What is theft, Extortion, Dacoity, Robbery, Kidnapping and Abduction, as per provisions of IPC?

 Under the IPC, these offences are easiest to remember if you link each one to its core act: theft = taking, extortion = obtaining by fear, robbery = theft/extortion plus instant violence, dacoity = robbery by 5 or more persons, kidnapping = taking away a person unlawfully, and abduction = compelling or inducing a person to go from a place by force or deceit.

Theft

Theft is defined in Section 378 IPC. It means that a person, with dishonest intention, takes movable property out of the possession of another person without that person’s consent, and moves that property in order to take it.

So, in simple words: theft means dishonestly taking someone’s movable property without consent.

Print Page

Supreme Court: How should the court appreciate evidence if there is a prosecution allegation regarding robbery by an unknown person?

 In cases where the FIR is lodged against unknown persons, and the persons made Accused are not known to the witnesses, material collected during investigation plays an important role to determine whether there is a credible case against the Accused. In such type of cases, the courts have to meticulously examine the evidence regarding (a) how the investigating agency derived clue about the involvement of the Accused in the crime; (b) the manner in which the Accused was arrested; and (c) the manner in which the Accused was identified. Apart from above, discovery/ recovery of any looted Article on the disclosure made by, or at the instance of, the Accused, or from his possession, assumes importance to lend credence to the prosecution case.

{Para 14}

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

Criminal Appeal Nos. 201 of 2020 and 202 of 2020 

Decided On: 04.02.2025

Wahid Vs. State Govt. of NCT of Delhi

Hon'ble Judges/Coram:

Pamidighantam Sri Narasimha,  and Manoj Misra, , JJ.

Author: Manoj Misra, J.

Citation: 2025 INSC 145, MANU/SC/0145/2025.

Print Page

Supreme Court: How to appreciate evidence if FIR is lodged against unknown persons for the offence of robbery or dacoity?

 In cases where the FIR is lodged against unknown persons, and the persons made Accused are not known to the witnesses, material collected during investigation plays an important role to determine whether there is a credible case against the Accused. In such type of cases, the courts have to meticulously examine the evidence regarding (a) how the investigating agency derived clue about the involvement of the Accused in the crime; (b) the manner in which the Accused was arrested; and (c) the manner in which the Accused was identified. Apart from above, discovery/ recovery of any looted Article on the disclosure made by, or at the instance of, the Accused, or from his possession, assumes importance to lend credence to the prosecution case.{Para 14}

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

Criminal Appeal Nos. 201 of 2020 and 202 of 2020

Decided On: 04.02.2025

Wahid Vs. State Govt. of NCT of Delhi

Hon'ble Judges/Coram:

Pamidighantam Sri Narasimha,  and Manoj Misra, , JJ.

Author: Manoj Misra, J.

Citation: 2025 INSC 145 : AIR 2025 SC 1087 : (2025) 3 SCC 341,MANU/SC/0145/2025.

Print Page

Test Identification Parade in Criminal Trials: Evidence Appreciation, Judicial Safeguards & Case-Law Analysis

 Introduction

In criminal trials involving offences such as dacoity and robbery, identification of the accused by the victims or witnesses is often the linchpin of the prosecution’s case. The Test Identification Parade (TIP)—a procedure whereby witnesses identify suspects in a line-up prior to trial—is a critical investigative tool that can make or break the prosecution’s narrative. Yet, its evidentiary value and reliability have repeatedly come under judicial scrutiny, especially when procedural lapses occur, such as the non-examination of the executive magistrate who conducted the parade.

This article offers a comprehensive analysis of TIP’s legal status, evidentiary nuances, mandatory precautions, and recent trends in Supreme Court and Bombay High Court jurisprudence. It is designed as a reference for judges, advocates, and executive magistrates handling identification evidence in serious crime cases.

Print Page

Questions and answers on law (Part 53)

 Q 1 :- What is Dying declaration?

Ans:- A dying declaration is a statement made by a dying person as to cause of his death or as to any of the circumstances of the transaction which resulted in his death when the cause of his death is in question.

https://www.lawweb.in/2018/08/notes-on-dying-declaration.html

Q 2 :- What are conditions for conviction on circumstantial evidence?

Ans:- A close analysis of this decision would show that the following conditions must be fulfilled before a case against an accused can be said to be fully established:

(1) the circumstances from which the conclusion of guilt is to be drawn should be fully established. It may be noted here that this Court indicated that the circumstances concerned 'must or should' and not 'may be' established. 

