Knife Is A ‘Deadly Weapon’ Irrespective Of Its Dimensions, Recovery Not Essential To Attract Offence U/S 397 IPC: Delhi High Court
The Delhi High Court has made it clear that dimension or type of knife used to threaten a person of injury is irrelevant for the purpose of attracting the offence of Section 397 IPC.
The provision states that if, at the time of committing robbery or dacoity, the offender uses any deadly weapon, or causes grievous hurt to any person, or attempts to cause death or grievous hurt to any person, the imprisonment with which such offender shall be punished shall not be less than seven years.
Thus, to attract this Section, the offender has to use any deadly weapon at the time of commission of robbery.
The question before the Court here was whether non-recovery of the knife would be fatal to prosecution case, as without recovery it was not possible to ascertain whether the knife was a dangerous one.
In this backdrop, Justice Manoj Kumar Ohri cited Sonu v. State (2019), where it was held that a knife was a deadly weapon irrespective of its dimensions and it was not correct to categorize the knife as a certain type or size before considering it as a deadly weapon.
The bench then proceeded to trace judicial history on this subject and found that there are two schools of thought. One line of decisions treats the question as to whether a knife is a deadly weapon as a factual one, which would take into account its size, design or method of use.
In Balak Ram v. State (1981) a Co-ordinate Bench of the High Court held that knives are not deadly weapons per se and what would make a knife deadly is its design or the manner of its use.
Another Co-ordinate Bench in Saimuddin @ Chotu v. State (2011) held that non-recovery of knife would bring the case out of the ambit of Section 397 IPC.
However, these decisions, Justice Ohri said, fail to take into account the Supreme Court’s decision in Phool Kumar v. Delhi Administration (1975) which held that a knife is a deadly weapon.
Following this, a Co-ordinate Bench in Salim v. State (1988) had also held that a knife may be of different types and it was not appropriate to consider only a particular type or size of knife as a deadly weapon.
Similarly, in Ashfaq v. State (2004) conviction under Section 397 IPC was upheld by the Supreme Court despite the fact that the knives were not recovered.
In the case at hand, the complainant alleged that a bike rider pointed a knife at him to loot his mobile and some cash.
Following his conviction, the biker approached the High Court stating that in the absence of recovery of the alleged knife, the prosecution was bound to prove that the weapon used in the offence was a dangerous weapon.
In this regard he referred to portions of cross-examination where the complainant had stated that he could not definitely state whether the sharp-edged weapon was a knife or not.
The High Court however, following the second school of thought, held,
“In the present case, although there has not been any recovery of the weapon, which is immaterial…testimony of the complainant has been consistent as to the appellant, who was riding the bike, taking out a sharp-edged weapon i.e. Knife, from his pocket and pointing the same.”
The Court further noted that the sharp-edged weapon was not used to actually hurt the complainant but, it said, that has never been a prerequisite for establishing the offence under Section 397 of IPC.
“Simple exhibition, brandishing or even holding it openly to generate fear or apprehension in the victim’s mind is sufficient to secure a conviction under Section 397 IPC,” the Court held and upheld the conviction.
Appearance: Mr. Gautam Khazanchi, Ms. Pooja Deepak, (DHCLSC), Advocates for Appellant; Mr. Pradeep Gahalot, APP for State with S.I. Lovkesh Kumar, P.S. Narela for Respondent
Case title: Azam v. State
Case no.: CRL.A. 926/2024