This article has been written by Tanya Gupta, a student pursuing BA LLB from Ideal Institute of Management and Technology and School of Law, affiliated to Guru Gobind Singh Indraprastha University, Delhi. This article focuses on the offences against the property: theft, extortion, robbery and dacoity and its essentials.

INTRODUCTION

Is all offences need actus rea along with men rea?

No, there are some offences, where men rea is not required and actus rea is enough to constitute an offence, the offender is under strict liability. But there are some offences where both men rea and actus rea are required to constitute an offence. In these cases, the offender is under absolute liability.

Offences against the property deals Chapter- XVII, under Indian Penal Code,1860 includes theft, extortion, robbery and dacoity and in this, the offender is under absolute liability.

Theft, meaning discussed under section 378
Extortion, meaning discussed under section 383
Robbery, meaning discussed under section 390
Dacoity, meaning discussed under section 391

Theft

Is if an offender moves any movable property out of the possession of any person, this constitute theft?

No, as we all know that to constitute theft an offender attracts absolute liability and there must be presence of both men rea and actus rea.

So, let’s discuss that what men rea and actus rea is required to proof theft.

The Latin meaning of men rea is “guilty mind”. It refers to a blameworthy mental condition or mind at fault, cover wide range of mental states, existence of which would give a criminal hue to actus rea. However, the requisite guilty state of mind varies from crime to crime.

For instance, in case of murder it is intent to cause death whereas in case of theft, there is a dishonest intention to steal. There must be a presence of dishonest intention to constitute theft. If an offender does any act in good faith, then it will not amount to theft. The men rea plays an important role while proving any offence with actus rea.

Section 24 of IPC, 1860 states whoever does anything with the intention of causing wrongful gain to one person or wrongful loss to another person, is said to do that thing ‘dishonestly’.

Section 23, IPC,1860 talks about wrongful gain and wrongful loss.

Wrongful Gain– ‘Wrongful gain’ is gain by unlawful means of property to which the person gaining is not legally entitled.

Wrongful Loss– ‘Wrongful loss’ is the loss by unlawful means of property losing it is legally entitled.

When dishonest intention is totally absent, there is no theft. If the accused acting bona fide, then it will not amount to theft.

The intention to take dishonestly must exist at the time of the moving of the property, lets discuss with an illustration-

A sees a ring belonging to Z lying on a table in Z’s house. Not venturing to misappropriate the ring immediately for fear of search and detection, A hides the ring in a place where it is highly improbable that it will ever be found by Z, with the intention of taking the ring from the hiding place and selling it when the loss is forgotten. Here A, at the time of first moving the ring, commits theft.
Spade sees a ring lying on the floor belonging to Heart in Heart’s house, and if spade take a ring in good faith in order to return Heart’s ring to him. Then, it will not amount to theft.

Actus rea is based on the maxim “actus non facit reum, nisi mens sit rea” means “an act does not make one guilty unless the mind is also blameworthy with it.” To attract criminal liability both men rea and actus rea is required. It refers as a result of human conduct as the law seeks to prevent it. In theft, the actus rea is the offender must move the movable property, in order to such taking of the property.

As discussed in the above illustration 1, A takes the ring with the intention of taking the ring, as he moves the movable property i.e. ring in the said case, commits theft whereas, in illustration 2, Spade takes Heart’s ring in good faith in order to returning the Heart’s ring to him, thus Spade does not commits theft, in this case.

Let’s discuss the meaning of theft:

The meaning of theft stated under section 378, Indian Penal Code, 1860.

378. Theft–

“Whoever, intending to take dishonestly any moveable property out of the possession of any person without that person’s consent, moves that property in order to such taking, is said to commit theft.”

Explanation 1-A thing so long as it is attached to the earth, not being movable property, is not the subject of theft; but it becomes capable of being the subject of theft as soon as it is severed from the earth.

Explanation 2-A moving effected by the same act which affects the severance may be a theft.

Explanation 3-A person is said to cause a thing to move by removing an obstacle which prevented it from moving or by separating it from any other thing, as well as by actually moving it.

Explanation 4-A person, who by any means causes an animal to move, is said to move that animal, and to move everything which, in consequence of the motion so caused, is moved by that animal.

Explanation 5-The consent mentioned in the definition may be express or implied, and may be given either by the person in possession, or by any person having for that purpose authority either express or implied.

Essentials: To Prove Theft

There must be dishonest intention
There must be movable property
There must out of the possession of any person
Without the person’s consent
Moves that property in order to such taking

1. Movable Property

To constitute theft, there must be movable property as immovable property is not the subject matter of theft. A thing so long as it is attached to the earth, not being movable property, is not the subject of theft; but it becomes capable of being the subject of theft as soon as it is severed from the earth.

