Supreme Court limits application of Section 397 IPC in robbery cases: Ram Ratan vs. State of Madhya Pradesh (2021) INSC 702 (17 December 2021)

Introduction

Date of the Judgment: 17 December 2021

Citation: (2021) INSC 702

Judges: N.V. Ramana, CJI, A.S. Bopanna, J, Hima Kohli, J. The judgment was authored by Justice A.S. Bopanna.

Can all participants in a robbery be charged under Section 397 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (IPC) if only one of them used a deadly weapon? The Supreme Court of India addressed this question in a recent judgment, clarifying the scope and applicability of Section 397 of the IPC. The Court examined whether the mere presence of a deadly weapon during a robbery is sufficient to invoke Section 397 for all offenders, or if the provision applies only to the individual who actually used the weapon. This case provides clarity on the individual liability of offenders under Section 397 IPC.

Case Background

On the intervening night of 26-27 June 2012, at approximately 2:30 AM, the complainant, Rajesh Meena, was sleeping in his field hut when he was awakened by three individuals: Ram Ratan (the appellant), Raju alias Rajendra, and Chotu. Raju alias Rajendra, brandishing a gun, demanded money from Rajesh. When Rajesh said he had no money, Raju snatched the keys to Rajesh’s motorcycle and took his mobile phone from his shirt pocket. The three accused then forced Rajesh to sit on his motorcycle. Near Nanawat village, the motorcycle got punctured. The accused forced Rajesh to get off the motorcycle and they took it away. Rajesh then narrated the incident to his uncle, Tulsiram, and subsequently lodged a complaint with the police. The police recovered the motorcycle and mobile phone and apprehended the accused. The police filed a chargesheet against the appellant for offences under Sections 392 and 397 of the IPC, and Sections 11 and 13 of the Madhya Pradesh Dakaiti Aur Vyapharan Pravbhavit Kshetra Adhiniyam, 1981 (MPDVPK Act, 1981).

Timeline

Course of Proceedings

The trial court convicted the appellant, Ram Ratan, along with Chotu and Raju alias Rajendra, under Section 392 and 397 of the IPC, read with Sections 11 and 13 of the MPDVPK Act, 1981. They were sentenced to seven years of rigorous imprisonment with a fine of Rs. 1000. Raju alias Rajendra was additionally convicted under Section 25(1-B)(a) of the Arms Act. The High Court of Madhya Pradesh upheld the trial court’s decision. The appellant then appealed to the Supreme Court, challenging his conviction under Section 397 of the IPC, arguing that he did not use the firearm and thus should not be convicted under that section.

Legal Framework

The case revolves around the interpretation and application of the following sections of the Indian Penal Code, 1860:

• Section 392, IPC: This section defines the punishment for robbery. It states:
  
  “Whoever commits robbery shall be punished with rigorous imprisonment for a term which may extend to ten years, and shall also be liable to fine; and, if the robbery be committed on the highway between sunset and sunrise, the imprisonment may be extended to fourteen years.”
• Section 397, IPC: This section deals with robbery or dacoity with an attempt to cause death or grievous hurt. It states:
  
  “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 Supreme Court has interpreted the term “offender” in Section 397 to mean the specific individual who uses the deadly weapon, not all participants in the robbery. The court also clarified that the use of a deadly weapon does not require actual firing or stabbing, but the mere exhibition of the weapon to create fear is sufficient.

Arguments

Appellant’s Arguments:

• The appellant argued that the evidence was insufficient to prove his guilt and that he was falsely implicated due to political rivalry.
• The appellant contended that Section 397 of the IPC should not apply to him because he did not use the firearm. He argued that the term “offender” in Section 397 refers only to the person who actually uses the deadly weapon.
• The appellant cited the Supreme Court’s decision in Ganesan vs. State, arguing that the charge under Section 397 IPC is not sustainable against him since there was no allegation or proof that he used any weapon.
• He further contended that even if the charge under Section 392 IPC is proved, the sentence of nearly 4 years already undergone by him is sufficient punishment.

State’s Arguments:

• The State argued that the evidence presented before the trial court and the High Court was sufficient to prove the charges against the appellant.
• The State contended that the recovery of the stolen motorcycle and mobile phone, along with the seizure of the gun, proved the appellant’s involvement in the robbery.
• The State argued that the expert opinion confirmed the gun was in working condition and that the mere exposure of the weapon to create fear in the mind of the victim is sufficient to prove the charge under Section 397 IPC, without the need for actual use.

Issues Framed by the Supreme Court

The Supreme Court framed the following key issues for consideration:

1. Whether the charge under Section 397 of the IPC is sustainable against the appellant, given that the firearm was not used by him but by the co-accused.
2. Whether the term “offender” in Section 397 of the IPC applies only to the individual who uses the deadly weapon, or to all participants in the robbery.

