A knife’s dimensions under the Arms Rules do not determine whether it is a deadly weapon under Section 397 IPC.

On 01.09.2014 at approximately 11:45 p.m., the appellant allegedly entered PW3’s ice-cream godown at Darya Ganj, Delhi, during the night, rummaged through his belongings, and took his mobile phone.

When confronted, he allegedly threatened PW3 with a button-operated knife and twisted his wrist, causing pain and swelling.

PW3 and his son, PW6, apprehended the appellant, recovered the mobile phone from his shirt pocket, and handed over the knife and the appellant to the police.

The appellant was charged under Sections 394, 397 and 457 IPC and Sections 25, 27, 54 and 59 of the Arms Act.

The Sessions Court convicted him under Sections 394, 397 and 457 IPC and Sections 25 and 27 of the Arms Act, sentencing him principally to seven years’ rigorous imprisonment under Sections 394/397 IPC, with concurrent sentences for the other offences.

In appeal, the appellant challenged, inter alia, the classification of the knife as a deadly weapon, the finding of hurt, the conviction under Section 457 IPC, and the Arms Act convictions.

1. Whether the appellant’s entry into the godown during the night constituted lurking house-trespass or house-breaking by night with the intention of committing an imprisonable offence under Section 457 IPC.

2. Whether twisting PW3’s wrist and causing pain and tenderness, despite the absence of a visible external injury, constituted voluntarily causing hurt during the commission of robbery under Section 394 IPC.

3. Whether the button-operated knife, notwithstanding its dimensions and the absence of a statutory definition of “deadly weapon” in the IPC, attracted Section 397 IPC.

4. Whether possession of the button-operated knife violated the applicable Delhi notification and attracted Section 25 of the Arms Act.

5. Whether the prosecution proved the necessary contravention of Sections 5 or 7 of the Arms Act to sustain conviction under Section 27.

The Court applied Section 457 IPC, which requires proof of lurking house-trespass or house-breaking by night and entry with the intention of committing an offence punishable with imprisonment.

Under Sections 394 and 319 IPC, “hurt” includes bodily pain, disease or infirmity; therefore, visible external injury is not essential where bodily pain is voluntarily caused during robbery or its attempt.

Section 397 IPC applies where, during robbery or dacoity, the offender uses a deadly weapon; the expression is not governed by the dimensional standards in the Arms Rules.

Relying on Phool Kumar v. Delhi Administration, (1975) 1 SCC 797, and Salim v. State (Delhi Administration), 1987 SCC OnLine Del 408, the Court held that a knife may constitute a deadly weapon depending on its nature and the manner of its use.

For Section 25(1B)(b) of the Arms Act, possession or carrying of regulated arms in a notified area without authority is punishable.

The Delhi notification dated 17.02.1979 regulates possession and carrying in public places of buttondar knives, including those with blades measuring at least 7.62 cm in length and 1.72 cm in breadth.

Section 27 requires proof that the weapon was used in contravention of Section 5 or Section 7 of the Arms Act.

The appellant’s presence inside the godown at night was undisputed, including through his Section 313 CrPC explanation that he had entered without the owner’s permission.

The consistent testimony of PW3 and PW6 established that he was found searching PW3’s bag and had entered with the intention of committing theft; the ingredients of Section 457 were therefore satisfied.

PW3’s account that the appellant twisted his wrist and caused pain was corroborated by the MLC recording tenderness over the right forearm and wrist, notwithstanding the absence of deformity or visible injury.

Since bodily pain falls within “hurt” under Section 319 IPC, Section 394 was established.

The knife was produced, seized and identified, and was brandished to threaten PW3 and facilitate the robbery.

Its dimensions under the Arms Rules were irrelevant to the IPC inquiry into whether it was a deadly weapon; the manner of use made it sufficient to attract Section 397.

The knife’s blade measured 7.8 cm by 2.4 cm and, being a button-operated knife carried in Delhi without licence, fell within the 1979 notification, sustaining Section 25.

However, the prosecution neither alleged nor proved any violation of Sections 5 or 7, an essential requirement for Section 27; that conviction could not therefore stand.

The convictions and sentences under Sections 394, 397 and 457 IPC and Section 25 of the Arms Act were affirmed, and the sentences were left undisturbed, including the principal sentence of seven years’ rigorous imprisonment, with concurrent sentences as ordered by the trial court.

The conviction and sentence under Section 27 of the Arms Act were set aside, and the appellant was acquitted of that charge under Section 235(1) CrPC.