STATE Vs. CHAND SINGH MIT SINGH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) SECTION 397 of the Indian Penal Code reads: "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. " the question referred to the Full Bench' Involves the interpretation of the word "uses" occurring in the section and has arisen thus. Chsnd Singh. Nazir Singh and gurdev Singh were jointly tried by Shri Banwari Lal Singal. Additional Sessions judee, Bhatinda. for an offence under Section 397 of the Indian Penal Code. The case for the prosecution was that on the 22nd of February, 1965, they waylaid certain residents of village Kalian Sukha in Police Station Nathana while armed with a pistol, a gandasa and a gandhali respectively and after Chand Singh accused had given a threat to the victims that he would shoot them if they made any noise, the victims were robbed. No allegation was, however, made that any of the accused levelled or brandished his weapon at the victims or otherwise handled it, apart from having it on his person during the course of the robbery. The learned additional Sessions Judge found the case against Gurdev Singh to be doubtful and acquitted him. In respect of the two other accused he held: "in this case there is no evidence that Modan Singh, Gurdial Kaur or hamir Kaur were given any injuries by the accused. There is no evidence either that the accused used the deadly weapons at the time of the occurrence nor there is evidence that they attempted to cause death or grievous hurt to the aforesaid witnesses. In this case the accused put the witnesses Modan Singh, Gurdial Kaur and Hamir Kaur in fear of causing injuries to them when they removed their ornaments. The accused committed extortion by putting the aforesaid persons in fear of death and hurt and wrongfully restrained Modan Singh. In these circumstances I am of the view that both the accused Chand Singh and nazir Singh are proved guilty under Section 392. Indian Penal Code. I consequently convict both the accused under this section. " being dissatisfied with the acquittal of Chand Singh and Nazir Singh under Section 397 of the Indian Penal Code, the State preferred to this Court Criminal Appeal no. 943 of 1966 which came up for hearing before a Division Bench consisting of my learned brother Jindra Lal, J. and myself. On the authority of Nagar Sineh v. Emperor. AIR 1933 Lah 35, Chandra Nath v. Emperor. AIR 1932 Oudh 103, Inder singh v. Emperor. AIR 1934 Lah 522 = 35 Pun LR 555. In re Somanna, AIR 1941 mad 708 and Govind Dipaii More v. State. AIR 195t Born 353, it was contended before the Division Bench that the words "uses anv deadly weapon" occurring in section 397 of the Code should be construed in a wide sense so as to include not merely acts of cutting, stabbing and shooting, etc. as the case may be, but also of carrying a deadly weapon for the purpose of overawing the person robbed so that if the offender merely armed himself with a deadly weapon during the course of a robbery and did not perform any further act in respect of it, his case would be covered by the provisions of Section 397. All the cases above mentioned with the exception of AIR 1933 Lah 35 as well as Nazar Shah v. Emperor. AIR 1926 Sind 150, were, however, distinguished by me as a member of another Division Bench consisting of Sodhi J. and myself in State v. Puran Singh Criminal Appeal No. 1087 of 1966. D/-3-6-1968 (Punj) with the following observations:-"we are afraid, however, that none of these authorities supports the case of the State inasmuch as in every one of them the weapon in question was actually handled by the culprit concerned in such a manner as to cause an apprehension in the mind of the victim that he would be subjected to its actual operation if he did not submit to the demand of the offender. In the Sind authority an actual blow with the handle of the weapon was Inflicted on the victim. In each of the Bombay and Madras cases, the victim was relieved of property 'at the point of knife'. In the case from Lahore a gun was the weapon in question and was fired in the air, obviously to scare the victim and to make the threat given by the offender fully effective. In the Oudh case the victim was robbed at the point of a revolver. The facts of the instant case are materially different in so far as there is no allegation that the gun and the gandasa. with which Puran Singh and Ajmer Singh were respectively armed, were so much as moved from the position which they occupied with respect to the bodies of their holders. If either of these weapons had been pointed or brandished at any of the victims, such act of the offender may have been construed as a user of the weapon but we have not been shown any authority laying down that mere possession of a weapon during robbery amounts to its user within the meaning of Section 397 of the indian Penal Code. Nor can we otherwise agree with the contention put forward on behalf of the State as, in the absence of a special definition, the word 'uses' occurring in Section 397 of the Indian Penal Code must be given its ordinary dictionary meaning which, admittedly, would not embrace mere possession. " it was further observed by me then:--

(2.) ARGUMENTS have been addressed to us at length by Shri D. D. Jain, on behalf of the State and Shri Amar Datt appearing amicus curiae for the respondents. After giving my most anxious consideration to the same, I have come to the conclusion that the view expressed by me In Criminal Appeal No. 1087 of 1966, D/-3-6-1968 (Punj) (supra) is correct.

(3.) FOR a proper discussion of the subject, the provisions of Sections 392, 393, 394 and 398 may also be set out here to extenso: