Non-recovery of weapon used for robbery no reason for not framing charges: Delhi High Court
Non-recovery of a weapon used for robbery cannot be a reason for refraining from framing charges under Section 397 (Robbery, or dacoity, with attempt to cause death or grievous hurt) under the Indian Penal Code (IPC), the Delhi High Court has ruled.
Bringing further clarity to this, Justice Suramonium Prasad observed that the effect of non recovery of the weapon would only be seen in Trial. Therefore, charges will have to be framed.
"The fact that the weapon has not been recovered is no ground for not framing charges under Section 397 IPC. The effect of non recovery of the weapon would be seen only in trial and that cannot be a reason for not framing charges under Section 397 IPC."
Further, while placing reliance on the decision passed by the Supreme Court inPhool Kumar v. Delhi Admn, the Court noted that the word 'use' included brandishing the weapon against another person in order to overpower him or to frighten his victim.
Factual Matrix
The Court was hearing a case regarding robbery in which the complainant and his friends alleged that they were robbed by men who claimed to be a part of Delhi Police.
The allegation was that one of the men had threatened the complainants by brandishing a pistol and ordered them to give all their belongings.
The complainant and his friends complied to this threat out of fear.
Later, the complainant filed an FIR against the accused persons for offence under Section 392 of IPC. A charge-sheet was filed stating that there was sufficient material to proceed against the respondent-accused for offence under Sections 397 which prescribes a graver punishment of minimum seven years imprisonment as compared to Section 392.
On February 20, 2020 District and Sessions Judge, Patiala House held that since the pistol had only been brandished, and not used, the offence under Section 397 IPC cannot be made out against the accused.
Aggrieved by this decision, the State government moved the High Court by way of a revision petition.
Arguments of parties
Appearing for the accused, Advocate Rakhi Dubey argued that neither was the weapon used in the alleged incident was recovered from the accused nor was there any recovery of material which was allegedly taken from the complainants.
Resisting these contentions, Additional Public Prosecutor Advocate Meenakshi Chauhan, appearing for State, contended that brandishing a revolver/pistol to commit robbery is sufficient enough to attract the provisions of Section 397 IPC.
What the Court said
The most important question dealt by the Court was - whether an act of robbery committed by showing a revolver/pistol is an offence under Section 397?
The Court proceeded to allow the revision petition directing to frame charges against the accused under Section 397 IPC.
While disposing of the petition, the Court directed the District and Sessions Judge, Patiala House Courts, New Delhi to assign the case to itself or other Court.
Case Title: State Vs. Hassan Ahmed