1975 (3) TMI 129 - SC - Indian Laws

Offender - Held that - Appeal dismissed. The term 'offender' in that section, as rightly held by several High Courts, is confined to the offender who uses any deadly weapon. The use of a deadly weapon by one offender at the, time of committing robbery cannot attract section 397 for the imposition of the minimum punishment on another offender who had not used any deadly weapon. In that view of the matter use of the gun by one of the culprits whether he was accused Ram Kumar or some body else, (surely one was there who had fired three shots) could not be and has not been the basis of sentencing the appellant with the aid of section 397.

Summary

Issues:
1. Conviction under section 397 of the Penal Code for robbery.
2. Use of deadly weapon in the commission of robbery.
3. Interpretation of sections 392, 397, and 398 of the Penal Code.
4. Legal scrutiny of the minimum punishment under section 397.
5. Expert evidence and its admissibility in court.
6. Identification evidence by eyewitnesses.

The judgment delivered by the Supreme Court involved the conviction of an individual under section 397 of the Penal Code for a robbery committed at a petrol pump. The appellant, Phool Kumar, was found guilty based on evidence including eyewitness testimonies, specifically the presence of his thumb impression on the cash box. The court rejected the argument that the sentencing of 7 years of rigorous imprisonment was illegal, as it was contended that the appellant should have been convicted under section 392 instead. The court analyzed the use of deadly weapons in the commission of robbery and clarified the interpretation of sections 392, 397, and 398 of the Penal Code. It was established that the term "uses" in section 397 pertains to offenders armed with deadly weapons visible to create terror, even if not directly used to cause harm. The judgment emphasized that carrying a deadly weapon is sufficient to fall under section 397, even without causing grievous hurt. The court also addressed the anomaly between sections 397 and 398, providing a comprehensive explanation for the distinction in language used. The judgment highlighted previous case laws to support the interpretation of "uses" in section 397. Ultimately, the court upheld the appellant's conviction and dismissed the appeal, concluding that the evidence and sentencing were justified under the law.

The judgment also scrutinized the admissibility of expert evidence in court, particularly the thumb impression analysis conducted on the cash box. Despite the expert not being examined in court, the report was accepted as evidence since neither the prosecution nor the defense filed an application for the expert's examination. The court ruled that the appellant's grievance regarding the expert report's use without examination lacked substance, as the thumb impression provided substantial corroboration to the eyewitness testimonies. The judgment emphasized the importance of corroborative evidence in criminal cases, especially when eyewitness identification may not be solely relied upon for conviction. The court found the thumb impression evidence to be crucial in establishing the appellant's participation in the robbery beyond a reasonable doubt, reinforcing the validity of the conviction under section 397 of the Penal Code.

Furthermore, the judgment delved into the identification evidence presented by the eyewitnesses during the trial. The testimonies of P.Ws 13 and 16 were pivotal in linking the appellant to the robbery, despite some inconsistencies in their identification process. The court acknowledged that one eyewitness did not identify the appellant in initial identification parades, while the other identified him later rounds. However, the presence of the thumb impression on the cash box provided solid corroboration to their testimonies, strengthening the case against the appellant. The judgment highlighted the importance of circumstantial evidence in corroborating eyewitness accounts, especially in cases where direct identification may be challenged. Overall, the court found the identification evidence to be reliable and sufficient to support the appellant's conviction under section 397 of the Penal Code.

---