Section 22, Indian Penal Code, 1860 deals with the meaning movable property.

The words “movable property’’ are intended to include corporeal property of every description, except land and things attached to the earth or permanently fastened to anything which is attached to the earth.

Let’s discuss with an example,

A cut down a tree on Z’s ground, with the intention of dishonestly taking the tree out of Z’s possession without Z’s consent. Here, as soon as A has severed the tree in order to such taking, he has committed theft.

As soon the thing cut or being detached from the earth it become a subject matt of theft.

Things which can become a subject matter of theft:

Animals
Fish in running water cannot be a subject matter of theft
Electricity: In Avtar Singh v. State of Punjab,1965 held that electricity cannot be the subject matter of theft.
Water: water running made freely from the river through a channel made and maintained by a person is not a subject of theft.

2. POSSESSION

the word possession is not defined in the IPC, though its nature in one aspect is indicated in section 27, Indian Penal Code, 1860 where in it is said that:

“When property is in the position of a person wife, clerk or servant on account of that person, it is in that person’s possession within the meaning of this code.”

Salmond describes possession, in fact, ”as a relationship between a person and a thing… the test for determining whether a person is in possession of anything is whether he is general control of it.’’

3. WITHOUT CONSENT

The taking must be without the consent of the person in possession.

Explanation 5 of section 378 explain that” consent maybe express or implied, may be given either by the person in possession or by any person having for that authority either express or implied.”

Let’s discuss with an illustration A, being on friendly terms with Z, goes into Z library in Z absence, and takes away a book without Z express consent for the purpose merely of reading it, and with the intention of returning it.

Here, it is probable that A may have conceived that he had Z implied consent to use Z book. The intention of A is clear in this case that he takes the book for reading and with an intention of returning it. Thus, A has not committed theft.

Let us now proceed to analyze the offence of theft as defined in the IPC 1860. The essential ingredients of the offence of theft as embedded in section 378, IPC is well explained by the Supreme Court in a leading decision in KN Mehra vs State of Rajasthan, AIR 1957

The court analyzed the offence of theft under section 378 thus commission of theft consist in (1) moving of a movable property of a person out of his possession without his consent;(2) the moving being in order to taking of the property with the dishonest intention.

Thus: (1) the absence of person’s consent at the time of moving; and the presence of dishonest intention in so taking and at the time are the essential ingredients of the offence of theft.

Punishment: Theft

Section 379, IPC ,1860 prescribes punishment for the offence of theft.

It states that,” whoever commits theft shall be punished with simple or rigorous imprisonment for a term extending up to three years, or with fine, or with both.’’

This section clearly indicates the punishment for an offender who constitute theft and the person who commits theft punished with the simple or rigorous imprisonment for maximum three years, or with fine, or with both.

Aggravated Forms: Theft

The meaning of theft is stated under section 378, IPC, 1860. But there are also some aggravated forms of theft which are stated from section 380 to section 382, Indian Penal Code, 1860.

Let’s discuss each aggravated form in detail:

Section 380, Indian Penal Code, 1860 deals with theft in dwelling house

380. Theft in dwelling house, etc.-

“Whoever commits theft in any building, tent or vessel, which building, tent or vessel is used as a human dwelling, or used for the custody of property, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to seven years, and shall also be liable to fine.”

For attracting section 380 it is necessary to prove that theft was committed in a ”building”,” tent” or” vessel” used as a” human dwelling” or for ”custody of property”.

Human dwelling refers to a place where person lives whether permanently or temporarily.

A building, vessel, tent used for storing the article means it is used for custody of property.

Section 380 makes it more heinous to steal when the property is kept in a building, tent, or vessel used as a human dwelling or the custody of the property. It aims at affording greater security to property deposited in a house, etc. or kept in the abode of the owner.

If any offender commits theft in any building, tent or vessel, then he shall be punished for maximum seven years and also liable for fine.

Section 381, Indian Penal Code, 1860 deals with the theft by clerk or servant of property in possession of master

381. Theft by clerk or servant of property in possession of master-

“Whoever, being a clerk or servant, or being employed in the capacity of a clerk or servant, commits theft in respect of any property in the possession of his master or employer, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to seven years, and shall also be liable to fine.”

In order to bring section 381 in play it is necessary for the prosecution to prove not only all the essential elements of the theft as defined under section 378 but also to prove that the accused was a clerk or a servant for employed in the capacity of a clerk or a servant and he has removed the movable property out of the possession of his master for employer.

