1. Abid .…. Appellant; v. State .…. Respondent.

The appellant has challenged the judgment, inter alia, on the ground that the knife found
in the possession of the appellant is not a ‘deadly weapon’, since it was not
intended to be used by the appellant as a deadly weapon. Merely possessing a knife
was not enough to attract the offence under Section 397 of the IPC. In the present case,
the prosecution had failed to prove that the appellant had used the knife in his
possession as a ‘deadly weapon’.

2. In Ravinder Pasawan v. State: 2014 (1) JCC 78, a coordinate Bench of this

Court had confirmed the finding that the accused had tried snatching a chain
from the victim and when she tried catching hold of him and raising an alarm,
he whipped out a knife and two other accomplices had pushed her. While
considering the appeal under Section 397 of the IPC on the said facts, this
Court held as under:

“12. As regards, the submission that recovery of knife from the possession of
the appellant has not been believed by the learned Trial Court, same is devoid
of substance, inasmuch as, no finding has been given by the learned Trial
Court regarding recovery of knife from the possession of the appellant. The
charge against the appellant was also under Section 397 IPC, however, since
there was no evidence to prove that at the time of snatching the chain from
Bhagwan Devi, the appellant had used the deadly weapon, therefore, use of
deadly weapon at the time of committing robbery was not proved. That being
so, he was convicted only for offence under Section 392 IPC.”
3. In Swapan Kumar Khan v. State of WB: (2004) 1 Cal LT 299, a Division Bench of the
Calcutta High Court had held that Section 397 of the IPC is an offence of a higher
degree as compared to Section 394 of the IPC and in absence of grievous injury,
conviction under Section 397 of the IPC, is unwarranted.

4. In Suresh Kumar v. State: (1989) ILR I Delhi 82, a coordinate Bench of this Court while
coming to the finding that the appellant had snatched the golden chain from the
complainant's neck and had voluntarily caused hurt to PW1, held that the provisions
of Section 397 of the IPC would not be applicable since the appellant had not used
the dagger while committing the robbery.

5. case of Phool Kumar v. Delhi Administration, 1975 Crl. Law Journal (1) In the said
case the accused at the time of committing the robbery was carrying in his hand knife
open to the view of the victims and it was held that it was sufficient to bring home the
culpability of the accused under Section 397 I.P.C. It was also held that any other
over act such as brandishing of the knife or causing of grievous hurt with it is not
necessary to bring the offender within the ambit of Section 397 IPC.
6. In Thavasi, 1972 Crl. Law Journal 445 (2) the facts were that no deadly weapon was
used at the time of committing the robbery but the said weapon was used for inflicting
 injuries only when the accused was about to be apprehended by an overwhelming
crowd. It was held that provision of Sections 397 of the Act were not applicable in as
much as the deadly weapon was not used while committing the robbery.

7. In ‘Queen Empress v. Beni’, (1901) ILR 23 All 78, wherein Henderson, J. Held that

“where several persons were found endeavouring to break into a house, and some of
them, being armed, used violence, but only in attempting to escape being arrested it
was held that they could not properly be convicted
under Section 397 read with Section 511 of the Penal Code, 1860.”……

8. In Ajay @ Munna v. State: CrlA. 14/2016 decided on 16.06.2017, a

Coordinate Bench of this Court observed as under:—

“Upon hearing and on perusal of impugned judgment, order on sentence,

appellant's Nominal Roll and the evidence on record, I find that the pre-
requisite to attract Section 397 of IPC is that a weapon has to be used to facilitate
the commission of offence of robbery or dacoity. It is amply clear from the
evidence of complainant (PW-1) and that of public witness (PW-5) that appellant
had not shown the ‘knife’ to complainant prior to robbing him of his mobile phone.
Strangely, after appellant had robbed complainant of his mobile phone, he had
shown “knife” to complainant. It has come in the evidence of complainant that
such a course was adopted by appellant to facilitate his escape from the spot and
this endeavour proved unsuccessful as appellant was apprehended at the spot.
There is no doubt that the offence of robbery has been committed by appellant
and so, his conviction for the offence under Section 392 of IPC Crl.A.14/2016 is
well deserved. However, the evidence on record does not reveal that appellant
had shown or used the “knife” before robbing complainant and so, provision
of Section 397 of IPC is not attracted to the instant case. Quite evidently, in the
evidence of public witness or complainant's evidence, it has not come that
appellant had shown the “knife” prior to robbing complainant of his mobile phone.
So, trial court has erred in convicting appellant with the aid
of Section 397 of IPC.”