Treatment of the Issue by the Court

Authorities

The Supreme Court considered the following authorities:

Judgment

The Supreme Court partly allowed the appeal. The court set aside the conviction of the appellant under Section 397 of the IPC and Sections 11 and 13 of the MPDVPK Act, 1981. However, the conviction under Section 392 of the IPC was upheld. The sentence was modified to the period of imprisonment already undergone by the appellant, which was 3 years, 5 months, and 1 day as of 10.11.2021. The fine imposed and default sentence were retained.

How each authority was viewed by the Court:

✓ Shri Phool Kumar vs. Delhi Administration [CITATION]: The court relied on this case to interpret the term “offender” in Section 397 IPC, stating that it is confined to the person who uses a deadly weapon.

✓ Dilawar Singh vs. State of Delhi [CITATION]: The court used this case to highlight the essential ingredients of Section 397 IPC, emphasizing the need for the offender to use a deadly weapon.

✓ Ganesan vs. State Rep. by Station House Officer [CITATION]: The court referred to this case to clarify that Section 397 IPC applies only to the individual who uses the deadly weapon and not to other co-accused.

What weighed in the mind of the Court?

The Supreme Court’s decision was primarily influenced by the following factors:

• Interpretation of Section 397 IPC: The Court emphasized that the term “offender” in Section 397 IPC refers specifically to the individual who uses the deadly weapon during the commission of the robbery. This interpretation was crucial in determining that the appellant, who did not use the firearm, could not be convicted under this section.
• Factual Evidence: The Court meticulously reviewed the factual evidence, particularly the testimony of the complainant (PW1) and the FIR, which clearly indicated that the firearm was used by the co-accused, Raju alias Rajendra, and not by the appellant. The Court noted that although the appellant was involved in the robbery, he did not use the deadly weapon.
• Precedent: The Court relied on previous decisions, such as Shri Phool Kumar vs. Delhi Administration, Dilawar Singh vs. State of Delhi, and Ganesan vs. State, to reinforce its interpretation of Section 397 IPC. These precedents established that the use of a deadly weapon must be by the specific offender for Section 397 to apply.
• Individual Liability: The Court highlighted the principle of individual liability, stating that the vicarious liability of co-accused cannot be assumed under Section 397 IPC. This meant that each accused is responsible for his own actions and not for the actions of others unless there is a charge of common intention under Section 34 of IPC.

Logical Reasoning:

The Court considered the argument that the mere exhibition of a weapon is sufficient for Section 397, but clarified that this only applies to the individual who used the weapon. The Court rejected the argument that all participants in the robbery should be held liable under Section 397, emphasizing individual liability.

The decision was reached by carefully analyzing the evidence, interpreting the law, and applying it to the specific facts of the case. The Court’s reasoning was based on the principle that penal provisions must be strictly construed and that the term “offender” in Section 397 must be interpreted literally.

The Court quoted the following from the judgment:

• “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 the instant case admittedly no injury has been inflicted. The use of weapon by offender for creating terror in mind of victim is sufficient. It need not be further shown to have been actually used for cutting, stabbing or shooting, as the case may be.”

There were no dissenting opinions in this case. The bench unanimously agreed on the interpretation of Section 397 IPC.

Key Takeaways

• Individual Liability: Section 397 of the IPC applies only to the individual who actually uses a deadly weapon during a robbery, not to all participants.
• Definition of “Use”: The term “uses” in Section 397 does not require actual firing or stabbing but includes the exhibition of a deadly weapon to create fear.
• Importance of Evidence: The Court’s decision highlights the importance of specific evidence linking an individual to the use of a deadly weapon for conviction under Section 397.
• Impact on Future Cases: This judgment will serve as a precedent for future cases involving similar charges, emphasizing the need to establish the specific use of a deadly weapon by each accused.

Directions

The Supreme Court directed the following:

• The conviction of the appellant under Section 397 IPC and Sections 11/13 of the MPDVPK Act, 1981, was set aside.
• The conviction of the appellant under Section 392 IPC was sustained.
• The sentence imposed on the appellant was modified to the period of imprisonment already undergone.
• The appellant was ordered to be set at liberty forthwith if the fine was paid and he was not required to be detained in any other case.

Development of Law

The ratio decidendi of this case is that Section 397 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860, applies only to the “offender” who actually uses a deadly weapon during the commission of a robbery. This clarifies the scope of Section 397 IPC by limiting its application to the specific individual who uses the deadly weapon, thereby emphasizing individual liability and rejecting vicarious liability for co-accused under this section. There is no change in the previous position of law but the court has reiterated the position of law.

Conclusion

The Supreme Court’s judgment in Ram Ratan vs. State of Madhya Pradesh clarifies the application of Section 397 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860, emphasizing that the provision applies only to the individual who uses a deadly weapon during a robbery. This decision highlights the principle of individual liability and ensures that those who did not use a weapon are not subjected to the enhanced punishment under Section 397. The Court upheld the conviction under Section 392 IPC but reduced the sentence to the period already served, providing relief to the appellant.