Deadly weapon use in robbery includes display that creates fear and facilitates the offence, even without physical injury.

Eyewitness evidence corroborated by a matching thumb impression on the cash box was treated as sufficient to prove participation in robbery and wrongful confinement beyond reasonable doubt, and the absence of oral examination of the expert did not invalidate that proof. The Court also held that a deadly weapon is "used" for section 397 of the Indian Penal Code when it is displayed or carried in a manner that creates fear and facilitates the robbery, even without physical injury or separate overt violence. On that reasoning, the convictions for robbery and confinement were upheld and the enhanced sentence under section 397 was sustained.

---

---

Issues: (i) whether the appellant's conviction for robbery and wrongful confinement was sustainable on the evidence, including eyewitness testimony and corroboration from the thumb impression on the cash box; (ii) whether the use of a knife, visible to the victims during the robbery, amounted to "use" of a deadly weapon within the meaning of section 397 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860.

Issue (i): whether the appellant's conviction for robbery and wrongful confinement was sustainable on the evidence, including eyewitness testimony and corroboration from the thumb impression on the cash box.

Analysis: The eyewitness evidence was not treated as standing alone, but it received strong corroboration from the appellant's thumb impression found on the kunda of the cash box. The expert opinion identifying the thumb impression was accepted, and the absence of the expert's oral examination did not vitiate the proof in the circumstances. The Court found that the evidence established the appellant's participation in the robbery and the confinement of the attendants beyond reasonable doubt.

Conclusion: The conviction under sections 342 and 392 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 was upheld against the appellant.

Issue (ii): whether the use of a knife, visible to the victims during the robbery, amounted to "use" of a deadly weapon within the meaning of section 397 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860.

Analysis: The Court held that the word "uses" in section 397 is not confined to actual striking or causing hurt. Where an offender is armed with a deadly weapon and displays it in a manner capable of terrorising the victim and facilitating the robbery, the weapon is used in the commission of the offence. The Court rejected the narrower construction that would limit section 397 only to cases of physical injury or active brandishing beyond intimidation.

Conclusion: The sentence under section 397 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 was held to be valid and the appellant's contention was rejected.

Final Conclusion: The legal position affirmed is that a deadly weapon may be "used" for section 397 when it is displayed during the robbery so as to create fear and aid the offence, and the conviction and sentence on all counts were left undisturbed.

Ratio Decidendi: For section 397 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860, "uses" includes displaying or carrying a deadly weapon in a manner that creates terror in the victim and facilitates the robbery, even without physical injury or separate overt violence.

---