Proof Of Robbery Or Attempted Robbery Essential Component For Conviction Under S. 394 IPC : Supreme Court

The Supreme Court on Wednesday (October 7) held that a conviction under Section 394 IPC / Section 309 (6) of BNS cannot be sustained unless it is proved that robbery or an attempt to rob took place.

“The robbery or attempted robbery is not at all a peripheral circumstance and is rather an essential component of the offense.”, observed a bench of Justice Prashant Kumar Mishra and Justice Shree Chandrashekhar, while setting aside the conviction under Section 394 IPC, which punishes an act of voluntarily causing grievous injury in committing robbery.

The case arose from a January 1993 incident at a farmhouse in Maharashtra, where four assailants allegedly entered at night. The complainant identified Appa as the person who threatened her with a knife, injured her hand and punched her in the face, causing an upper tooth to fall out.

The allegation that Appellant-Appa had snatched the complainant's gold mangalsutra and dorle rested solely on her assertion. No jewellery was recovered, nor was any incriminating article seized from the appellant.

The Court found the conviction under Section 394 IPC unsustainable because the prosecution had failed to sufficiently establish the alleged robbery, as apart from the non-recovery of the alleged robbed gold article, there was also no purchase receipt or other material establishing the identity or value of the alleged robbed articles.

The Court stressed that robbery or attempted robbery is not merely incidental to Section 394 IPC but an essential component of the offence.

“In the present case, such allegation of robbery rests entirely upon the assertion of the complainant that the appellant snatched her mangalsutra and dorle from her neck. There was no recovery of the alleged jewellery and nothing incriminating was seized from the appellant's possession either. There was no purchase receipt or any other material establishing the identity or value of the articles, as admitted by the complainant herself in cross-examination.”, the Court said.

“Therefore, in our considered opinion, we cannot sustain the conviction under Section 394 of the IPC,” the Court held.

Conviction modified from Section 394 IPC to Section 325 IPC for voluntarily causing grievous hurt.

While acquitting the Appellant for the offence under Section 394 IPC, the Court had modified the conviction under Section 222 CrPC to a cognate / minor offence, i.e., Section 325 IPC, after acknowledging that the victim/complainant suffered an injury after the Appellant had slashed her left palm with a knife during a scuffle, which was corroborated by medical evidence.

“…the assertion of the complainant that the appellant struck her in her mouth and caused her left upper incisor tooth to fall out is sufficiently proved through witness testimony and medical evidence. The same falls squarely within the definition of 'grievous hurt' given in Section 320 of the IPC viz. fracture or dislocation of a bone or tooth. We thus consider it appropriate to alter the conviction of the appellant to one under Section 325 of the IPC.”, the Court said.

As a result, the appeal was partly allowed, whereby modifying the Appellant's conviction for the offence punishable under Section 325 of the IPC.

“The sentence of the appellant is reduced to the period already undergone by him with fine of Rs.1,000/-. The appellant shall be released forthwith, unless he is required to be in custody in connection with any other case.”, the Court held.

Appearance:

For Petitioner(s) Mr. Sudhanshu S. Choudhari, Sr. Adv. Mr. Mahesh Prakash Shinde, Adv. Mr. Ratnesh Dube, Adv. Ms. Pranjal Chapalgaonkar, Adv. Mr. Ashok Kumar Gupta Ii, AOR

For Respondent(s) Ms. Ira Mahajan, Adv. Mr. Siddharth Dharmadhikari, Adv. Mr. Aaditya Aniruddha Pande, AOR Mr. Shrirang B. Varma, Adv.