Clerk means a person who does a white -collar job. A servant is one who is employed to render personal service to his employer, otherwise than in the pursuit of an independent calling, and who in such service remains entirely under the control and direction of latter, who is called his master. This section is also considered as heinous because there is a fiduciary relationship between his master and servant or clerk.

If an offender, who is being as clerk or servant, or being employed in the capacity of the same commit theft shall be punished for maximum seven years and also liable for fine.

Section 382, Indian Penal Code, 1860 deals with the theft after preparation made for causing death, hurt or restrain in order to commit theft

382. Theft after preparation made for causing death, hurt or restraint in order to the committing of the theft-

“Whoever commits theft, having made preparation for causing death, or hurt, or restraint, or fear of death, or of hurt, or of restraint, to any person, in order to the committing of such theft, or in order to the effecting of his escape after the committing of such theft, or in order to the retaining of property taken by such theft, shall be punished with rigorous imprisonment for a term which may extend to ten years, and shall also be liable to fine.”

As we know that there are four stages of crime i.e. Motive, Intention, Preparation and Attempt.

There are almost all the offences made punishable after the stage of attempt. But there are some offences which are made punishable even at the stage of preparation.

Section 382 deals with a case where the thief has made preparation for causing(1) death or (2)hurt or(3) restraint to any person in order to ensure (a) the commission of theft, or(b) his escape after committing the theft, or (c) retention of the stolen property

The offender shall be punished with rigorous imprisonment for the maximum ten years and also liable for fine. This section made the offender liable for the punishment even at the stage of preparation.

Let’s discuss this section with an illustration:

A commits theft on property in Z’s possession; and, while committing this theft, he has a loaded pistol under his garment, having provided this pistol for the purpose of hurting Z in case Z should resist. A has committed the offence defined in this section.
A picks Z’s pocket, having posted several of his companions near him, in order that they may restrain Z, if Z should perceive what is passing and should resist, or should attempt to apprehend A. A has committed the offence defined in this section.

Extortion

Firstly, discuss the difference between theft and extortion. Both are enshrined under Chapter XVII, offences against the property. The offender, who commits extortion is under absolute liability, there must be existence of both men rea and actus rea to attract criminal liability.

When the offender commits theft, then he himself removes the property i.e. movable property of other person without his consent whereas, when the offender commits extortion, the offender intentionally puts any person in fear of injury, thereby dishonestly induces to deliver the property or valuable security.

Let’s discuss the meaning of extortion:

Section 383, Indian Penal Code, 1860 deals with the definition of extortion

383. Extortion-

“Whoever intentionally puts any person in fear of any injury to that person, or to any other, and thereby dishonestly induces the person so put in fear to deliver to any person any property or valuable security, or anything signed or sealed which may be converted into a valuable security, commits extortion.”

As we all know that to constitute extortion and attracts criminal liability, the men rea and actus rea is very essential.

So, let’s discuss that what men rea and actus rea is required to proof extortion.

Men Rea play a very essential role to constitute any offence. So, the mens rea required to constitute extortion is dishonest intention and dishonest inducement. If there is no dishonest intention and dishonest inducement, then it will not amount to extortion.

Intentionally means the person intended to cause it. Section 39, IPC, 1860 provides the definition of voluntarily. “a person is said to an effect voluntarily when he causes it by means whereby, he intended to cause it, or by means which at the time of employing those means, he knew or had a reason to believe to be likely to cause it”.

The act must induce someone to do ascertain thing. The inducement must be done dishonestly. Section 24, IPC, 1860 deals with the meaning of dishonestly. “as whoever does anything with the intention of causing wrongful gain to another person, or wrongful loss to another person, irrespective of whether the act causes actual wrongful loss or gain, is said to do that thing dishonestly.

Thus, when an accused in good faith believes that the victim has taken his money, then an attempt to take back is not an intention to cause wrongful loss to the accused.

Actus rea also an important requisite to constitute any offence. So, the actus rea required to constitute extortion is there must be fear of injury so that the person who puts in fear of injury, himself deliver any property or any valuable security or anything which is signed or sealed or which is converted into valuable security.

There must be fear of injury present to constitute the extortion. Section 44, IPC, 1860 deals with the meaning of injury, “as any harm whatever illegally caused to any in mind, body, reputation or property.” So, it is clear that the injury may also include other types of injury such as injury to the mind, body, reputation and damage or loss of property. Thus, the prosecutor must prove that the victim was put in fear of injury and that fear must exist in the victim’s mind at the time he surrenders the property or valuable property. Words that express intention of causing harm or injury to another person may also amount to threat.

