Theft Without Intent to Kill Is Not Robbery: Delhi High Court Reduces Sentence in 25-Year-Old Attempt to Murder Case

“To Constitute Robbery, The Offender Must Inflict Hurt For That End”:  In a judgment reaffirming the nuanced distinction between robbery and theft, the Delhi High Court modified the conviction of Budh Bhaskar, a man convicted over two decades ago for a brutal knife assault and theft, by partially allowing his appeal. While upholding his conviction under Section 307 IPC (attempt to murder), the Court set aside the charge of robbery under Sections 392/397 IPC, replacing it with Section 379 IPC (theft), citing lack of intent to commit theft at the time of assault.

Delivering the verdict in Budh Bhaskar v. State, CRL.A. 994/2002, Justice Rajneesh Kumar Gupta observed:

“There is no evidence to prove that the assault upon PW-3 was committed by the appellant with the object of committing theft… only the offence under Section 379/34 IPC stands proved against the appellant.”

25-Year-Old Case Ends in Partial Relief, Court Reduces Sentence Considering Delay and Mitigating Circumstances

The judgment pertained to an incident dated 18 September 2000, in which the complainant, Raj Kumar, was brutally stabbed by four assailants — including the appellant and his father — and was robbed of ₹9,200.

The Trial Court, in its 2002 judgment, had convicted Budh Bhaskar under Sections 307/34 and 392/397/34 IPC, sentencing him to 7 years’ rigorous imprisonment on both counts, to run concurrently.

However, after 23 years, the Delhi High Court re-evaluated the case on both evidence and sentencing, stating that while intent to kill was proven, the robbery charge did not legally stand in absence of necessary ingredients.

“It is not sufficient that hurt had been caused in the course of the same transaction as commission of the theft,” the Court remarked while relying on the Supreme Court’s precedent in Mohammad Wajid v. State of U.P., 2023 INSC 683.

Grievous Knife Attack by Known Accused Over Land Dispute

According to the prosecution, on the fateful night of 18 September 2000, the complainant was returning from Seelampur after collecting money and was walking home near Kondli Pull when he was ambushed by Budh Bhaskar, his father Ram Lot, and two others.

Raj Kumar identified all four assailants and deposed in court:

“Appellant-Ram Lot exhorted his son, namely, appellant-Budh Bhaskar and other companions to finish him. On this, appellant-Budh Bhaskar started giving knife blows.”

Multiple stab wounds were inflicted, including to the chest, armpit, back, and thigh. After the assault, the assailants fled with ₹9,200, which was carried in a thaili (pouch) tied on the complainant’s back.

Raj Kumar testified that the attack was motivated by a land dispute with the accused.

“Injured Witness Cannot Be Doubted”: Court Relies on Testimony of Victim

While the defence argued discrepancies and lack of medical records, the Court found the injured witness’s testimony credible and reliable, supported by the MLC and expert medical opinion.

“The contradictions brought by the appellant are minor and do not affect the credibility of the testimony,” the Court held.

The injuries were declared “grievous and caused by a sharp object”, as per the MLC (Ex. PW-1/A) and corroborated by PW-6 (Dr. Praveen Sodi).

Citing the Supreme Court’s authoritative ruling in State of U.P. v. Naresh & Ors., (2011) 4 SCC 324, the Court reiterated:

“The testimony of an injured witness is accorded a special status in law... The witness would not want to let his actual assailant go unpunished merely to implicate a third person falsely.”

“Intent to Kill Proven, But Not to Steal”: No Robbery, Only Theft

On the robbery charge under Sections 392/397 IPC, the Court drew a clear legal distinction:

“It is not sufficient that in the transaction of committing theft, hurt had been caused. If hurt is caused for a different object, theft would not amount to robbery.”

The Court held that there was no evidence that the assault was intended to facilitate theft or that violence was used “for that end,” as required by Section 390 IPC.

The legal threshold, as clarified in Mohammad Wajid v. State of U.P., was that: “Before theft can amount to ‘robbery’, the offender must have voluntarily caused death or hurt... in order to the committing of the theft.”

As the evidence did not prove that the assault was committed to rob, the Court modified the conviction to Section 379/34 IPC — theft in furtherance of common intention, a less serious offence.

Sentencing: 7 Years' RI Reduced to 5 Years for Attempt to Murder, 6 Months for Theft

While affirming the conviction under Section 307 IPC, the Court noted the passage of 25 years, the age and family circumstances of the appellant, and the long pendency of the appeal. The Court exercised its discretion to reduce the sentence, stating:

“Undergoing 7 years rigorous imprisonment at this distant point of time would be too harsh.”

Accordingly, the sentence was modified:

• For Section 307/34 IPC: Rigorous Imprisonment for 5 years + ₹2,000 fine (15 days SI in default)

• For Section 379/34 IPC: Rigorous Imprisonment for 6 months + ₹2,000 fine (15 days SI in default)

Both sentences were to run concurrently, with benefit of Section 428 CrPC (set-off for time already undergone).

The Court directed the appellant to surrender within three days before the Jail Superintendent, failing which the Trial Court was directed to take coercive steps.

A Case of Judicial Precision and Compassion

The ruling in Budh Bhaskar v. State exemplifies the judiciary’s careful distinction between similar but legally distinct offences like robbery and theft, and its sensitivity toward undue harshness due to long pendency.

“Intention is to be gathered from all circumstances, and not merely from the consequences that ensue.”

With this principle, the Court upheld justice, not only in letter but in spirit, ensuring that punishment matched both culpability and context.

Date of Decision: 15 September 2025