Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 7 of 7 (0.20 seconds)Section 392 in The Indian Penal Code, 1860 [Entire Act]
Section 457 in The Indian Penal Code, 1860 [Entire Act]
Charan Singh & Ors vs State Of Punjab on 26 July, 1974
In the case of Charan Singh vs. The State reported as 1988
Crl.L.J. NOC 28 (Delhi), in a similar situation where it was not established
that the knife used for committing the robbery was in fact a deadly weapon
within the meaning of Section 397 IPC, the Court held that in the absence of
recovery of the knife, which was allegedly used at the time of commission of
the offence/dacoity, it could not be presumed that the knife so used was a
deadly weapon. Following were the observations made by the Court in this
regard:-
Bishan Das And Others vs The State Of Punjab And Others on 19 April, 1961
4. At the outset, counsel for the appellant submits that he shall
confine his submissions in the appeal, to the order of sentence alone. He
states that in the present case, the provision of Section 397 IPC is not
applicable as the knife, which was the weapon of offence and purportedly
carried by the appellant, was not recovered or for that matter, produced
during the trial. He relies on the judgments in the cases of Bishan vs. State
reported as 1984 (6) DRJ 78, Rakesh Kumar vs. The State of NCT of Delhi
reported as 2005 (1) JCC 334 and Sunil @ Munna vs. The State (Govt. of
NCT) reported as 2010 (1) JCC 388 to submit that in the absence of
recovery of the knife, allegedly used by the appellant at the time of
commission of robbery/dacoity, it cannot be presumed that the knife used
was a deadly weapon and in such circumstances, charge under Section 397
IPC cannot be established. Thus, he submits that the accused could be
convicted only under Section 392 IPC.
Balik Ram vs The State on 2 March, 1983
In the case of Balik Ram vs. The State reported as 1983 Crl.L.J.
1438, a coordinate Bench of this Court had held as below:-
Section 428 in The Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 [Entire Act]
1