Simple hurt during robbery attracts Section 394 IPC, not Section 397 absent its aggravating elements.

The appellants, who were juveniles in conflict with law, were accused of stopping the complainant and his female friend, assaulting the complainant on the head, and taking his mobile phone and purse.

The complainant sustained a simple head injury.

The Children’s Court convicted both appellants under Section 397 IPC and sentenced them to seven years’ rigorous imprisonment; it acquitted them of the Arms Act charge.

They appealed, principally arguing that the evidence did not establish the requirements of Section 397 IPC and that the proved conduct amounted, at most, to an offence under Section 394 IPC.

The High Court considered the appeals together.

1. Whether the evidence established the requirements for conviction under Section 397 IPC, including use of a deadly weapon, causing grievous hurt, or attempting to cause death or grievous hurt during the robbery.

2. Whether the appellants’ proved conduct instead constituted an offence under Section 394 IPC and warranted modification of their convictions and sentences.

Section 397 IPC applies where, at the time of committing robbery or dacoity, the offender uses a deadly weapon, causes grievous hurt, or attempts to cause death or grievous hurt.

Section 394 IPC addresses voluntarily causing hurt in committing robbery; as described by the Court, it provides for imprisonment for life or rigorous imprisonment up to ten years and fine, without prescribing a minimum term.

The Court also considered the acquittal under Section 25(1)(1B)(b) of the Arms Act in assessing whether use of a deadly weapon had been proved.

The complainant and his companion supported the account that the complainant was assaulted and that property was taken, and the medical evidence confirmed a simple head injury.

However, the prosecution had not proved the seizure or use of a deadly weapon, and the medical evidence did not establish grievous hurt; the CT scan also disclosed no diagnostic abnormality.

The Court therefore found the requirements of Section 397 IPC unmet.

Because the appellants’ involvement in the robbery and the infliction of simple hurt were established, it held that their conduct fell within Section 394 IPC.

It sentenced each to five years’ rigorous imprisonment and a fine of ₹1,000, with one month’s additional rigorous imprisonment in default.

The Court directed that appellant XYZ receive set-off for the period already undergone; appellant ABC, having completed the sentence imposed in custody, was not required to surrender again.