'Deadly Weapon' Under IPC Not Limited By Arms Rules Dimensions, Delhi High Court Clarifies While Affirming Robbery Conviction

"A knife, irrespective of its size, is capable of being used as a weapon of offence and whether it is a deadly weapon depends upon the nature of the weapon and the manner in which it is used." Delhi High Court, in a significant ruling, clarified that the definition of "deadly weapon" under Section 397 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (IPC), is not circumscribed by the dimensions specified for certain knives in the Arms Rules, 1962.

A bench of Justice Chandrasekaran Sudha affirmed the conviction of an accused for robbery and lurking house-trespass, emphasizing that the manner and circumstances of a weapon's use are paramount.

The appellant, Vikram @ Tannu, was convicted by a trial court for offenses under Sections 394, 397, 457 IPC, and Sections 25 and 27 of the Arms Act, 1959, for a 2014 incident. He was accused of committing lurking house-trespass by night into a godown, robbing the owner at knifepoint, causing hurt, and possessing a button-operated knife. The appellant challenged his conviction, particularly under Section 397 IPC, arguing the knife used did not meet the "deadly weapon" criteria under the Arms Rules.

The primary question before the court was whether the dimensions of a knife as specified in the Arms Rules should determine its classification as a "deadly weapon" for the purpose of Section 397 IPC. The court was also called upon to determine the sustainability of convictions under Sections 394, 457 IPC, and Sections 25 and 27 of the Arms Act.

Lurking House-Trespass by Night Established

The High Court first addressed the conviction under Section 457 IPC for lurking house-trespass by night. The prosecution relied heavily on the consistent testimonies of the injured owner (PW3) and his son (PW6), who found the accused rummaging through bags in their godown at night.

Accused's Admission Seals §457 IPC Conviction

The appellant, in his statement under Section 313(1)(b) CrPC, admitted his presence inside the godown without permission, claiming he entered to eat ice cream. The Court noted that this admission, coupled with the testimonies of PW3 and PW6, unequivocally established the ingredients of Section 457 IPC.

Voluntarily Causing Hurt During Robbery Affirmed

Regarding Section 394 IPC, which penalizes voluntarily causing hurt during robbery, the Court found the prosecution's case to be proven. PW3 testified that the accused twisted his hand, causing pain and swelling, which was corroborated by the Medical Officer (PW9) and the MLC (Ext. PW9/A) noting tenderness.

Visible Injury Not Mandatory for 'Hurt'

The Court reiterated that the definition of "hurt" under Section 319 IPC includes bodily pain, disease, or infirmity, and therefore, "the existence of a visible external injury is not a sine qua non for attracting Section 394 IPC."

Arms Rules Definition Irrelevant for 'Deadly Weapon' Under §397 IPC

The central contention of the appellant was that the knife, measuring 7.8 cm in blade length and 2.4 cm in width, did not qualify as a "deadly weapon" as per Category V of Schedule I to the Arms Rules, which specifies blades longer than 9 inches and wider than 2 inches. The High Court decisively rejected this argument.

Distinct Legislative Objects of Arms Act and IPC

The Court emphasized that "the Arms Act and the Penal Code operate in distinct fields and have different legislative objects." The classification under the Arms Rules is for regulating manufacture, possession, and use, and "cannot be applied while interpreting Section 397 IPC."

A Knife is a Deadly Weapon if Used as Such

Referring to Apex Court precedent in Phool Kumar v. Delhi Administration (1975) 1 SCC 797, the Court reaffirmed that a knife is a deadly weapon for Section 397 IPC. It also cited Salim v. State (Delhi Admn.), 1987 SCC OnLine Del 408, which held that "a knife, irrespective of its size, is capable of being used as a weapon of offence and whether it is a deadly weapon depends upon the nature of the weapon and the manner in which it is used."

Threatening with Knife Establishes §397 IPC

The Court noted that PW3 had deposed that the accused took out a button-operated knife, opened it, and threatened him with the words, "chup chap pada reh, nahi to chaku ghused dunga." This act of brandishing the knife to intimidate and facilitate robbery was sufficient to meet the "use of any deadly weapon" requirement under Section 397 IPC.

Conviction Under Section 25 Arms Act Affirmed

The High Court upheld the conviction under Section 25 of the Arms Act. It referred to a Delhi Administration Notification dated February 17, 1979, issued under Section 4 of the Arms Act, which regulates the acquisition, possession, and carrying of buttondar knives with blades of 7.62 cm or more in length and 1.72 cm or more in breadth in public places within Delhi. Since the recovered knife met these dimensions (7.8 cm length, 2.4 cm width) and was found in a public place, the conditions for Section 25(1B)(b) were satisfied.

Conviction Under Section 27 Arms Act Set Aside

However, the Court found that the conviction under Section 27 of the Arms Act could not be sustained. Section 27 requires proof that the use of the knife was in contravention of Section 5 or Section 7 of the Arms Act. The prosecution neither alleged nor proved such contravention. Therefore, the conviction and sentence under Section 27 of the Arms Act were set aside.

The High Court found no mitigating circumstances to warrant interference with the sentences imposed for the affirmed convictions, considering the gravity of the offenses.

The Delhi High Court partially allowed the appeal, setting aside the conviction and sentence under Section 27 of the Arms Act due to the lack of evidence of contravention of Sections 5 or 7. However, it affirmed the convictions and sentences under Sections 394, 397, and 457 IPC, and Section 25 of the Arms Act, reiterating that a knife's classification as a "deadly weapon" for robbery depends on its use and circumstances, not just its dimensions as defined in the Arms Rules.

Date of Decision: 05 August 2026