Knife Is A Deadly Weapon Even If Not Used To Cause Injury | Delhi HC Upholds Conviction Under Section 397 IPC For Brandishing Weapon During Robbery
Sanchayita Lahkar
The High Court of Delhi Single Bench of Justice Manoj Kumar Ohri held that the act of brandishing a sharp-edged weapon, even without its recovery or actual use to cause injury, is sufficient to attract the provisions of Section 397 IPC. The court dismissed the appeal challenging the conviction and sentence imposed by the trial court for offences under Sections 397, 392, 411, and 34 IPC. It upheld the sentence of rigorous imprisonment, including seven years for the offence under Section 397 IPC, directing all sentences to run concurrently and maintaining the fines imposed. The court directed that a copy of the judgment be communicated to the concerned Jail Superintendent and the trial court.
The case originated from an FIR registered on the complaint of a person alleging that on 29 April 2019, at about 7:45 p.m., while returning home on his motorcycle and stopping to receive a call, two individuals on a Pulsar motorcycle approached him. The pillion rider snatched a mobile phone (POCO F-1) from his hand and attempted to remove his purse. Simultaneously, the driver allegedly took out a sharp-edged weapon, threatened to kill him if he did not comply, and compelled him to hand over his belongings. The assailants forcibly took Rs. 35,000 in cash and another mobile phone (JIO Keypad) before fleeing. The complainant informed his uncle and reported the matter to the police. Initially registered under Sections 392/34 IPC, the case later added Sections 397 and 411 IPC after further investigation.
The appellant, identified as the motorcycle driver, was arrested in another FIR where he disclosed his involvement in the present incident. The POCO F-1 mobile phone was recovered from his possession, while the JIO Keypad phone was recovered from a co-accused, a child in conflict with law. During the trial, the prosecution examined the complainant, his relatives, and other witnesses, including the person who originally purchased the POCO F-1 phone, and the complainant’s factory superior who confirmed his work timings on the day of the incident.
The complainant reiterated the sequence of events in court and identified the appellant as the driver who brandished the knife. His uncle and aunt testified regarding the Rs. 35,000 cash, stating it was borrowed by the complainant. The original purchaser of the POCO F-1 testified about selling it to the complainant. The defence argued that, in the absence of recovery of the knife, the prosecution had to prove it was a deadly weapon, citing earlier judgments which treated the question as one of fact based on size, design, and use of the knife. They also questioned the recovery of the phone, noting no judicial Test Identification Parade (TIP) was conducted.
The prosecution maintained that the complainant's testimony was credible, he had consistently identified the appellant and the recovered phone, and that the refusal of TIP by the appellant weakened his defence. They argued that testimonies of multiple witnesses established the appellant's possession of the stolen phone and the cash, and the law did not require recovery of the weapon to sustain conviction under Section 397 IPC.
Justice Manoj Kumar Ohri recorded that the complainant’s account of being robbed of two phones and Rs. 35,000 was not in doubt, supported by consistent testimonies and documentary evidence. The court noted that the only contention before it was whether Section 397 IPC was attracted without recovery of the knife.
Referring to Section 397 IPC, the court stated: "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." The judgment discussed divergent views in earlier decisions, where some treated the deadly nature of a knife as a factual question depending on its characteristics, while others, following the Supreme Court, held that a knife is inherently a deadly weapon.
Citing Phool Kumar v. Delhi Administration, the court recorded: "so far as he is concerned, he is said to be armed with a knife which is also a deadly weapon... carrying deadly weapon open to the view of the victim sufficient to frighten or terrorize them." In Salim v. State (Delhi Admn.), it was held that the term "deadly weapon" does not require further interpretation and that knives, regardless of size, can qualify as deadly weapons. The court further referred to Ashfaq v. State where the Supreme Court held: "what is essential to satisfy the word 'uses'... is the robbery being committed by an offender who was armed with a deadly weapon... capable of creating a terror in the mind of the victim and not that it should be further shown to have been actually used..."
The judgment also quoted Seetal v. State (NCT of Delhi): "Section 397 would be attracted even if the accused, who possessed a knife during the robbery, does not actually use it to threaten the victim... the actual size or length of the knife would not matter." It noted that the controversy over categorizing knives as deadly weapons based on their dimensions was resolved in Sonu v. State (NCT of Delhi), where it was held: "it is not essential to categorize the knife in order to determine whether it is a deadly weapon... it would qualify as a deadly weapon for the purposes of Section 397 of the IPC."
In Shehzad v. State, the court had held: "A knife is an article that is typically and characteristically dangerous, the display of which instills fear in an ordinary person." The Delhi High Court concluded that even without recovery of the knife, the consistent testimony that the appellant brandished a sharp-edged weapon and threatened the complainant was sufficient. Quoting Ram Ratan v. State of M.P., the judgment reiterated: "mere exhibition of the same, brandishing or holding it openly to threaten and create fear or apprehension in the mind of the victim is sufficient" for conviction under Section 397 IPC.
The court dismissed the appeal, stating: "In view of the above, the appeal is dismissed. The conviction of the appellant under Section 397/392/411/34 IPC is upheld." It confirmed the trial court’s sentence, which included rigorous imprisonment for three years under Sections 392/34 IPC with a fine of Rs. 5,000 (and default sentence), seven years under Section 397 IPC, and one year under Section 411 IPC with a fine of Rs. 5,000 (and default sentence). The benefit of Section 428 CrPC was affirmed, and all sentences were to run concurrently.
The court ordered: "Let a copy of this judgment be communicated to the concerned Jail Superintendent as well as the learned Trial Court."
Advocates Representing the Parties:
For the Appellant: Mr. Gautam Khazanchi, Ms. Pooja Deepak (DHCLSC), Advocates
For the Respondent: Mr. Pradeep Gahalot, APP for State with S.I. Lovkesh Kumar, P.S. Narela
Case Title: Azam v. State (NCT of Delhi)
Neutral Citation: 2025: DHC:6670
Case Number: CRL.A. 926/2024
Bench: Justice Manoj Kumar Ohri
