Woman’s Ears Cut For Gold: Madras HC Upholds Robber’s 10-Year Sentence But Sets Aside IPC 397 Conviction

On 20 August 2016, the complainant, Chellammal, was attacked while at her agricultural field: the appellant allegedly snatched her gold chain and nose stud and cut her ears to remove her gold studs.

She identified the appellant in court and identified the recovered jewels as hers.

The Sessions Court convicted him under Sections 394 and 397 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC), sentencing him to ten years’ rigorous imprisonment under Section 394 and seven years’ rigorous imprisonment under Section 397, to run concurrently.

He appealed under Section 374(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure

Section 394 IPC applies where a person voluntarily causes hurt while committing or attempting to commit robbery; it permits imprisonment for life or rigorous imprisonment up to ten years, and a fine.

Section 397 IPC prescribes a minimum sentence of seven years where, at the time of robbery or dacoity, the offender uses a deadly weapon, causes grievous hurt, or attempts to cause death or grievous hurt; the Court treated it as a sentencing provision rather than a separate substantive offence.

Under Section 27 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872, only the part of an accused’s statement that distinctly relates to a fact discovered is admissible; identification of the recovered jewels was relevant under Section 9, and Section 114(a) permits a presumption concerning a person found in possession of stolen goods soon after the theft if that possession is not explained.

The Court accepted PW1’s identification of the appellant, noting that he had previously attended repair work at her field and had received payment from her shortly before the robbery, giving her prior acquaintance with him.

It also relied on the recovery of the jewels following the appellant’s disclosure, corroborated by the Village Administrative Officer and Village Assistant, and on PW1’s identification of the jewels; the appellant offered no explanation for possessing them.

The Court therefore found robbery causing hurt proved under Section 394.

It held Section 397 inapplicable because the prosecution had not established use of a deadly weapon in the relevant sense, the scythe was used to cut the victim’s ears and remove the studs, and the injuries were not certified as grievous.

Considering the circumstances of the attack, it found no reason to reduce the ten-year sentence under Section 394.

The conviction and sentence under Section 397 IPC were set aside, but the conviction and ten-year sentence under Section 394 IPC were sustained.

The appellant was granted set-off under Section 428 CrPC, his bail bond was cancelled, and the Trial Court was directed to secure him to serve the remaining sentence.