Use of Deadly Weapon, Even During Escape, Brings Act Within Section 397 IPC — Delhi High Court Affirms 10-Year Sentence for Robbery With Knife

“Not Just Snatching—Stabbing To Facilitate Robbery Squarely Attracts Section 397 IPC”, Delhi High Court (Justice Manoj Kumar Ohri) upholding the conviction and 10-year sentence awarded to the appellant for armed robbery under Sections 394, 397, 411, 34 IPC and Section 25 of the Arms Act. The Court dismissed the appeal seeking leniency, stressing that the proven use of a deadly weapon to inflict injury—even during the getaway—brings the case squarely within the ambit of Section 397 IPC, in line with settled legal precedent.

“It Is Trite Law That Even If the Weapon Is Shown After Snatching Had Taken Place for Running Away Along With the Snatched Article, Offence Under Section 397 IPC Is Attracted”

The case arose from a violent street robbery that took place on 20.09.2021 in Sarita Vihar, Delhi. The complainant (PW-5), along with his cousin (PW-7), was sitting outside his house when four assailants attacked, attempting to snatch his mobile phone. On resistance, PW-7 was stabbed with a knife. The robbers fled but were quickly apprehended by police; a knife was recovered from the appellant, and the stolen phone from his juvenile co-accused. The appellant was charged with and convicted of multiple offences including armed robbery and unlawful possession of arms.

At trial, the appellant was sentenced to 10 years’ rigorous imprisonment under Sections 394/397/34 IPC, with all sentences to run concurrently. On appeal, he challenged the conviction and sentence, primarily contending that Section 397 IPC was misapplied, the recovery was dubious, and that he was entitled to leniency.

Applicability of Section 397 IPC: What Constitutes ‘Use’ of a Deadly Weapon?

A central plank of the appellant’s argument was that Section 397 IPC could not be invoked in conjunction with Section 34, and that he was not the actual snatcher. The Court, however, categorically rejected this, reaffirming well-settled law:

“It is trite law that even if the weapon of offence is shown after snatching had taken place for running away along with snatched article, offence under Section 397 IPC is attracted... Thus, if the offender uses the deadly weapon at the time of committing robbery or dacoity—which would include even the fear of instant death or instant hurt or wrongful restraint or an attempt to cause death or hurt or wrongful restraint even while carrying away or attempting to carry away the property obtained by theft—the act of the offender will fall within the four corners of Section 397 IPC.” (Para 10, quoting Asif v. State (NCT of Delhi) 2022 SCC OnLine Del 270)

The Court noted that the appellant specifically inflicted a stab injury to the intervening witness (PW-7), facilitating the crime’s commission and escape.

Ocular and Medical Evidence—Testimonies Remained ‘Unshaken’

The Court placed great weight on the consistent and credible testimonies of both the complainant (PW-5) and the injured eyewitness (PW-7), finding that:

“Nothing came out in his cross-examination which could shake his testimony.” (Para 6)

The medical evidence (MLC) and recovery of the weapon further corroborated their statements. The Court emphasized that the role of inflicting the stab wound was attributed specifically to the appellant.

Ownership of Property and Recovery

Arguments about lack of proof regarding the ownership of the robbed mobile phone were rejected. The complainant’s identification of both the phone and the knife in court, and the prompt police recovery, were found sufficient.

No Case for Leniency—“Nature and Gravity of Offence” and Past Convictions Rule Out Reduction of Sentence

The Court decisively rejected the plea for sentence reduction:

“In view of the nature and gravity of the offence, the evidence duly proved on record, and taking into consideration the fact that the appellant is involved in other pending criminal cases, no grounds are made out for any leniency in sentencing. Accordingly, the prayer for reduction of sentence is rejected.” (Para 12)

The nominal roll revealed that the appellant had earlier convictions (including under Section 307/34 IPC), and was also facing trial in other robbery cases.

“Robbery With Stabbing: Section 397 IPC Triggered By Weapon Use During Escape”—Court Reaffirms

Referring to the authoritative ruling in Asif v. State (NCT of Delhi), the Court made it clear:

“The use of a deadly weapon, even during the escape with the stolen property, brings the act within the ambit of Section 397 IPC. The sequence of events, involving both the snatching and the use of the weapon during the attempted flight, is squarely covered by the principles laid down in Asif v. State (supra). Thus, the conviction under Section 397 IPC in the present case is fully justified and stands upheld in law.” (Para 10)

Summing up, Justice Manoj Kumar Ohri held: “In view of the consistent ocular testimony, corroborative medical evidence, and recovery of weapon, no infirmity is found in the judgment of conviction or the order on sentence... Accordingly, the appeal is dismissed.” (Paras 11, 13)

Directions were issued for communication to jail authorities and the trial court for necessary compliance.

Date of Decision: 05 August 2025