CASE LAWS

Madras High Court Jeyaraj vs The State Rep. By Inspector of Police, Theni on 27 June, 2012. On 21.02.1999 at about 2 a.m, the accused, Jayaraj along with two accomplices, with an intention of committing robbery entered into the Forest Office, tied the hands and closed the mouth of guard present there at that time, beat him grievously and threatened him with knife. They took away two riffles, and other arms forcibly and thereby committed offence punishable under Section 394 r/w 397 IPC and under Section 25 (1) (c) of Arms Act. The trial court convicted the accused under Section 394 r/w 397 IPC and sentenced him to undergo 7 years R.I and to pay a fine of Rs.100/- and in default to pay the fine amount, the petitioner / accused shall undergo a further period of 6 months R.I But when the case came to Madras HC, the court relied on The Hon'ble Supreme Court in land mark case of Dilawar Singh vs. State of Delhi,1 has highlighted the essential ingredients, which are needed to establish an offence under Section 397 IPC as laid down in Mohd. Yousuf vs. Afaq Jahan,2 as follows: 1. Accused committed robbery. 2. While committing robbery or dacoity (i) accused used deadly weapon (ii) to cause grievous hurt to any person (iii) attempted to cause death or grievous hurt to any person. 3. Refers to only culprit who actually used deadly weapon. When only one has used the deadly weapon, others cannot be awarded the minimum punishment. It only envisages the individual liability and not any constructive liability. Section 397 IPC is attracted only against the particular accused who uses the deadly weapon or does any of the acts mentioned in the provision. But other accused are not vicariously liable under that Section for acts of co-accused. Thereby the conviction of Jeyaraj was set aside.
1 2

AIR 2007 SC 3234 AIR 2006 (1) SCC 627

Dehli High Court Ashok Kumar And Anr vs $ The State (Govt. Of The National Capital Territory of Delhi) on 8 December, 2009 On 18 th January, 1988, at about 8.30 pm, the complainant-Jagdish Kumar was present in his house, when 3-4 boys entered his house. One of them stood at the gate along with a knife and the second one, showing a countrymade pistol to him, asked him to handover whatever he had with him and removed one watch from his arm. The third person opened the boxes kept in his house and removed jewellery and cash amounting to about Rs.5,000/-. When the intruders were running away after committing the robbery, the complainant and his father apprehended one of them and one countrymade pistol alongwith cartridges was recovered from him. That person was handed over to the police alongwith the pistol and cartridges. It was the appellant-Jagan Nath, who was apprehended on the spot alongwith pistol and cartridges and the other appellants were the persons associated with him in commission of the robbery. All the appellants were convicted under Section 452 of IPC and under Section 392/34 of IPC read with Section 397 thereof and were sentenced to undergo RI for seven years each and to pay a fine of Rs.1,000/The conviction was appealed to the Dehli HC. The story of the person picking up the knife could not be collaborated and jewerally and the watch was not recovered. There was imperfection in the investigations of the police and lapse of memory and statements of the aggrieved. The HC gave the benefit of doubt to two of the accused and acquitted them. However the accused who was captured on scene, Jagan Nath, was not given such a benefit and his conviction was upheld.

Delhi High Court Subhash @ Birju vs State Of Nct Of Delhi on 19 October, 2010 At about 3.00 p.m. on 2nd May, 2005 somebody knocked at the door and when Rajni the maid asked, the person replied that he was a courier. Rajni opened the door and three boys came into the house. One of the boys caught hold of Rajni and another boy came inside his room after him. The third boy started looking for money and articles in the house. All three of them had knives in their hands. The owner Jatindra Nath Sachdeva was showed knife and kept it on the stomach and then on the neck and asked him to handover the cash and the key of the almirah. He put his finger inside his mouth and caught hold of his hands behind his back. He gave him fist blows and him. Jitender Nath Sachdeva hit the door and teetered. The boy went to another room. Jitender Nath Sachdeva closed the door of his room and came to the window and started shouting that robbers had come inside the house and they required help. The three boys after hearing Jitender Nath Sachdeva shout ran away. Jitender Nath Sachdeva telephoned number 100 and PCR came and he was taken to the hospital. Jitender Nath Sachdeva could recognize the three boys. They were convicted under section 397 of IPC for seven years RI. When the case came to Dehli HC, it was pleaded that even though Jatinder Nath and his maid had accurately described and identified the accused, none of the items said to have been stolen were recovered from the boys. Moreover the wallet and watches sealed by the police from the possession of the boys were not identified by Sachdeva. The Dehli high court while confirming the sentence of seven years converted the conviction form sec 397 to 398 of ipc. (i.e. attempt to commit Robberry)