April 13, 2019: Delhi High Court has held that paper cutter blade having blade of 6.5 cm does not come within the ambit of deadly weapon and therefore for the use of such cutter blade, Section-397 IPC cannot be invoked against an accused.
A bench of Justice Pathka has passed the judgment titled GUDDU @ FARMAN vs STATE on 19.03.2019.
On 27.03.2017 at about 3:30 pm victim was present near the bus stand Khajuri when two persons came to him and one of them placed a paper cutter blade on his belly and removed his purse containing Aadhar card and visiting card; while other person removed his mobile phone make VIVO V-3 from his pocket. He identified the appellant as the person who had removed the purse from his pocket. He deposed that he apprehended the appellant at the spot. He stated that his purse was recovered from the appellant. He further stated that other person succeeded in escaping with his mobile phone.
The sketch of paper cutter blade shows the length of the handle of the paper cutter blade as 13.5 cm; and that of blade hardly 6.5 cm. It is also noted that it does not have pointed and sharp edge. The edge is round shaped.
In such scenario, the High Court found that Section-397 was not made out. It observed “In this case also, the paper cutter blade used was having blade of 6.5 cm, inasmuch as has no sharp and pointed edge, for which no licence was needed, as per the Notifications issued by the Delhi Administration, inasmuch as, no witness has deposed that the paper cutter blade recovered from the appellant qualified to be a knife and more particularly a “deadly weapon‟. In this case, prosecution has failed to lead any evidence to show that appellant had used a “deadly weapon” while committing robbery, thus, in my view, ingredients of offence under Section 397 IPC are not attracted in this case. In absence of necessary ingredients that have not been established by the prosecution, conviction of appellant under Section 397 IPC cannot be sustained”.
High Court ultimately converted the conviction to one under Section-382 IPC instead of Section-397.
Read the judgment here:
Picture Source :