(2) the facts so established should be consistent only with the hypothesis of the guilt of the accused, that is to say, they should not be explainable on any other hypothesis except that the accused is guilty.

Print Page

How to appreciate evidence if the surgical knife is used for committing Robbery?

 In respect of the second contention of the appellant that since the blade has not been recovered, it cannot be held that the same was a deadly weapon, it is well settled that whether the weapon of offence is deadly or not, is a question of fact which would depend on the nature of weapon used in the offence. A pistol, revolver, sword, axe or even a knife are deadly weapons. However, in the case of knife, the length of the knife, its sharpness and the pointed edge has to be seen to ascertain whether the knife is a deadly weapon or not. In the present case, the evidence of the prosecution is that the appellant took out a blade and kicked the complainant. In cross-examination it is further stated that the blade was not a shaving blade, hence the kind of blade used is not proved even by the ocular evidence of the witnesses. Though it is not essential that the weapon of offence should be recovered to prove the nature of the weapon used and that a deadly weapon was used at the time of commission of the offence,

however, the prosecution is required to prove the nature of the weapon of offence used specially in the case of knife or blade. Since from the evidence of the prosecution witnesses the size and sharpness of the blade is not proved, hence the prosecution has failed to prove that the appellant used a deadly weapon. 

{Para 10}

11. In the decision reported as MANU/DE/3330/2009 Sanjay and Ors. vs. The State of NCT Delhi this Court held as under:-

"12. The Investigating Officer has not prepared any sketch of

the surgical blade alleged to have been recovered from the

possession of the appellant Sanjay. The seizure memo of the

blade does not show what its size or shape was. Though the

police officials have described the instrument recovered from

the possession of the appellant as a surgical blade, none of the

witness has given any description of the blade which has been

referred by them as a surgical blade. The trial court has also

not made any observation as regards the size, shape or design

of the blade produced during trial. Unless size and shape etc. of

the blade recovered from the appellant is given or a sketch is

prepared from which these particulars may be ascertained, or a

photograph of the weapon is produced, it is not possible for this

Court to ascertain whether the blade recovered from the

possession of the appellant was actually a surgical blade or not

and whether it was a deadly weapon or not. There is no

evidence or opinion on record to show that the blade recovered

from the appellant was such, as would ordinarily result in death

by its use. What would make a blade deadly is its size, design

and shape etc. and a weapon cannot be said to be a deadly

weapon merely because the witnesses described it as a surgical

blade. This is more so when neither any sketch or photograph is

produced nor any particulars of the instrument are given

during evidence and the trial court also does not make a note

as regards the size, shape and design etc. of the blade produced

before it."

12. In the absence of the use of a deadly weapon being proved by the prosecution, the conviction of the appellant for offence punishable under Section 397 IPC cannot be sustained and is required to be modified to an offence punishable under Section 392 IPC.

 IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

 CRL.A. 290/2021

ASIF Vs STATE (N.C.T OF DELHI) 

CORAM:

HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE MUKTA GUPTA

Pronounced on :28th January, 2022

Print Page

Whether court should frame charge against accused for robbery or dacoity as per S 397 of IPC if weapon is not recovered from him?

 The fact that the weapon has not been recovered is no ground for not framing charges under Section 397 IPC. The effect of non recovery of the weapon would be seen only in trial and that cannot be a reason for not framing charges under Section 397 IPC.

 IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI 

CRL.REV.P. 108/2021

 STATE Vs  HASSAN AHMED

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SUBRAMONIUM PRASAD SUBRAMONIUM PRASAD, J.

Date of decision: 08th November, 2021

Print Page

Whether court can convict an accused for an offence U/S 397 of IPC if he has not used weapon during Robbery?

 12.7. Thus, as per the law laid down by this Court in the aforesaid two decisions the term ‘offender’ under Section 397 IPC is confined to the ‘offender’ who uses any deadly weapon and use of deadly weapon by one offender at the time of committing robbery cannot attract Section 397 IPC for the imposition of minimum punishment on another offender who has not used any deadly weapon. Even there is distinction and difference between Section 397 and Section 398 IPC. The word used in Section 397 IPC is ‘uses’ any deadly weapon and the word used in Section 398 IPC is ‘offender is armed with any

deadly weapon’. Therefore, for the purpose of attracting Section 397 IPC the ‘offender’ who ‘uses’ any deadly weapon Section 397 IPC shall be attracted.

