RAM RATAN versus STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH

Citation: [2021] 9 S.C.R. 866 · Decided: 17-12-2021 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: N.V. RAMANA · Disposal: Case Partly allowed

cites 1 · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
866
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2021] 9 S.C.R.
   [2021] 9 S.C.R. 866
866
RAM RATAN
v.
STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH
(Criminal Appeal No.1333 of 2018)
DECEMBER 17, 2021
[N. V. RAMANA, CJI, A. S. BOPANNA
AND HIMA KOHLI, JJ.]
Penal Code, 1860 – ss.392, 397 – Appellant along with other
two accused was convicted u/ss.392, 397 r/w s.11/13, MPDVPK
Act, 1981 – On appeal, held: Complainant narrated in detail the
manner in which he was woken up by the accused while he was
sleeping in the hut and the demand for money that was made by
brandishing the firearm – Motorcycle and mobile which was stolen
were recovered – Appellant participated in the offence of committing
robbery as the motorcycle was recovered at his instance – His
conviction u/s.392 by trial court which was upheld by High Court
is sustained – Sentence modified to the period of imprisonment
undergone – Further, though all the three accused had taken part
in the offence of committing robbery, only one of the co-accused
had used the firearm – There was no allegation apart from a stray
sentence nor was such charge of having used firearm proved against
the appellant – Charge u/s.397 can be fastened on the offender
who actually uses the firearm – In the instant case, the appellant
was not an offender who used the firearm – Thus, the judgment
convicting the appellant u/s.397 r/w s.11/13, MPDVPK, 1981,
upheld by the High Court is set aside to that extent – Sentence of 7
years rigorous imprisonment set aside – Madhya Pradesh Dakaiti
Aur Vyapharan Pravbhavit Kshetra Adhiniyam 1981 Act – ss.11,
13 – Arms Act – s.25(1-B) (a).
Penal Code, 1860 – s.397 – Use of weapon – What is – Held:
Use of the weapon to constitute offence u/s.397 does not require
that the offender should actually fire from the firearm or actually
stab if it is a knife or a dagger – Mere exhibition of the same,
brandishing or holding it openly to threaten and create fear or
apprehension in the mind of the victim is sufficient.
Penal Code, 1860 – s.397 and ss.34, 149 – Vicariability of
offence u/s.397, if charges u/ss.34, 149 are invoked – Discussed.
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
867
Partly allowing the appeal, the Court
HELD : 1.1 The complainant (PW-1) has spoken in detail
with regard to the manner in which he was woken up by the
accused and the demand for money that was made by brandishing
the firearm. The identification of the persons which was possible
due to the light which was on, is also stated. The incident relating
to which PW1 had given the detailed account, has remained intact
and has not been discredited. The evidence is sufficient and
convincing to arrive at the conclusion that the incident as narrated
by PW1 had occurred and the appellant and his co-accused had
committed robbery. [Paras 10, 11][873-E-F; 874-C-D]
1.2 The use of the weapon to constitute the offence under
Section 397 IPC does not require that the ‘offender’ should
actually fire from the firearm or actually stab if it is a knife or a
dagger but the mere exhibition of the same, brandishing or holding
it openly to threaten and create fear or apprehension in the mind
of the victim is sufficient. The other aspect is that if the charge of
committing the offence is alleged against all the accused and only
one among the ‘offenders’ had used the firearm or deadly weapon,
only such of the ‘offender’ who has used the firearm or deadly
weapon alone would be liable to be charged under Section 397
IPC. Though this would be the effect and scope of Section 397
IPC as a standalone provision, the application of the same will
arise in the totality of the allegation and the consequent charge
that will be framed and the accused would be tried for such charge.
In such circumstance, in the teeth of the offence under Section
397 IPC being applicable to the offender alone, the vicariability
of the same will also have to be noted if the charge against the
accused under Sections 34, 149 IPC and such other provisions
of law, which may become relevant, is also invoked along with
Section 397 IPC. In such event, it will have to be looked at
differently in the totality of the facts, evidence and circumstances
involved in that case and the provisions invoked in that particular
case to frame a charge against the accused. In the instant case,
the charge under Section 34 IPC was not framed against the
appellant nor was such an allegation raised and proved against
the appellant. Hence, benefit of the interpretation raised on the
scope of Section 397 IPC to hold the aggressor al

Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.