Can a ‘blade’ be considered as deadly weapon under IPC- Delhi HC Answers
The Delhi High Court answered the question that can a ‘blade’ be considered as a deadly weapon under IPC.
Background
The appellant assailing the conviction contended that the Trial Court failed to notice glaring contradictions in the testimonies of PW-1, PW-2 and PW-4 who gave altogether different versions in respect of the manner of commission of alleged robbery and the investigation carried out by the police qua the three witnesses.
Arguments
Sonu stated that the appellant took out the blade, kicked him and PW-4 tried to stop him, when co-accused helped the appellant, the appellant hit PW-2 and ran away.
Amit Gupta, APP for the State submitted that the version of the complainant Sonu is duly corroborated by PW-1 and PW-4. Even if PW-1 stated that he was walking a few steps ahead, the same does not mean that he did not witness the incident, when the complainant was waylaid by the appellant and his associate, who snatched the mobile phone and fled away from the scene.
Decision
The single judge bench of Justice Mukta Gupta noted that it is trite law that even if the weapon of offense is shown after snatching had taken place for running away along with snatched article, offense under Section 397 IPC is attracted. Section 390 Cr.P.C. provides that in a robbery, there is either theft or extortion.
The court stated that if the offender uses the deadly weapon at the time of committing robbery or dacoity which would include even the fear of instant death or instant hurt or wrongful restrain or an attempt to cause death or hurt or wrongful restraint even while carrying away or attempting to carry away the property obtained by theft, the act of the offender will fall within the four corners of Section 397 IPC.
The court said that it is well settled that whether the weapon of offense is deadly or not, is a question of fact which would depend on the nature of weapon used in the offense.
The court held that in the absence of the use of a deadly weapon being proved by the prosecution, the conviction of the appellant for offense punishable under Section 397 IPC cannot be sustained and is required to be modified to an offense punishable under Section 392 IPC.
The court altered the conviction of the appellant for an offense punishable under Section 392 IPC and modified the sentence of the appellant to rigorous imprisonment for a period of five years.
Case title: Asif v/s State (N.C.T of Delhi)
Citation: CRL.A. 290/2021