In light of the above observations and the law laid down by this

Court in the aforesaid two decisions the case on behalf of the

accused in the present appeals is required to be considered. Even

as per the case of the prosecution and even considering the evidence on record it can be seen that the present accused A1 and A3 are not alleged to have used any weapon. The allegation of use of any weapon was against Benny and Prabhakaran. Therefore, in absence of any allegations of use of any deadly weapon by the appellants herein – Accused Nos.1 and 3 Section 397 IPC shall not be attracted and to that extent the Learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the appellants – accused are right in submitting that they ought not to have been convicted for the offence punishable under Section 397 IPC.

 REPORTABLE

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.903 OF 2021

GANESAN Vs STATE 

Print Page

Whether not working country-made pistol is a deadly weapon for S 398 of IPC?

 The next issue to be examined is whether the country made

pistol (katta) can be termed as a “deadly weapon” as contemplated under Section 398 of the IPC. At this stage, it would be relevant to refer to the language of Section 398 of the IPC. The said Section is set

out below:

“398. Attempt to commit robbery or dacoity when armed

with deadly weapon.—If, at the time of attempting to

commit robbery or dacoity, the offender is armed with any

deadly weapon, the imprisonment with which such

offender shall be punished shall not be less than seven

years.”

30. It is apparent from the plain language of Section 398 of the IPC that if an offender is armed with a deadly weapon at the time of robbery or dacoity, the same would constitute an offence under Section 398 of the IPC.

31. In the present case, the appellant was armed with a country

made pistol while attempting to commit robbery and therefore, he has been convicted under Section 393 read with Section 398 of the IPC on the assumption that the country made pistol is a ‘deadly weapon’.

32. Thus, the key question to be addressed is whether the country

made pistol (katta) can be termed as a “deadly weapon” even if it is in a state of disrepair and therefore, cannot be used as such without carrying out the necessary repairs. The term ‘deadly’ qualifies the term ‘weapon’. Thus, in order for any weapon to be termed as deadly, it should one which is capable of or likely to cause death if used in the manner in which it is intended to be used. In order for any object, instrument or thing to qualify as a weapon, it should be one, which is intended to be used as such. There may be a large number of instruments or objects, which can be used in a lethal manner, however, if they are not intended or meant to be used in that manner, they cannot be understood to be weapons for the purposes of Section 398 of the IPC. The natural import of the word ‘weapon’ is clearly an object,a device, an instrument or any other thing, that is, intended to be used as a weapon and is inherently one. The term ‘deadly’ specifies the lethal quality of the weapon. A deadly weapon is one, which is lethal and is likely to cause death when used in the manner in which it is intended. By its very nature, a deadly weapon is one, which is likely to result in a fatality.

33. It is necessary to bear in mind that the mere possession of a

deadly weapon while committing a robbery constitutes an offence punishable under Section 398 of the IPC. It is not necessary for the offender to have used the weapon or even threatened to use such a deadly weapon.

34. There are large number of instruments or objects, which if used in a particular manner, may result in a fatality. Even an innocuous writing instrument such as a pen, if used in a particular manner, may result in fatality. However, a pen is not a deadly weapon and merely carrying the said writing instrument, at the time of committing robbery or dacoity, would not constitute an offence punishable under Section 398 of the IPC. Thus, the necessary ingredients of a ‘deadly weapon’ are: first, that it should be a weapon and capable of being used as such; and second, that it must be inherently lethal and if used in the intended manner is likely to result in death.

35. Viewed in the aforesaid perspective, a firearm, that is, incapable of being used as a weapon, cannot be construed to be a deadly weapon for the purposes of Section 398 of the IPC. Thus, even though the country made pistol recovered from the appellant constitutes a firearm, it cannot be considered as a deadly weapon. This is because at the material time, it could not be used to inflict any fatal injury, if used in the manner in which it was meant to be used – that is, for the purpose of firing a bullet –on account of it being in disrepair.

36. The question whether a firearm, which is non-functional can

qualify as a “deadly weapon” as contemplated under Section 398 of the IPC, is also squarely covered by the decision of the Coordinate Bench of this Court in Rakesh (supra). The relevant extract of the said decision is set out below: -

“17. The purpose of using a deadly weapon at the time of

committing robbery, dacoity or attempting one, is

obviously to overawe and instill a sense of fear in the

victim. However, when the so called weapon is in a non

working condition, used merely as a camouflage, whether

such weapon could fall within the definition of ‘deadly

weapon’ is a matter of debate. It can be urged that the

victim who is put in fear of life or grave injury, lest he

parts with his belongings, has no way of knowing that the

weapon being pointed at him is not in working condition or

is fake. The victim in such situation will not resist the

offence thinking that his/her life is in danger. The fear for

life/hurt created in the mind of the victim is a direct result

of the act of the accused.

