NON-RECOVERY OF WEAPONS USED FOR OR DURING A ROBBERY CANNOT BE A REASON TO NOT FRAME CHARGES U/S SECTION 397 OF IPC - DELHI HC

The Delhi High Court observed that mere non-recovery of weapons used for or during a robbery cannot be a reason to not frame charges u/s Section 397 of Indian Penal Code - 'robbery, or dacoity, with an attempt to cause death or grievous hurt.

The Court heard a case of robbery by the complainant. He submitted that he and his friends were robbed by men who claimed to be from Delhi Police. He further alleged that they were threatened by brandishing a pistol and asked them to give all their belongings. Out of fear, they complied with the directions given by the robbers.

Subsequently, the complainant registered an FIR against the accused persons under Section 392 of IPC. A charge sheet was filed stating that there was sufficient material to initiate a case under section 397, which provides graver punishment as compared to section 392.

On February 20, 2020, District and Sessions Judge, Patiala House Courts, framed charges u/s 392 of the IPC but refused to hold the accused person guilty of u/s 397, stating that the pistol had been only brandished and not used. The judgment of the sessions court was challenged before the HC by the State.

After hearing the parties, the Court placed reliance on Phool Kumar v. Delhi Admn wherein the Top Court held that:

"Any overt act such as brandishing the weapon against another person to overawe him or displaying the weapon to frighten his victim have been held to attract Section 397 of IPC."

In view of the above observations, the Court allowed the revision petition while directing the framing of charges against the accused under Section 397 IPC.

Found this useful? You might also like: A LAWYER APPROACHED BOMBAY HC THROUGH PIL SEEKING CRYPTOCURRENCY MARKET REGULATIONS

Author: Papiha Ghoshal