In a recent decision, the Delhi High Court has clarified that a knife qualifies as a “deadly weapon” under Section 397 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (IPC) irrespective of its dimensions, and that non-recovery of such weapon does not dilute the prosecution’s case if credible eyewitness testimony establishes its use in the commission of robbery.
The case arose from a complaint lodged by Naveen, who alleged that in April 2019, while he was returning home on his motorcycle, two men approached him on a Pulsar bike. The pillion rider snatched his mobile phone and attempted to take his purse, while the driver, later identified as the appellant Azam, brandished a knife, threatened to kill him, and compelled him to part with his purse containing ₹35,000 and another mobile phone. The accused were later apprehended in connection with another case, and from Azam’s possession, one of the stolen phones was recovered. The trial court convicted him under Sections 392, 397, 411, and 34 IPC, sentencing him to concurrent terms, including seven years rigorous imprisonment for the offence under Section 397 IPC.
The appellant assailed the conviction, contending that without recovery of the alleged knife, the prosecution could not establish that the weapon used qualified as a “deadly weapon.” He relied on earlier Delhi High Court rulings, which required proof of a knife’s size or design to determine its deadly character. On the other hand, the State, opposing the appeal, maintained that the complainant’s consistent and reliable testimony, together with the recovery of stolen property, conclusively established the appellant’s guilt, and that recovery of the weapon was inconsequential in view of binding Supreme Court authority.
The Court examined divergent judicial views on whether a knife’s categorisation as a deadly weapon depends on its dimensions. It held that earlier decisions requiring such proof failed to consider the Supreme Court’s rulings in Phool Kumar v. Delhi Administration and Ashfaq v. State, which established that “a knife is a deadly weapon” and that mere exhibition of such a weapon during robbery suffices to invoke Section 397 IPC. While referring to its own precedents, the Court reiterated that neither the size nor the recovery of the knife is determinative, what matters is the credible testimony showing that the weapon was wielded to create fear and compel the victim to part with property.
Consequently, the Court found the complainant’s testimony credible and consistent, holding that Azam’s act of brandishing a knife while threatening the victim met the statutory requirements of Section 397 IPC. The conviction and sentence were thus affirmed, the appeal dismissed, and the judgment directed to be forwarded to the concerned jail superintendent and trial court for compliance.
Case Title: Azam Vs. State (NCT of Delhi)
Case No: CRL.A. 926/2024
Coram: Justice Manoj Kumar Ohri
Advocate for Appellant: Advs. Gautam Khazanchi, Pooja Deepak
Advocate for Respondent: APP Pradeep Gahalot, S.I. Lovkesh Kumar
Picture Source :
