Date of judgement:
17th December 2021
Bench:
Justice A.S Bopanna
Parties:
Appellant –Ram Ratan
Respondent – State of Madhya Pradesh
Subject
The appellant was charged under section 397 read with section 11/13 of (MPDVPK) 1981 Act by the Trial Court as well as the High Court. Aggrieved by this the appellant went to the Supreme Court where his appeal was partly allowed.
Legal provisions
- Section 397 IPC- Dacoity or robbery with an attempt to hurt grievously or cause death.
- Section 11/13 of MPDVPK 1981 Act- Punishment for specified offences/Minimum period of imprisonment.
- Section 392 of IPC- Punishment for robbery
- Section 25(IB) (a)/27 of the Arms Act- Punishment for carrying firearms/ punishment for using arms, etc.
Overview
- The complainant(Rajesh Meena) was woken up by appellant (Ram Ratan), Raju and Chotu when he was sleeping in his field guarding the crops at around 2:30 am.
- Raju pointed a gun towards the chest of Rajesh Meena and asked Rajesh to hand over some money to him. On finding that there was no money with him, they took his motorcycle and made him sit with them. Subsequently, the motorcycle got punctured and they forced Rajesh Meena to get down and took the motorcycle away.
- A complaint was lodged by Rajesh and a chargesheet was filed u/s Sections 392/397 of IPC and u/s 11/13 of Madhya Pradesh Dakaiti Aur Vyapharan Pravbhavit Kshetra Adhiniyam (MPDVPK) 1981 Act.
- Judgment by Trial Court - On 26th February 2016, the Trial Court charged the accused under section 392/397 of IPC and section 11/13 of MPDVPK Act, 1981. An additional charge was framed against Raju under section 25(IB) (a)/27 of the Arms Act.
- Aggrieved by this, the appellant went to High Court stating that charge under section 397 of IPC is not valid and has been falsely alleged. They said that even if the firearm was being carried, it wasn’t used.
- Judgment by High Court - The judgment passed by the Trial Court was upheld by the High Court and the accused were sentenced in the same manner as by the Trial Court.
- Dissatisfied by the judgment the appellant approached the Supreme Court.
- Arguments from appellant- the counsel referred to the case of Ganesan vs. State 2021, arguing that the gun was not used and section 397 IPC talks about the offender using the deadly weapon while committing robbery.
- Arguments from Respondent- the counsel contended that the gun which was being carried was proved to be in working condition, and it is not necessary to fire with it but the fact that the presence of it created a fear in the mind of victim was enough to prove the charge under section 397 IPC.
Issue
- Whether charges under section 397 IPC were justifiable as it had been contended that the weapon was not used.
- Whether the charge under section 397 IPC sustain if there was no material or evidence to demonstrate that the accused appellant had used the firearm, regardless of when the claimed event occurred.
Judgment Analysis
- It was held in the judgment that for the offence to be constituted under section 397 of IPC the offender does not have to fire from the firearm or stab with knife, but only a fear of weapon is enough for crime to constitute under section 3977 IPC. Secondly it says that if the charge of committing crime is framed upon all the accused but only one amongst them has used the weapon then he independently will be held liable under section 397 IPC.
- However, the applicability of the Section has to be decided on the basis of the facts and circumstances of the case and the other charges raised against the accused must also be taken into consideration.
- The bench referred to the judgment of Shri Phool Kumar vs Delhi Administration 1975, Ganesan v State and Dilawar Singh v State of Delhi and stated that, section 397 IPC will not be sustainable as there was lack of evidence on part of the prosecution to prove that the accused had used the firearm.
- In the instant case, the appellant could not be considered to be an “offender” as no allegation of using the gun was made on the appellant and it was only Raju Gujar alias Rajendra who was alleged to have pointed the rifle at the complainant. Further the appellant would be entitled to the benefit of the interpretation placed on the scope of Section 397 IPC to not hold the aggressor as guilty if there is no particular charge against him.
- The accused were therefore convicted under section 392 IPC as the offence of robbery had been committed by seizing the motorcycle as it was recovered at the instance of the appellant which constituted the offence under section 392 IPC.
- Hence the appellants conviction under section 392 IPC was sustained and conviction under section 397 IPC read with section 11/13 of MPDVPK Act 1981 was set aside.
Conclusion
To conclude, the sum of this judgment is the mere display, brandishing, or publicly holding of a weapon by the offender in order to threaten and induce dread or alarm in the victim's mind is sufficient to establish an offence under Section 397 of the IPC.
Click here to download the original copy of the judgement
