R. A. MEHTA, J. ( 1 ) THESE two cross-appeals arise from same judgment in sessions Case No. 122 of 1990 of Ahmedabad City Sessions Court. The appeal filed by the State is in respect of the acquittal of the accused for an offence punishable under Sec. 307 of I. P. C. and the appeal filed by the accused is against conviction and sentence for offence under Sec. 397 read with Sec. 324 and 394 of I. P. C. ( 2 ) THE prosecution case is that at about 3 Oclock in the mid-night of 16/12/1989, the accused committed theft and robbery in Railway compartment by stealing a suit-case of one Kanchanben when her husband sohanlal caught the accused who was carrying the stolen suit-case in the said Railway compartment, the accused put down the suit-case and gave knife blows to Sohanlal in the abdomen and near left eye. His wife and his brother (complainant) were there and members of the public had also gathered and the accused was caught there and then red-handed with the blood-stained knife. After the trial, the learned City Sessions Judge came to the conclusion that the facts of the prosecution case were proved, but having regard to the nature of injury, offence of Sec. 307 was not proved and according to the learned trial Judge, the injury was of simple hurt and therefore, offence was punishable under Sec. 324. ( 3 ) THE State has, therefore, preferred Criminal Appeal No. 810 of 1990 against the acquittal for offence under Sec. 307 and it is submitted by the learned addl. Public Prosecutor that the learned trial Judge has committed error in observing that the injury caused in the abdomen was a simple injury punishable under Sec. 324, whereas the medical evidence was to the effect that the injury was of a grievous character and if the operation was not performed at the proper time, the victim would have died. He had to remain in the hospital for 10 days. Emergency operation was performed to prevent loss of blood and further complication to the internal parts of the body. He had to remain in the hospital for 10 days. Emergency operation was performed to prevent loss of blood and further complication to the internal parts of the body. Having regard to the medical evidence, it is clear that the offence would not be a minor offence punishable under Sec. 324, but it is certainly a grievous hurt caused by the accused and would be an offence under Sec. 326 or having to the nature of the injury on the vital part of the body where the injury was inflicted, it could be an offence punishable under Sec. 307 or 308 as it is an attempt to commit murder or culpable homicide. However, even in that case punishment of imprisonment would have run concurrently with the other sentence of imprisonment. In the present case, the sentence of 7 years imprisonment has been imposed. If that conviction and sentence is maintained, the appeal of the State need not be entertained for academic purpose. ( 4 ) AS far as the appeal of the accused is concerned, the facts are very clearly established because the accused has been caught on the spot red-handed. The victim Sohanlal had caught him while the accused was running away with the stolen bag in the Railway compartment. When Sohanlal caught him the accused put down the bag and gave knife blows to Sohanlal and accused was caught there with the blood-stained knife. ( 5 ) THE learned Counsel for the petitioner submitted that there is no panchnama of the suit-case and the panchnama of the scene of the offence also does not mention the suit-case and therefore, there is no evidence about the theft of the suit-case. However, that fact of the suit-case having been stolen is established by the evidence of Sohanlal and his wife and brother. Immediately the accused is caught, the accused had put down the bag and given knife blows. He was caught red-handed with blood-stained knife in his hand and thereafter the victim was taken to the hospital and the panchnama of the scene of the offence was made, which panchnama shows that panchnama is made with respect to the offence of stabbing by knife. He was caught red-handed with blood-stained knife in his hand and thereafter the victim was taken to the hospital and the panchnama of the scene of the offence was made, which panchnama shows that panchnama is made with respect to the offence of stabbing by knife. By that time the suit-case which was stolen by the accused would not have been kept at the place of the incident, when the victim was taken to the hospital and his wife and brother had followed, they would have taken the suit-case, but it cannot be said that there was no theft as the suit-case was not there when the panchnama was made. There was no such suggestion to the witnesses. ( 6 ) THE learned Counsel for the petitioner also submitted in any case this would not be an offence under Sec. 397 because the accused cannot be said to have used any deadly weapon and caused any hurt to any person at the time of committing robbery and it is submitted that if at all the