Delhi HC alters order sentencing a man for robbery
The Delhi High Court on Friday altered the conviction and order on sentence of a person charged for the offence of robbery to undergo punishment under Section 392 (prescribing punishment for robbery) of the Indian Penal Code, 1860, rather than Section 397 (prescribing punishment for robbery with attempt to cause death or grievous hurt) on the ground that the prosecution failed to prove the use of a deadly weapon.
The Single-Judge Bench of Justice Mukta Gupta observed that in case of knife or blade, the nature of weapon of offence needs to be proved. The Bench noted thus:
“It is well settled that whether the weapon of offence is deadly or not, is a question of fact which would depend on the nature of weapon used in the offence……. Though it is not essential that the weapon of offence should be recovered to prove the nature of the weapon used and that a deadly weapon was used at the time of commission of the offence, however, the prosecution is required to prove the nature of the weapon of offence used specially in the case of knife or blade.”
At the outset, an FIR was registered at the instance of one Sonu against Asif and co-accused Moideen @ Tinku for committing robbery of his mobile phone named Karbon from his possession by showing him a deadly weapon, which is a blade. The Trial Court vide order passed in July, 2019, convicted Asif under S.397 IPC and directed him to undergo seven years imprisonment.
The counsel representing Asif contended that the alleged weapon of offence has not been recovered and in the absence thereof, it cannot be said that the weapon was a deadly one. Per contra, APP Amit Gupta, representing State, submitted that as the blade causes serious incised wound injury, it falls within the category of deadly weapon and that once a deadly weapon is shown, offence under S.397 is made out.
Justice Gupta opined that the prosecution is required to prove the use of a deadly weapon in the instant case. “In the absence of the use of a deadly weapon being proved by the prosecution, the conviction of the appellant for offence punishable under Section 397 IPC cannot be sustained and is required to be modified to an offence punishable under Section 392 IPC,” held the Bench while modifying the punishment from an offence punishable under S.397 to one under S.392 and the sentence of imprisonment to five years from seven years.
mug28012022crla2902021200214-408489The post Delhi HC alters order sentencing a man for robbery appeared first on India Legal.
from India Legal https://ift.tt/2CwgdWbG8
Comments
Post a Comment