There must be delivery of property or any valuable security to any person means, it is not necessary that the person who extorts receives the extorted property. The essential to constitute actus rea is there must be actual delivery of ownership of property by the person who is being put in fear. For instance, Pink extorts Yellow, and Red to receive the extorted goods from Yellow. This is possible because it has been mutually agreed to by Pink and Red. Hence, both Pink and Red are guilty of extorting Yellow.

In addition to movable property, which is the subject matter of theft, extortion also covers ”valuable security” which is defined under Section 30, IPC denote “a document which is, or purports to be, a document there by any legal right is created, extended, transferred, restricted, extinguished or released, or whereby any person acknowledges that he lies under legal liability, or has not a certain legal right.”

Let’s discuss with an illustration:

A threatens to publish a defamatory libel concerning Z unless Z gives him money. He thus induces Z to give him money. A has committed extortion.
A threatens Z that he will keep Z’s child in wrongful confinement, unless Z will sign and deliver to A a promissory note binding Z to pay certain monies to A. Z signs and delivers the note. A has committed extortion.

Essentials: To Prove Extortion

intentionally putting a person in fear of injury
the purpose of which is to dishonestly induce the person put in fear
to deliver property or valuable security

384. Punishment for extortion-

“Whoever commits extortion shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to three years, or with fine, or with both.”

The offender who commits extortion shall be punished for maximum three years imprisonment, or with fine, or with both.

385. Putting person in fear of injury in order to commit extortion-

“Whoever, in order to the committing of extortion, puts any person in fear, or attempts to put any person in fear, of any injury, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to two years, or with fine, or with both.”

As we all know that there are 4 elements required to commit offence: Human Being, men rea, actus rea and injury and if any human being fulfills all these essentials, he shall be liable for punishment.

As in above stated section, Human being is ‘whoever’ refers to any person. The men rea of that person with the dishonest intention and dishonest inducement. Actus rea is to put any person in fear or attempt for the same, of injury. Then the person who in order to commit extortion having the same men rea and actus rea punished for maximum 2 years or with fine or with both.

Aggravated Forms: Extortion

Section 386, IPC deals with extortion by putting a person in fear of death or grievous hurt

386. Extortion by putting a person in fear of death or grievous hurt-

“Whoever commits extortion by putting any person in fear of death or of grievous hurt to that person or to any other, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to ten years, and shall also be liable to fine.”

The essentials to be needed for proving this section:

The offender must commit extortion
He must commit it by putting person under fear of death and grievous hurt under section 320, IPC.
The offender who committed extortion punished under this section.

Section 387, IPC deals with putting person in fear of death or of grievous hurt, in order to commit extortion

387. Putting person in fear of death or of grievous hurt, in order to commit extortion-

“Whoever, in order to the committing of extortion, puts or attempts to put any person in fear of death or of grievous hurt to that person or to any other, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to seven years, and shall also be liable to fine.”

Section 320, IPC deals with the meaning of Grievous Hurt, stated as the following kinds of hurt designated as grievous: emasculation, permanent privation of the sight of either eye or hearing of the either ear, privation of any member or joint, destruction or permanent impairing of the power of any member or joint, permanent disfiguration of head or face, fracture or dislocation of a bone or tooth, any hurt long for 21 days in sever bodily pain.

The difference between section 386 and 387 that under former there must be fear of death or grevious hurt caused and in latter the offender attempt to put a person in fear of death or grevious hurt in order to commit extortion.

Ramjee Singh v State of Bihar, 1987

The Patna HC, laid down the ingredient of the offence thus:

In order to constitute an offence of extortion, there ought to be some visible overt act which may reflect the natural or normal inference that the wrongdoer had, in fact, put a person in fear of death or grievous hurt. On the absence of any overt act leading toward the act of extortion and thus putting any person in fear of death or grievous hurt, there could not be said to be an offence committed for extortion by threat.

Section 388, IPC deals with extortion by threat of accusation of an offence

388.Extortion by threat of accusation of an offence punishable with death or imprisonment for life etc.-

“Whoever commits extortion by putting any person in fear of an accusation against that person or any other, of having committed or attempted to commit any offence punishable with death, or with imprisonment for life, or with imprisonment for a term which may extend to ten years or of having attempted to induce any other person to commit such offence, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to ten years, and shall also be liable to fine; and, if the offence be one punishable under section 377 of this Code, may be punished with imprisonment for life.”