weapon was used and hurt was caused, it was while trying to make good the escape and that too after the suit-case was put down by the accused and booty was no longer in his hands. Robbery is defined in Sec. 390 as follows :"390. In all robbery there is either theft or extortion. When theft is robbery :- Theft is "robbery" if, in order to the committing of the theft, or in committing the theft, or in carrying away or attempting to carry away property obtained by the theft, the offender, for that end, voluntarily causes or attempts to cause to any person death or hurt or wrongful restraint, or fear of instant death or of instant hurt, or of instant wrongful restraint. "thus, theft could be robbery if the offender voluntarily causes any hurt for the purpose of or in order to the committing of the theft or in committing the theft or in carrying away or attempting to carry away the property obtained by the accused. Therefore, robbery is committed not only while committing the theft but also while carrying away or attempting to carry away the property obtained by that, and the weapon is used and hurt is caused. Therefore, robbery is committed not only while committing the theft but also while carrying away or attempting to carry away the property obtained by that, and the weapon is used and hurt is caused. In the present case the accused was caught while he was carrying away and attempting to carry away the stolen suit-case and while he was caught, he had put down the suitcase and wielded the knife and used the knife and caused the injury. It cannot be said that he had given up the suit-case or given up the control of the suitcase and that while he was attempting to make good his escape, the weapon was used. The weapon was used while carrying away or attempting to carry away the stolen suit-case and therefore, it is an offence of robbery as defined in Sec. 390 and punishable under Sec. 397 of I. P. C. ( 7 ) THE learned Counsel for the appellant has placed reliance on the judgment of Madras High Court in the case of In re : Thavasi and Anr. , 1972 0 Crlj 445 . In that case, it was held that an offence under Sec. 397 cannot be said to have been committed if the accused persons did not use deadly weapon at the time of committing the robbery, eventhough they inflict injury by deadly weapons to the persons only when the accused are about to be apprehended by an overwhelming crowd. In that case, there was an attempt to snatch the chain was not actually snatched or stolen. Therefore, there was no question of using the weapon while committing theft or while carrying or attempting to carry away the stolen article. They had used the weapon when they were about to be apprehended by a crowd of people. The Madras High court observed that at the time of committing robbery when the chain was snatched, there was no user of any deadly weapon by the accused and therefore, Sec. 397 was not attracted. As against that in the present case, there was actual theft of the suit-case, which was being carried away and at that time this incident of using the deadly weapon and causing the hurt took place. ( 8 ) THE learned Counsel for the appellant also relied on the case of Titir dusadh v. State of Bihar, reported in AIR 1966 Pat 453 . ( 8 ) THE learned Counsel for the appellant also relied on the case of Titir dusadh v. State of Bihar, reported in AIR 1966 Pat 453 . In that case, it was held that if theft is already committed and violence is used to help an offender to escape, theft is not robbery. In that case, there were two accused, one had committed the theft but he had not used any weapon at all and the other accused had used the weapon but had not committed the theft and he had used the weapon to make good the escape and therefore, it was held that Sec. 397 was not attracted. ( 9 ) IN the present case, the entire incident has taken place in a fraction of minute. The suit-case is stolen, immediately it is noticed and the accused is caught hold of and the accused had put put down the bag and wielded the knife and given the knife blows. The entire transaction is one integrated and took place within fraction of a minute and the accused had used the deadly weapon and caused the grievous injuries while carrying away and attempting to carry away the stolen article. Therefore, the offence under Sec. 397 is established for which the minimum punishment is 7 years imprisonment and since that has been imposed, no exception could be taken to such sentence. ( 10 ) IN the result, the Appeal No. 625 of 1990 fails and is dismissed. In view of the fact that the appeal of the accused is dismissed and the conviction and sentence of 7 years imprisonment is also confirmed, we do not think that any useful purpose will be served by admitting the appeal of the State, because even if such appeal succeeds, the imprisonment for a period of seven years would meet with the ends of justice and hence, the State Appeal being No. 810 of 1990 is also dismissed. .