Pointing a deadly weapon to compel surrender constitutes its use under Section 397 IPC.

The complainant alleged that two men robbed him at gunpoint, taking his gold chain, kada and diamond ring.

He identified the appellant, Aas Mohd., as the person who placed a pistol against his head and demanded the kada and ring; the co-accused allegedly snatched the chain

The Trial Court convicted the appellant under Sections 392 read with 34 and 397 IPC, and Section 27 of the Arms Act, sentencing him to seven years’ rigorous imprisonment under Section 397 IPC.

In appeal, the appellant did not challenge the Section 392 conviction; his challenge was confined to whether his conduct attracted Section 397, because he neither fired the pistol nor caused injury.

1. Whether placing a pistol against the complainant’s head and using it to compel him to surrender valuables constitutes “use” of a deadly weapon under Section 397 IPC, although the pistol was not fired and no injury was inflicted.

2. Whether conduct amounting to robbery under Section 390 IPC by showing a pistol can also attract Section 397 IPC, or whether Section 397 requires firing, injury, or a separate attempt to cause death or grievous hurt.

Section 390 IPC defines robbery to include taking property by putting a person in fear of instant hurt, while Section 392 IPC prescribes punishment for robbery.

Section 397 IPC provides a minimum sentence of seven years where, during robbery or dacoity, the offender uses a deadly weapon, causes grievous hurt, or attempts to cause death or grievous hurt; these are alternative aggravating circumstances, and Section 397 regulates punishment rather than creating a separate substantive offence.

Under Phool Kumar v. Delhi Admn., (1975) 1 SCC 797, carrying or displaying a deadly weapon within the victim’s view to frighten or terrorise the victim can constitute “use”; firing or inflicting injury is unnecessary.

Ashfaq v. State (Govt. of NCT of Delhi, (2004) 3 SCC 116, reaffirmed that Section 397 does not require the weapon to be used to cut, stab or shoot.

Ram Ratan v. State of M.P., 2021 SCC OnLine SC 1279, held that exhibition, brandishing or openly holding a weapon to threaten the victim is sufficient, but Section 397 liability attaches only to the offender who personally used the weapon.

The complainant specifically testified that the appellant held a pistol against his head and demanded the kada and ring, which he surrendered; the complainant also identified the pistol in court, and its recovery was supported by other witnesses.

The Court held that this was the appellant’s personal use of a deadly weapon to secure delivery of the property during the robbery, satisfying Section 397 under Phool Kumar, Ashfaq and Ram Ratan, despite the absence of firing or injury.

Illustration (b) to Section 390 explains why showing a pistol and thereby inducing surrender constitutes robbery; it does not exclude the additional operation of Section 397 when a deadly weapon is used.

The Court found that Ajit Singh v. State of Haryana, (1996) 3 SCC 335, did not establish firing or injury as a necessary condition for Section 397 and did not displace the governing principles in the cited decisions.

As the appellant personally used the pistol during the robbery, the seven-year minimum sentence applied; the conviction and sentence were upheld, and the appeal was dismissed.