Section 389 in The Indian Penal Code

389. Putting person in fear of accusation of offence, in order to commit extortion-

“Whoever, in order to the committing of extortion, puts or attempts to put any person in fear of an accusation, against that person or any other, of having committed, or attempted to commit an offence punishable with death or with imprisonment for life, or with imprisonment for a term which may extend to ten years, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to ten years, and shall also be liable to fine; and, if the offence be punishable under section 377 of this Code, may be punished with imprisonment for life.”

In section 388 the offender put a person and actual commission of extortion by putting the person in fear of an accusation whereas in section 389, the offender put or attempts to put a person in fear of an extortion while committing extortion.

Case Law

Purshottam Jethanand v State of Kutch, AIR 1954

FACTS: The accused was a police jamadar working in the local investigation branch of the State of Kutch. He had visited a particular taluk, and checked passports of a number of persons who had returned from Africa. In the course of the check, he collected the passport of one Anand Ratna in a village and demanded a sum of 800 rupees for its return. Accordingly, the said person paid the amount and took back the passport. The accused was convicted under section 384, IPC.

CONTENTION: It was contended before the Supreme Court that there was no fear of injury that was held out by the accused to support a conviction for extortion under section 384, IPC.

HELD: The Supreme Court held that from the evidence, it was found that the accused in the course of his check of the passports had suspicion that some of the passports were not genuine. There was implied threat for prosecution in respect of the same and withholding of the passport on that threat.

Robbery

Is robbery an independent crime?

No, robbery is an aggravated form of either theft or extortion. It is not an independent offence in robbery there must be either theft or extortion. If there is no theft or extortion, then it will not constitute as robbery. Theft or extortion or attempt to commit anyone of the two is an inevitable ingredient for robbery.

Now, let’s discuss that what essentials are needed so that theft or extortion become robbery:

Section 390, Indian Penal Code, 1860 deals with the meaning of robbery

390. Robbery-

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.

When extortion is robbery-Extortion is “robbery” if the offender, at the time of committing the extortion, is in the presence of the person put in fear, and commits the extortion by putting that person in fear of instant death, of instant hurt, or of instant wrongful restraint to that person or to some other person, and, by so putting in fear, induces the person so put in fear then and there to deliver up the thing extorted.

Explanation-The offender is said to be present if he is sufficiently near to put the other person in fear of instant death, of instant hurt, or of instant wrongful restraint.

Now, the again question arises that does the offender who commits robbery is under strict liability or an absolute liability?

The offender who commits robbery is under absolute liability and for the same, both men rea and actus rea is required. Now, discuss that what is the men rea and actus rea needed to prove robbery.

Men rea is the dishonest intention or dishonest inducement, voluntarily causes or attempt to cause death, hurt or wrongful restrain or fear of either of them. Men rea plays a very important role to constitute any offence along with the actus rea. If there is an absence of dishonest intention or voluntarily causing death, hurt or wrongful restrain or fear of either of them, then it does not constitute an offence of robbery.

Actus rea is in order to commit theft, in carrying away or attempting to carrying away the stolen property or there must be fear of instant death or instant hurt or instant wrongful restraint so that the person who puts in fear of injury, himself deliver any property or any valuable security or anything which is signed or sealed or which is converted into a valuable security.

Section 319, IPC deals with the meaning of hurt as stated Whoever causes bodily pain, disease or infirmity to any person is said to cause hurt. The pain must include physical pain, not mental pain. The disease must include communicable disease and infirmity refers to a condition in which body part not able to perform its proper work.

Section 339, IPC deals with the meaning of wrongful restrain as whoever voluntarily obstructs any person so as to prevent him from proceeding in any direction in which that person has a right to proceed.

Essentials: To Prove Robbery

There must be a committing of theft, in order to commit, or in carrying away or attempting to carry away the property obtained by the theft
While doing above stated act the offender must be voluntarily causing or attempting to cause death, hurt or wrongful restrain or fear thereof.
There must be the presence of an offender while committing extortion.
The offender while doing extortion put the person or some other person related to him, in fear of instant death, or of instant hurt or of instant wrongful restrain.
The person extorted deliver the property in fear thereof.

Let’s understand this concept with the help of an illustration:

A holds Z down and fraudulently takes Z’s money and jewels from Z’s clothes without Z’s consent. Here A has committed theft, and in order to the committing of that theft, has voluntarily caused wrongful restraint to Z. A has therefore committed robbery.