9. However, it is noticed that these decisions did not take note of the earlier
decision of this Court in Salim v. State (Delhi Admn.) : (1988) 14 DRJ 85. In
that case, this Court had referred to the decision of the Supreme Court
in Phool Kumar v. Delhi Administration : (1975) 1 SCC 797, wherein the
Supreme Court had observed that a knife is also a deadly weapon. This Court
had further noticed that the said decision in Phool Kumar v. Delhi
Administration (supra) had not been noticed by the Court in Balik
Ram v. State (supra). The relevant extract of the said decision is set out
below:—
 “This decision of the Supreme Court wherein it is held that knife is a deadly
weapon was not referred to in the aforesaid two decisions of this court and the
same are not, therefore, a binding precedent. Under Section 397 I.P.C. an
offender is guilty if he uses any deadly weapon or causes grievous hurt to any
person or attempts to cause death or grievous hurt to any person. The words
‘deadly weapon’ are of common use and do not need any
definition or interpretation. The words ‘deadly weapon’ have also been used
in Section 148 Penal Code, 1860. Section 324 I.P.C. uses the words ‘dangerous
weapons’ in its heading. It says whoever voluntarily causes hurt by any
instrument for shooting, stabbing or cutting, or any instrument which used as a
weapon of offence is likely to cause death, etc., is liable to punishment.
In Lakshmiammal v. Samiappa (AIR 1968 Madras 310), the accused were
armed with weapons like knife, hammer, crowbar and spades. It was held that
these were undoubtedly deadly weapons. The Concise Oxford Dictionary defines
the word ‘weapon’ as ‘material thing designed or used or usable as an instrument
for inflicting bodily harm, e.g. gun, bomb, rifle, sword, spear, stick hammer, poker,
horn, claw’. The word ‘deadly’, according to this Dictionary, means ‘causing fatal
injury’. Also, according to this Dictionary, ‘knife’ means ‘blade with sharpened
longitudinal edge fixed in handle either rigidly ……..or with hinge used as cutting
instrument or as weapon’. As per Webster's Third New International Dictionary a
‘knife” is ‘a simple instrument used for cutting consisting of a sharp-edged usually
steel blade provided with a handle’. Longman Dictionary of Contemporary English
defines ‘knife’ as ‘a blade fixed in a handle used for cutting as a tool  or weapon’.
These definitions in various dictionaries can be multiplied. We all understand
what a knife means and to categorise it or to fix its size for it to be a deadly
weapon may not be appropriate. A knife has also been described as a pocket
knife, pen knife, table knife, kitchen knife, etc. It cannot be denied that a knife can
be used as a weapon of offence. It can cut, it can pierce, it can be deadly.  To say
that a knife to be a deadly weapon should be of a particular size would perhaps
be not a correct statement. In the present case, the evidence shows that the
injury was caused to Singh Ram witness by a sharp-edged weapon and there is a
statement that the accused Salim was carrying a knife and it was with that knife
that the injury was caused to the witness. It would not be necessary for the
witness to further state as to what was the size of the knife to attract the
provisions of Section 397 I.P.C, as was contended by Mrs. Ahlawat. This
contention that case under Section 397 I.P.C. is not made out fails

10.In view of the observations made by the Supreme Court in Phool

Kumar v. Delhi Administration (supra); and Ashfaq v. State (Govt. of NCT of
Delhi) (supra) and decisions of this Court in Salim v. State (Delhi
 Admn.) (supra), Ikram Ansari v. State (supra) and Sanjay
Kumar v. State (supra), it is not essential to categorize the knife in
order to determine whether it is a deadly weapon. Thus, irrespective of
whether a knife is a kitchen knife, or a butcher knife, it would qualify as a
deadly weapon for the purposes of Section 397 of the IPC.
11. Hon'ble Apex Court in Sarwan Singh v. State of Punjab, reported in (1976) 4 SCC
369 that even though an eyewitness might have belong to the group of the deceased
and that witnesses came from one particular group was sufficient to show the
interested nature of evidence. But it was not the law that the evidence of an
interested witness should be equated with that of a tainted evidence or that of an
approver so as to require corroboration as a matter of necessity. All that the Courts
required as a rule of prudence, not as a rule of law, was that the evidence of such
witness should be scrutinized with a little care and once such witness was
scrutinized with a little care and the Court was satisfied that the evidence of the
interested witness has a ring of truth such evidence could be relied upon even
without corroboration.
12. In the matter of Alamgir v. State (NCT, Delhi), reported in 2003 SCC (Cri) 165 it was
also observed by the Hon'ble Court that reliability of a witness cannot be questioned
on the ground that she is an interested witness. The test of creditworthiness
ought to be the guiding factor.
13. The expression “deadly weapon” has not been defined in IPC, and its
ordinary meaning would be an object, which if used as a weapon, can
result in death of a human being. It would be difficult be difficult to
dispute that even a kitchen knife, irrespective of its size, can result in
death, if used with force at a vital part of the body.
14. Similar view was taken in State of Maharashtra v. Vinayak9, where
the High Court held that irrespective of its size, any knife is a
deadly weapon.”