18. However for the purpose of Section 398 IPC, this

argument does not merit acceptance. As noticed above

even carrying a “deadly weapon” at the time of offence

attracts Section 398 IPC and the actual use or brandishing

is not required. Section 398 IPC applies when at the

time of the attempted robbery or dacoity the accused has

caused or threatened the victim of bodily harm and injury

etc. and at that time the accused was in possession of a

deadly weapon. The word ‘deadly’ qualifies and is

descriptive of the term “weapon”. If the accused is not

carrying a “weapon” or carrying a “weapon” which is not

in a working condition and cannot cause any grievous

bodily harm or injury, it would not qualify and cannot be

regarded as a deadly weapon. The effect thereof is that the

legislative mandate of minimum punishment under Section

398 IPC is not applicable in such cases. Punishment,

howsoever, prescribed under Section 393 IPC is applicable

and also stringent enough and can extend upto 7 years.

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

 Judgment delivered on: 15.09.2020

 CRL. A. 807/2017

SONU @ RAJA  Vs STATE 

Print Page

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

Important Notes on Indian Penal Code

1) Notes on S 34 and S149 IPC- Principle of constructive liability

https://www.lawweb.in/2018/08/notes-on-s-34-and-s-149-ipc-principle.html

2) Notes on offence of Forgery

https://www.lawweb.in/2018/08/notes-on-offence-of-forgery.html

3) Notes on offence of Mischief and Criminal Trespass

https://www.lawweb.in/2018/08/notes-on-offence-of-mischief-and.html

4) Notes on offence of receiving of stolen property

https://www.lawweb.in/2018/08/notes-on-offence-of-receiving-of-stolen.html

5)Notes on offence of Mischief and Criminal Trespass

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

Notes on offence of receiving of stolen property

Receiving stolen property (S 410- 414)

Ordinarily a culprit who obtains property by theft of other criminal means would be anxious to dispose it of,mainly with a view to destroy evidence,and also to convert it into money.If the receiver were to go unpunished,robbers and thieves would prosper.S 411 to 414 are enacted to punish receivers of stolen property.Thus receiving or obtaining stolen property,knowing it to be such,is punishable with imprisonment for 3 years or fine or both.(S 411 of IPC)

Print Page

Notes on offence of theft,extortion,robbery,and dacoity

Theft (S.378 of IPC)
Five ingredients of offence of theft are as under:
1) Dishonest intention to take property,
2) Property must be movable,
3) It should be taken out of possession of another person,
4) Property should be taken without consent of owner,
5)There should be some removal of property in order to accomplish the taking of it.

Print Page

How to appreciate evidence in case of robbery in train?

 In the instant case we have found that the prosecution has successfully established the recovery of the currency notes from the possession of the appellants which were the subject matter of robbery. The currency notes have been duly identified having regard to the special features, namely -- existence of chits on the bundles bearing the seal of the firm and the signatures of PW.16. PW.1 correctly identified all the appellants while PW.3 identified two of them, namely - HukumSingh and Lal Singh. 
The evidence of identification has to be considered in the peculiar facts and circumstances of each case. Though it is desirable to hold the test identification parade at the earliest possible opportunity, no hard and fast rule can be laid down in this regard. If the delay is inordinate and there is evidence probabilising the possibility of the accused having been shown to the witnesses, the Court may not act on the basis of such evidence. Moreover, cases where the conviction is based not solely on the basis of identification in Court, but on the basis of other corroborative evidence, such as recovery of looted articles, stand on a different footing and the Court has to consider the evidence in its entirety.

Equivalent Citation: 2004(1)ACR356(SC), AIR2004SC299, 2004(1)BLJR455, 2004CriLJ378, JT2003(8)SC488, 2003(9)SCALE256, (2003)12SCC554

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

Criminal Appeal No. 631 of 2001 with Special Leave Petition (Crl.) No. 4657 of 2003 (Crl. M.P. No. 7792 of 2002)

Decided On: 04.11.2003

Appellants: Lal Singh and Ors.

Vs.

Respondent: State of Uttar Pradesh

Print Page