In this example, A fulfills all the essentials of theft stated in section 378, IPC the men rea of an offender is fraudulent and actus rea is takes money and jewels from Z, this is theft. But as A, in order to commit the theft voluntarily caused wrongful restrain, defined under section 339, IPC. Therefore, A has committed the robbery.

A meets Z on the high roads, shows a pistol, and demands Z’s purse. Z, in consequence, surrenders his purse. Here A has extorted the purse from Z by putting him in fear of instant hurt and being at the time of committing the extortion in his presence. A has therefore committed the robbery.

In this, A fulfils the essentials of extortion stated under section 383, IPC as A puts Z in fear of injury, mens rea is the dishonest intention and actus rea is extorted Z, this is extortion. But A is present at the time of committing extortion and put Z in fear of instant hurt, therefore A has committed robbery.

A obtains property from Z by saying, “Your child is in the hands of my gang, and will be put to death unless you send us ten thousand rupees”. This is extortion, and punishable as such; but it is not robbery unless Z is put in fear of the instant death of his child.

Harish Chandra v State of UP, AIR 1976

FACTS: The victim boarded the train at Chakarpur railway station. The accused and co-accused along with some other persons entered the same compartment. When the train reached Tanakpur railway station at about 9:30 p.m., some of the passengers started getting down from the compartment and there was a great rush. At that time, the accused forcibly to away the wristwatch of the victim and when he raised an alarm. The co-accused slapped him and his other companion hit him with a stick. Both the accused jumped out of the compartment. The victim followed him and found a constable on the platform. He informed him about the incident. The victim identified both the accused. On being questioned, the accused took out the wrist watch from the heap of ash lying behind the tea stall.

HELD: The Supreme Court stated that the accused slapped the victim to enable the accused to carry away the stolen property. Under the circumstances it would clearly fall within the provision of section 390, IPC.

Punishment: Robbery

Section 392, IPC deals with punishment for robbery

392. Punishment for robbery-

“Whoever commits robbery shall be punished with rigorous imprisonment for a term which may extend to ten years, and shall also be liable to fine; and, if the robbery is committed on the highway between sunset and sunrise, the imprisonment may be extended to fourteen years.”

In this, the offender accomplished its offence. This section provides punishment in two situations. If the offender commits robbery punished for a maximum 10 years and fine but if the robbery is committed on the highway between sunset and sunrise, then the offender shall be punished for maximum 14 years imprisonment and fine.

Punishment: Being a Member of Gang of Robbers

Section 401, IPC deals with punishment for belonging to gangs of thieves

401. Punishment for belonging to gang of thieves-

“Whoever, at any time after the passing of this Act, shall belong to any wandering or other gang of persons associated for the purpose of habitually committing theft or robbery, and not being a gang of thugs or dacoits, shall be punished with rigorous imprisonment for a term which may extend to seven years, and shall also be liable to fine.”

Section 401, IPC makes the fact of mere belonging to a gang of robbers and also provide the punishment for the same.

Attempt to Commit Robbery

Section 393, IPC deals with attempt to commit robbery and its punishment

393. Attempt to commit robbery-

Whoever attempts to commit robbery shall be punished with rigorous imprisonment for a term which may extend to seven years, and shall also be liable to fine.

As we all know that there are 4 stages of crime: motive, intention, preparation, attempt. Attempt refers to stage at which the offender not able to accomplished its offence due to some circumstances. As same in above stated section, if an offender attempt to commit robbery but due to some circumstance not able to able to accomplished its robbery, then he punished for the same. offender must attempt to commit robbery section 393 punishes for the same.

Aggravated Form: Robbery

Section 394, IPC deals with voluntarily causing hurt in committing robbery

394. Voluntarily causing hurt in committing robbery-

“If any person, in committing or in attempting to commit robbery, voluntarily causes hurt, such person, and any other person jointly concerned in committing or attempting to commit such robbery, shall be punished with imprisonment for life, or with rigorous imprisonment for a term which may extend to ten years, and shall also be liable to fine.”

This section is applicable to cases where the offender has actually caused hurt to the victim for the purpose of committing robbery or in attempt to commit robbery and provide the punishment for the same.

Hurt defines under section 319, IPC as whoever causes bodily pain, disease or infirmity to another person.

Dacoity

Is dacoity an independent offence?

No, dacoity is an aggravated form of robbery. To constitute dacoity, it is necessary to commit robbery. Firstly, there must be a commission of robbery. Let’s discuss that what essentials are needed to constitute dacoity:

As we all know that men rea and actus rea both are essential to constitute dacoity.

Men rea of an offender must commits dacoity with dishonest intention. If there is an absence of dishonest intention, it will not result into dacoity. So, it is very clear that if an offender des an act in good faith, it will not constitute dacoity, there must be presence of dishonest intention.

