. State (2019 SCC OnLine Del 11183) – Supreme Court precedents override earlier Delhi HC cases requiring proof of knife dimensions.
- Shehzad v. State (2019) – Knife is inherently dangerous; display creates fear.
- Ram Ratan v. State of M.P. (2021 SCC OnLine SC 1279) – Mere brandishing of a deadly weapon suffices; liability under Section 397 attaches only to the offender who used it.
Court’s Reasoning
The Court found the complainant’s evidence credible and corroborated by other witnesses. Recovery of the stolen POCO F-1 mobile phone from the appellant was proved. Applying Phool Kumar, Ashfaq, and Ram Ratan, the Court held that the appellant’s act of pointing a knife and threatening the complainant clearly fell within Section 397 IPC, even without causing injury or recovering the weapon. The purpose of the display—to instill fear and compel surrender of property—was achieved.
Conclusion
The High Court upheld the appellant’s conviction and sentence. It reiterated that under Section 397 IPC, brandishing a deadly weapon like a knife to create fear during robbery is sufficient, and recovery of the weapon is not mandatory.
Implications
This judgment reinforces the principle that in robbery cases, the prosecution need not prove the size or exact nature of a knife or even recover it to sustain conviction under Section 397 IPC. As long as credible testimony establishes that the accused brandished the knife in a manner that induced fear, the offence is made out. It closes the gap exploited in earlier case law and strengthens the deterrent effect of Section 397 IPC.
FAQs
Q1: Is recovery of the weapon necessary for conviction under Section 397 IPC?
No. As per Supreme Court rulings, non-recovery is immaterial if credible evidence shows the accused brandished a deadly weapon during the offence.
Q2: Does a knife always qualify as a “deadly weapon” under Section 397 IPC?
Yes. The Supreme Court has held that a knife, irrespective of size or type, is a deadly weapon if used to instill fear during robbery.
Q3: Can Section 397 IPC apply if the knife was not used to cause injury?
Yes. Mere exhibition or brandishing of the knife to compel the victim to part with property is sufficient to attract Section 397 IPC.
