Injury Caused To Victim During Commission Of Robbery Is Punishable U/s. 392 & 394 Of IPC And Not Section 307: Delhi High Court

The High Court was considering a criminal appeal filed under Section 377(3) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, preferred by the Appellant, State, against the Judgment by which the Respondent was acquitted for the offence under Section 307 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (IPC).

The Single Bench of Justice Neena Bansal Krishna held, “It had also been observed that the injured may have suffered grievous injury i.e. amputation of his leg, but any injury caused during committing the offence of robbery, is punishable under Section 392 and 394 of the IPC. The same is not sufficient to attract the offence under Section 307 of the IPC.”

Additional Public Prosecutor represented the State while Advocate Raaj Malhotra represented the Respondent.

Factual Background

One Aman was run over by a train, and he suffered amputation of the leg. The injured was taken to the Trauma Centre. The injured person was in severe pain and was not in a fit condition to make any statement. When the ASI went to the residence of the injured at Sonipat, he stated that he was pursuing his studies at Hansraj College, Delhi and one day, when he was returning to his residence by Paschim Vihar Express train, the Respondent, Ashish Kumar, who was travelling in the same coach, suddenly snatched his mobile phone. As he resisted the snatching of the phone, he was allegedly pushed out of the moving train. Resultantly, Aman fell on the railway track, and his leg came under the wheels of the train. The Respondent, however, fled from the spot with his mobile phone.

After completion of the investigation, a charge sheet for the offences under Sections 392 and 394 of the IPC was filed before the Metropolitan Magistrate. After compliance with the statutory requirements, the case was committed to the Court of Session for trial. Thereafter, charges were framed against the Respondent for the offences under Sections 392,394 of the IPC and in the alternative, under Section 307 of the IPC. The respondent was sentenced to Rigorous Imprisonment for a period of 5 years for the offence under Section 394 IPC, but he was acquitted for the offence under Section 307. Aggrieved by the acquittal, the Appellant State filed the appeal before the High Court.

Reasoning

Referring to Section 307 of the IPC, the Bench explained that the most important ingredient is the intent or knowledge to cause the injury, by which act death can be caused. “Under Section 307of the IPC, the offence of attempt to murder is committed, irrespective of the injury caused to the injured, so long as the requisite mens rea, i.e. the intention or knowledge as defined under the said Section, is proved beyond reasonable doubt”, it added.

On a perusal of the facts of the case, the Bench noted that while attempting to commit the robbery, the Respondent had pushed the injured, who fell from the running train. The Bench was of the view that the push was essentially for the purpose of snatching the phone out of the hand of the injured and not with an intent to cause injury, which could lead to his death.

The Bench thus held, “The learned Additional Sessions Judge has rightly observed that the only intention proved on the part of the Respondent, was to illegally take away the mobile phone out of the hand of the injured, and not to murder or kill him.”

Holding that any injury caused during the commission of the offence of robbery is punishable under Sections 392 and 394 of the IPC, the Bench dismissed the appeal.

Cause Title: State v. Ashish Kumar (Neutral Citation: 2026:DHC:5711)

Click here to read/download Order