15. Ramesh @ Tillu Versus State- Knives are weapons available in various sizes and may
just cause little hurt or may be the deadliest. The are not deadly weapons per se such as
would ordinarily result in death by their use. What would make a knife deadly is its design
or the manner of its use such as is calculated to or is likely to produce death. It is,
therefore, a question of fact to be proved and prosecution should prove that the knife
used by the accused was a deadly one. I think it is needless to enter into this controversy
in the present case because complainant Miti Jain sustained injury which has been
opined to be grievous by Dr. Pramod Kohli, Orthopaedic Deptt. PW-1 Dr. Kohli was not at
all cross-examined by the appellant on this point. Section 397 IPC can be invoked in
either of the following situations namely when at the time of committing robbery or
dacoity, the offender (i) uses any deadly weapon, or (ii) causes grievous hurt to any
person, or (iii) attempts to cause death or (iv) grievous hurt to any person. In either of
these situations, Section 397 IPC is attracted and the imprisonment with which such
 offender shall be punished shall not be less than seven years RI. In the present case, the
complainant suffered grievous injury on the left thumb, therefore Section 397 IPC is
made out irrespective of the fact whether knife used by the appellant was a deadly
weapon or not.
16.In Phool Kumar v. Delhi Admn., (1975) 1 SCC 797 : AIR 1975 SC 905 the
accused was carrying a knife in his hand at the time the robbery was
committed. It was found from the deposition of PW-16 that the
appellant/accused Phool Kumar had a knife in his hand. The Hon'ble
Supreme Court held that he was therefore carrying a deadly weapon.
In Salim v. State, 1987 (3) Crimes 794 the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi held
that to categorise knife

or to fix its size for it to be a deadly weapon may not be appropriate. It was
held that to say that a knife to be a deadly weapon should be of a particular
size would not be a correct statement. In State of
Maharasthra v. Vinayak, 1997 Cr. L.J. 3988 Bombay High Court held that knife
is a deadly weapon within the ambit of expression ‘deadly weapon’ used in
section 397 of IPC. Therefore, irrespective of the size, any knife is a deadly
weapon and therefore, accused Rajesh is liable to be punished under Section
392 of IPC read with Section 397 thereof.
17. This extract is taken from Ashfaq v. State (Govt. of NCT of Delhi), (2004)
3 SCC 116 : 2004 SCC (Cri) 687 at page 121
8. Thus, what is essential to satisfy the word “uses” for the purposes of
Section 397 IPC is the robbery being committed by an offender who was
armed with a 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 and not that
it should be further shown to have been actually used for cutting,
stabbing, shooting, as the case may be.
18. This extract is taken from Sunil v. State (Govt. of NCT), 2009 SCC OnLine
Del 3840 : (2010) 114 DRJ 289 at page 293
19. In Balik Ram v. The State, 1983 Cri. L.J. 1438, a coordinate Bench of this
court had held that:
“…Though the knife that was recovered from the accused a few hours of
the occurrence was no doubt a deadly one on account of its size and
design but it was not shown to the victim when he came to depose nor
has he given any description of the knife so that it could be held that the
knife alleged to have been placed by the accused on his abdomen was the
one recovered or the one similar to that one. The accused can, therefore,
legitimately claim that the weapon used by him has not been proved to be
a deadly one….”
19. Sunil @ Munna Versus State (Govt. of NCT)-Prosecution failed to prove is that this was
in fact the same knife which had beenused by the appellant — In order to prove the of
fence under Section 397 of the IPC, the prosecution must establish: i.) The commission
of robbery or dacoity; ii.) that the accused used the deadly weapon; or caused grievous
hurt; or attempted to cause death or grievous hurt; iii.) the above acts were done during
the commission of robbery or dacoity-conviction modified to Section 392 of IPC.