Short Note : To convict one of crime punishable under section 397, IPC, it has to be established by the prosecution that in the commission of robbery (or dacoity) a deadly weapon was used, or that a grievous hurt was caused or that an attempt to cause death or grievous hurt was made. The prosecution has failed to prove either of these elements. When this Court turns to the evidence of Puranchand (P.W.1) his evidence has not, pointed that the instrument employed by the appellant was knife. Dr. O.P. Dube (P.W.5) again does not help the prosecution. In his opinion the injuries sustained by Puranchand were possible by a hard and blunt object which could not have been a knife or any sharp cutting instrument. Thus, it cannot be concluded that the appellant was armed with a deadly weapon. As to the nature of the injuries in the opinion of Dr. O.P. Dube they were simple. Clearly the intention of the appellant was to effect robbery and not an intention either to cause the death of Puranchand or to cause him grievous hurt. In these circumstances he has not committed the crime punishable under section 397 IPC. To conclude, this Court finds that though the appellant while robbing the complainant of Rs. 1,000 had caused him simple hurts, and had thus committed the crime punishable under section 394 IPC, he has not committed the crime punishable tinder section 397 IPC. Appeal partly allowed.