Whether a witness should depose, that knife was of a particular size for treating it as a deadly weapon?

In order to bring home the charge U/s. 397 IPC, the prosecution must prove by convincing evidence that the knife used by the accused was a deadly weapon. In Salim Vs. State (Delhi Administration), MANU/DE/0339/1987 : 1988 (14) DRJ 85 this Court held as under:

"9.We all understand what a knife means and to categorise it or to fix its size for it to be a deadly weapon may not be appropriate. A knife has also been' described as a pocket knife, pen knife, table knife, kitchen knife, etc. It cannot be denied that a knife can be used as a weapon of offence. It can cut, it can pierce, it can be deadly. To say that a knife to be a deadly weapon should be of a particular size would perhaps be not a correct statement. In the present case, the evidence shows that the injury was caused to Singh Ram witness by a sharp-edged weapon and there is a statement that the accused Salim was carrying a knife and it was with that knife that the injury was caused to the witness. It would not be necessary for the witness to further state as to that was the size of the knife to attract the provisions of Section 397 Indian Penal Code as was contended by Mrs. Ahlawat. This contention that case under Section 397 Indian Penal Code is not made out fails."

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI

Crl. A. 580/2019 and Crl. M.B. 795/2019

Decided On: 27.05.2020

 Pawan  Vs. State

Hon'ble Judges/Coram:

Rajnish Bhatnagar, J.

Print Page

Whether paper cutter can be considered as deadly weapon?

A paper cutter is also a species of knife inasmuch as, it has a

handle and a blade. Although it is meant for a specific purpose of cutting

paper, there is no denying the fact that its blade is very sharp and is

capable of delivering a fatal injury.

26. In the present case, the paper cutter had been placed on the

complainant’s neck. Undeniably, a deep cut on the neck – which could

be easily inflicted by the said instrument – could be fatal. Indisputably,

such an instrument used as a weapon and placed on the neck of a victim

is sufficient to terrorize a victim into yielding under fear of an injury. In

the given circumstances, this Court is not persuaded to accept that that

use of a paper cutter in committing robbery did not invite a punition

under Section 397 of the IPC.

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

 Judgment delivered on: 03.02.2020

 CRL.A. 391/2016

GULFAM @ ZAHOOR Vs  STATE 

CORAM

HON’BLE MR JUSTICE VIBHU BAKHRU

Dated:FEBRUARY 03, 2020

Print Page

Whether paper cutter blade is a deadly weapon so as to constitute an offence U/S 397 of IPC?

9. Section 397 IPC reads as under:—

“Robbery, or dacoity, with attempt to cause death or grievous hurt.—If, at the time of committing robbery or dacoity, the offender uses any deadly weapon, or causes grievous hurt to any person, or attempts to cause death or grievous hurt to any person, the imprisonment with which such offender shall be punished shall not be less than seven years”.

10. Section 397 IPC envisages that if at the time of committing robbery or dacoity the offender uses any deadly weapon or causes grievous hurt or attempts to cause death or grievous hurt, the imprisonment with which such offender shall be punished shall not be less than seven years.

11. In Rajender Yadav v. The State (NCT of Delhi), 2013 VII AD (Delhi) 359, this Court has held that where the prosecution case itself is that only vegetable knife was found in the possession of the accused, the knife cannot be considered a ‘deadly weapon’ to award the sentence of seven years which is a minimum sentence to be given with the aid of Section 397 IPC”. In Jagdish v. The State, 1985 Crl. L.J. 1621, this Court has held thus:

“Para 9. “A deadly weapon is a thing designed to cause death, for instance, a gun, a bomb, a rifle, a sword or even a knife. A thing not so designed may also be used as a weapon to cause bodily injury and even death. It will be a question of fact in each case whether the particular weapon which may even be a knife can be said to be a deadly weapon. In the instant case, there is evidence to the effect that the knives which the accused were having were small in size. They were ordinary vegetable cutting knives. This renders the possibility of those knives being deadly weapons highly doubtful and as such the appellants shall be entitled to benefit thereof. Consequently it would be unfair to impose the minimum sentence contemplated in Section 397 on the appellants merely because they used those knives in the commission of the crime. …. …..”

12. In Rakesh Kumar v. State of NCT of Delhi, 2005 (1) JCC 334, a Single Judge of this Court has held that there are knives of hundreds of type available in different length and width. All the knives cannot be graded as “deadly weapon” within the meaning of Section 397 IPC. It is the length, shape and the manner of use which makes a knife “deadly weapon”. In Charan Singh v. State, 1998 Crl. L.J. NOC 28 (Delhi), it was held that in order to bring home a charge under Section 397, the prosecution must produce convincing evidence that the knife used by the accused was ‘deadly weapon’.

13. In this case also, the paper cutter blade used was having blade of 6.5 cm, inasmuch as has no sharp and pointed edge, for which no licence was needed, as per the Notifications issued by the Delhi Administration, inasmuch as, no witness has deposed that the paper cutter blade recovered from the appellant qualified to be a knife and more particularly a ‘deadly weapon’. In this case, prosecution has failed to lead any evidence to show that appellant had used a “deadly weapon” while committing robbery, thus, in my view, ingredients of offence under Section 397 IPC are not attracted in this case. In absence of necessary ingredients that have not been established by the prosecution, conviction of appellant under Section 397 IPC cannot be sustained. Accordingly, conviction of appellant is altered from Section 397 IPC to 392 IPC.

In the High Court of Delhi at New Delhi

(Before A.K. Pathak, J.)

Guddu  v.  State 

Crl.A. 721/2018

Decided on March 19, 2019

Citation: 2019 SCC OnLine Del 7855

Print Page