Actus rea of an offender who commits dacoity, the offenders conjointly committing or attempting to commit robbery with the dishonest intention.

Let’s discuss the meaning of dacoity:

Section 391, Indian Penal Code, 1860 deals with the meaning of dacoity

391. Dacoity-

“When five or more persons conjointly commit or attempt to commit a robbery, or where the whole number of persons conjointly committing or attempting to commit a robbery, and persons present and aiding such commission or attempt, amount to five or more, every person so committing, attempting or aiding, is said to commit dacoity.”

As we all know that there are 4 elements of crime: human being, men rea, actus rea and injury. If any person fulfills all these 4 elements shall be punished for the same.

The human being is 5 or more person it is different from robbery as it is committed by even single person also whereas while committing dacoity there must be 5 or more person.

Section 34, IPC states that act done by several persons in furtherance of common intention.

When a criminal act is done by several persons in furtherance of the common intention of all, each of such persons is liable for that act in the same manner as if it were done by him alone.

Men rea is dishonest intention and actus rea is conjointly commit or attempt to commit robbery.

Essentials: To Robbery

There must be 5 or more than 5 persons to act in association
Such act must be robbery or attempt to commit robbery
the 5 persons must consist of those who themselves commit or attempt to commit robbery

Punishment: Dacoity

Section 395, IPC deals with punishment for dacoity

395. Punishment for dacoity-

“Whoever commits dacoity shall be punished with imprisonment for life, or with rigorous imprisonment for a term which may extend to ten years, and shall also be liable to fine.”

Saktu v State of UP, AIR 1973

Apart from the named 7 or 8 persons, there were 5 or 6 others who had allegedly taken part in the commission of the dacoity. It was not disputed that in all, more than 13 or 14 members had taken part in the robbery. A large number of persons were acquitted because their identity would not be established. However, there was evidence that there were more than five person who committed robbery in the house. So, the accused were convicted under section 391 and 395 was sustained.

Aggravated Forms: Dacoity

Section 396, IPC deals with dacoity with murder and punishment for the same

396. Dacoity with murder-

“If any one of five or more persons, who are conjointly committing dacoity, commits murder in so committing dacoity, every one of those persons shall be punished with death, or imprisonment for life, or rigorous imprisonment for a term which may extend to ten years, and shall also be liable to fine.”

Section396, IPC provide for an aggravated form of dacoity as it deals with the situation where the offender commits murder in the course of committing dacoity. As section 391, IPC stated the meaning of dacoity but if during the course of committing such dacoity, any of the five or more persons commit murder, then each one of them will be made liable for murder, even if the individual did not participate in committing the murder and section 396 provides the punishment for the same.

Section 397, IPC deals with robbery, or dacoity, with attempt to cause death or grievous hurt

397. Robbery, or dacoity, with attempt to cause death or grievous hurt-

“If, at the time of committing robbery or dacoity, the offender uses any deadly weapon, or causes grievous hurt to any person, or attempts to cause death or grievous hurt to any person, the imprisonment with which such offender shall be punished shall not be less than seven years.”

Section 398, IPC deals with attempt to commit robbery or dacoity armed with deadly weapon

398. Attempt to commit robbery or dacoity when armed with deadly weapon-

“If at the time of attempting to commit robbery or dacoity, the offender is armed with any deadly weapon, the imprisonment with which such offender shall be punished shall not be less than seven years.”

Section 397, IPC states that at the time of committing robbery or dacoity, the offender uses any deadly weapon or causes grievous hurt or attempt to cause death or grievous hurt and it provides the punishment for the same.

Section 398, IPC states that if at the time of committing robbery or dacoity, the offender armed with the any deadly weapons and it provides the punishment for the same.

Section 399, IPC deals with making preparation to commit dacoity

399. Making preparation to commit dacoity-

“Whoever makes, any preparation for committing dacoity, shall be punished with rigorous imprisonment for a term which may extend to ten years, and shall also be liable to fine.”

As we all know that there are 4 stages of crime: motive, intention, preparation and attempt. In most the offences preparation also made punishable the same as happened in this section.

Preparation means arranging the means or measures necessary to constitute the offence. Ordinarily, stage of preparation does not consist as an offence per se punishable but Dacoity under section 399, IPC made punishable a preparation to commit dacoity.

