Non Recovery Of Weapon Is No Ground For Not Framing Charges Under Robbery Or Dacoity Under Section 397 Of IPC: Delhi High Court
The Delhi High Court has observed that the fact that a weapon has not been recovered is no ground for not framing charges under Section 397 IPC which provides for the offence of committing robbery, or dacoity with attempt to cause death or grievous hurt to a person. Justice Subramonium Prasad added that the effect of non recovery of the weapon would be seen only in the trial and the same...
The Delhi High Court has observed that the fact that a weapon has not been recovered is no ground for not framing charges under Section 397 IPC which provides for the offence of committing robbery, or dacoity with attempt to cause death or grievous hurt to a person.
Justice Subramonium Prasad added that the effect of non recovery of the weapon would be seen only in the trial and the same cannot be a reason for not framing charges under Section 397 IPC.
The Court was dealing with a revision petition filed by the State challenging the order passed by the District and Sessions Judge, Patiala House Courts wherein it had held that the offence under Section 397 IPC was not made out against the accused respondent and the matter was sent to the Chief Metropolitan Magistrate for framing of charge under Section 392 IPC.
The accused respondent had given a disclosure statement of having committed an offence wherein he along with others had threatened some men by brandishing a pistol and asked them to give all their belongings.
The District and Sessions Judge, Patiala House Courts, held that since the pistol was only brandished, and it was not used, the offence under Section 397 IPC was not made out against the accused.
Therefore, the question for High Court's consideration was whether when an act of robbery is committed by showing a revolver/pistol then does an offence under Section 397 is made out or not ?
Relying on a Supreme Court judgment, the Court reiterated that term 'use' would include brandishing the weapon against another person in order to overpower him or to frighten his victim within the meaning of section 397 of IPC.
"Accordingly, the revision petition is allowed. Charges under Section 397 IPC ought to be framed against the accused. The learned District and Sessions Judge, Patiala House Courts, New Delhi, is directed to assign the case to its own Court or other Court in accordance with law," the Court ordered.
The plea was accordingly disposed of.
Title: STATE v. HASSAN AHMED