Failure in execution and attempt of crime are prime factors

Failure in execution and attempt of crime are prime factors written by Diksha Sharma student of Government Law College, Mumbai

Pappu vs State

Facts:

The complainant while boarding the bus was confronted with robbery when two or three persons forcefully got into the bus and tried snatching the briefcase of the complainant. One of the accused was carrying a sword as a weapon while the other was in possession of a revolver; however, the complainant defended himself by using his briefcase. Later, the culprits fled from the scene but one of them was apprehended by the public. The sword was handed over to the Sub-inspector of the respective region. A case was filed against the appellant namely Pappu for committing a robbery. The trial court convicted the appellant under Section 392, Section 394, and Section 397. Aggrieved by the decision, an appeal was made in the High Court.

Issues:

• Whether the appellant is liable under Section 392, Section 393, and Section397, and if so then, whether he is liable to be convicted under Section 393/398 or Section 393/397?

Legal Provisions:

• Section 392, IPC – Punishment for robbery
• Section 393, IPC – Attempt to commit robbery
• Section 397, IPC – Robbery or dacoity, with an attempt to cause death or grievous hurt
• Section 398, IPC – Attempt to commit robbery or dacoity when armed with a deadly weapon

Appellant’s Contention:

The learned counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant contended there was no evidence to prove if the appellant was the culprit. It was further submitted that none of the prosecution witnesses succeeded in identifying the appellant. Moreover, the appellant along with the co-accused had attempted to rob; therefore he cannot be convicted under punishment for robbery. Taking in purview, Section 397 is not applicable because the appellant did not use the sword, which was in possession of the appellant at the time of the offense.

Respondent’s Contention:

It was submitted by the respondent that one of the prosecution witnesses who were present at the spot of incidence identified the appellant and the other witnesses that were the bus driver, the conductor was not able to identify the appellant due to lapse of time. Another witness identified the sword, which is sufficient to prove the crime committed by the appellant. The counsel relied on the judgment of Sanjay Ravindra N. Gaikwad and Anr. vs. the State of Maharashtra to support the contention that conviction under Section 393 and Section 397 both can be sustained.

Observation of the court:

It was observed by the court that the appellant tried snatching the briefcase from the respondent but he did not succeed in his action but the attempt cannot be denied, thus it would be a case of attempt of robbery. And when the appellant is once convicted under Section 393, he cannot be punished for the offense under Section 392. Since Section 397 is a major offense, the appellant can be convicted under Section 392. In the present scenario, the trial court had erred in convicting the appellant under Section 392 because the accused had failed in committing robbery, therefore the conviction is to be altered to Section 393.

Judgment:

The sentence awarded by the trial court is maintained since the minimum sentence which can be awarded is rigorous imprisonment for 7 years and has been already done.