The Delhi High Court has held that pointing a loaded pistol at a victim’s head to make him hand over his valuables counts as “using” a deadly weapon under Section 397 IPC, even if the pistol is never fired and no one is hurt. So the minimum seven-year sentence applies.
For the purposes of Section 397 IPC, “use” of a deadly weapon does not require firing, stabbing or injury. Holding or showing a pistol openly to threaten the victim and compel him to hand over his property during a robbery is enough. Section 397 only prescribes the minimum sentence of seven years for robbery or dacoity committed with such circumstances, and applies only to the offender who himself uses the weapon, not to a co-accused who did not.
On 22 July 2017 at about 10:40 pm, the complainant, a Karol Bagh businessman, was waiting in his car near Kohat Metro Station in Pitampura when two helmeted men on a motorcycle asked him for directions to D-Block. They then allegedly pointed country-made pistols at his head and took a gold chain, a gold kada and a diamond ring. Aas Mohd @ Ashu and a co-accused were arrested in September 2017 in another case and, the police said, led to the recovery of the pistols and the motorcycle. The complainant identified both in a test identification parade. In 2022, the trial court convicted both under Sections 392/34 (robbery), 397 IPC and Section 27 of the Arms Act, sentencing Aas Mohd to the four years and ten months he had already served for robbery and the Arms Act offence, but to the minimum seven years’ rigorous imprisonment under Section 397. In his appeal, he challenged only the Section 397 conviction. He said that, on the complainant’s own account, he only kept a pistol against the complainant’s head and asked for the kada and ring, while the co-accused snatched the chain, and that no firing or injury was alleged. He relied on the Ajit Singh case and Illustration (b) to Section 390. Justice Madhu Jain disagreed. Relying on the Supreme Court’s Phool Kumar, Ashfaq and the three-judge Ram Ratan rulings, she held that actual firing or stabbing is not needed, and that showing or holding a weapon openly to frighten the victim is enough. She explained that Section 397 is not a separate offence but sets the minimum punishment when robbery is committed with such aggravating circumstances, and each offender is liable only for his own use of the weapon, as the complainant specifically said that this appellant held the pistol to his head. The court noted that Illustration (b) shows only that such conduct is robbery, and that Ajit Singh was a fact-specific decision. The appeal was dismissed.
Citation: Aas Mohd @ Ashu v. State Govt. of NCT of Delhi, CRL.A. 1203/2024, Delhi High Court (Justice Madhu Jain), decided on 15.10.2026 | 2026:DHC:9156
Leave a Reply