S397 While committing robbery or dacoity accused used deadly weapon
Supreme Court of India
Dilawar Singh vs State Of Delhi on 5 September, 2007
Author: . A Pasayat
Bench: Dr. Arijit Pasayat, D.K. Jain
CASE NO.: Appeal (crl.) 491 of 2002
J U D G M E N T CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.491 OF 2002 Dr. ARIJIT PASAYAT, J22. The essential ingredients of Section 397 IPC are as follows:
1. Accused committed robbery.
2. While committing robbery or dacoity (i) accused used deadly weapon (ii) to cause grievous hurt to
any person (iii) attempted to cause death or grievous hurt to any person.
3. Offender refers to only culprit who actually used deadly weapon. When only one has used the
deadly weapon, others cannot be awarded the minimum punishment. It only envisages the
individual liability and not any constructive liability. Section 397 IPC is attracted only against the
particular accused who uses the deadly weapon or does any of the acts mentioned in the provision.
But other accused are not vicariously liable under that Section for acts of co-accused.
23. As noted by this court in Phool Kumar v. Delhi Administration (AIR 1975 SC 905), the term
offender under Section 397 IPC is confined to the offender who uses any deadly weapon. Use of
deadly weapon by one offender at the time of committing robbery cannot attract Section 397 IPC for
the imposition of minimum punishment on another offender who had not used any deadly weapon.
There is distinction between 'uses' as used in Sections 397 IPC and 398 IPC. Section 397 IPC
connotes something more than merely being armed with deadly weapon.
24. In the instant case admittedly no injury has been inflicted. The use of weapon by offender for
creating terror in mind of victim is sufficient. It need not be further shown to have been actually
used for cutting, stabbing or shooting, as the case may be. (See: Ashfaq v. State (Govt. of NCT of
Delhi) AIR 2004 SC 1253).
Dilawar Singh vs State Of Delhi on 5 September, 2007
Indian Kanoon - http://indiankanoon.org/doc/919369/ 9
25. Therefore, the offence under Section 397 IPC has clearly not been established. In addition, the
ingredients necessary for offence punishable under Sections 392 and 452 have not been established
in view of the highly inconsistent version of the complainant PW 1.