TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
1975 (3) TMI 129
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....nvesti- gation three persons were put on trial in the Sessions Court. One of the culprits, named Sube Singh, absconded. The names of the three are (I.L.R. [1970]) Phool Kumar, (2 Punjab & Haryana, 108. 920 ) Ram Kumar and (3) Dharampal. The latter two were acquitted by the learned Assistant Sessions Judge, Delhi for want of sufficient evidence against them. The only person convicted at the said trial was appellant Phool Kumar. He has been convicted under s. 397 of the Penal Code and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for 7 years. A concurrent sentence of 6 months was also imposed for his conviction under section 342 of the Penal Code. The Delhi High Court maintained his convictions and sentences and dismissed his appeal. He has appr....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....awers of the table and decamped with the money lying in the cash box, after pushing P.Ws. 13 and 16 in the office and bolting its door from outside. It is not necessary' for us to mention the details of the information given to the police and the facts leading to the apprehending of the three culprits after getting the clue from the absconding accused Sube Singh. Suffice it to say that the evidence of identification in court against the culprits given by P.W's. 13 and 16 was not found to be of a kind which could by itself form the basis of the conviction of the accused put on trial. One of the two eye witnesses had not identified the appellant at all at any of the identification parades and one of them indentified him tit the 4th or....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....e. The last submission on behalf of the appellant was that sentencing him to undergo rigorous imprisonment for 7 years under section 397 of tit-- Penal Code was illegal and he ought to have been convicted under section 392 simpliciter which would have enabled the court on the facts of this case to pass a lesser sentence of imprisonment. Reliance was placed upon the majority opinion of the full Bench of the High Court of Punjab & Haryana in the case of State v. Chand Singh another(I.L.R. [1970]). The argument was attractive at the first sight but did not stand our careful scrutiny. Section 392 of the Penal Code provides. "Whoever commits robbery shall be punished with rigorous imprisonment for a term which may extend to ten years, and sha....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... or causing of grievous hurt with it was not necessary to bring the offender within the ambit of section 397 of the Penal Code. Section 398 uses the expression "armed with any deadly weapon" and the minimum punishment provided therein is also 7 years if at the time of attempting to commit robbery the offender is armed with any deadly weapon. This has created an anomaly. It is unreasonable to think that if the offender who merely attempted to commit robbery but did not succeed in committing it attracts the minimum punishment of 7 years under section 398 if he is merely armed with any deadly weapon, while an offender so armed will not incur the liability of the minimum punishment under section 397 if he succeeded in committing the robbery. Bu....