Section 400, IPC deals with punishment for belonging to gang of dacoits

400. Punishment for belonging to gang of dacoits-

“Whoever, at any time after the passing of this Act, shall belong to a gang of persons associated for the purpose of habitually committing dacoity, shall be punished with imprisonment for life, or with rigorous imprisonment for a term which may extend to ten years, and shall also be liable to fine.”

This section makes of the fact belonging to a gang of dacoits by itself an offence. The essential ingredients of the section are there must be a gang of persons and gang must be associated for the purpose of habitually committing dacoity.

Section 402, IPC deals with assembling for purpose of committing dacoity

402. Assembling for purpose of committing dacoity-

“Whoever, at any time after the passing of this Act, shall be one of five or more persons assembled for the purpose of committing dacoity, shall be punished with rigorous imprisonment for a term which may extend to seven years, and shall also be liable to fine.”

This section explains that mere assembling of 5 or more persons for the purpose of committing dacoity and provides the punishment for the same.

Case Law

Raj Kumar @ Raju v State of Uttaranchal, AIR 2008

The Apex Court has reiterated that for the commission of offence of offence of dacoity minimum

of five persons is an essential ingredient for dacoity and section 396 does not come into play if persons convicted for committing dacoity happened to be less than five.

CONCLUSION

The chapter- 17, IPC related to offences against property explains the theft, extortion, robbery and dacoity very briefly.

ESSENTIALS: TO PROVE ROBBERY

There must be a committing of theft, in order to commit, or in carrying away or attempting to carry away the property obtained by the theft
While doing above stated act the offender must be voluntarily causing or attempt to cause death, hurt or wrongful restrain or fear thereof.
There must be a presence of an offender while committing extortion.
The offender while doing extortion put the person or some other person related to him, in fear of instant death, or of instant hurt or of instant wrongful restrain.
The person extorted deliver the property in fear thereof.

Let’s understand this concept with the help of an illustration:

A holds Z down and fraudulently takes Z’s money and jewels from Z’s clothes without Z’s consent. Here A has committed theft, and in order to the committing of that theft, has voluntarily caused wrongful restraint to Z. A has therefore committed robbery.

A meets Z on the high roads, shows a pistol, and demands Z’s purse. Z in consequence, surrenders his purse. Here A has extorted the purse from Z by putting him in fear of instant hurt, and being at the time of committing the extortion in his presence. A has therefore committed robbery.

In this, A fulfills the essentials of extortion stated under section 383, IPC as A puts Z in fear of injury, men rea is dishonest intention and actus rea is extorted Z, this is extortion. But A is present at the time of committing extortion and put Z in fear of instant hurt, therefore A has committed robbery.

A obtains property from Z by saying, “Your child is in the hands of my gang, and will be put to death unless you send us ten thousand rupees”. This is extortion, and punishable as such; but it is not robbery, unless Z is put in fear of the instant death of his child.

Harish Chandra v State of UP, AIR 1976

The victim boarded the train at Chakarpur railway station. The accused and co- accused along with some other persons entered the same compartment. When the train reached Tanakpur railway station at about 9:30 p.m., some of the passengers started getting down from the compartment and there was a great rush. At that time, the accused forcibly to away the wrist watch of the victim and when he raised an alarm. The co-accused slapped him and his other companion hit him with a stick. Both the accused jumped out of the compartment. The victim followed him and found a constable on the platform. He informed him about the incident. The victim identified both the accused. On being questioned, the accused took out the wrist watch from the heap of ash lying behind the tea stall.

The Supreme Court stated that the accused slapped the victim to enable the accused to carry away the stolen property. Under the circumstances it would clearly fall within the provision of section 390, IPC.

PUNISHMENT: ROBBERY

Section 392 in The Indian Penal Code

392. Punishment for robbery- Whoever commits robbery shall be punished with rigorous imprisonment for a term which may extend to ten years, and shall also be liable to fine; and, if the robbery be committed on the highway between sunset and sunrise, the imprisonment may be extended to fourteen years.

PUNISHMENT: BEING A MEMBER OF GANG OF ROBBERS

Section 401 in The Indian Penal Code

401. Punishment for belonging to gang of thieves-

Whoever, at any time after the passing of this Act, shall belong to any wandering or other gang of persons associated for the purpose of habitually committing theft or robbery, and not being a gang of thugs or dacoits, shall be punished with rigorous imprisonment for a term which may extend to seven years, and shall also be liable to fine.

Section 401, IPC makes the fact of mere belonging to a gang of robbers and also provide the punishment for the same.

ATTEMPT TO COMMIT ROBBERY

Section 393 in The Indian Penal Code

393. Attempt to commit robbery-

Whoever attempts to commit robbery shall be punished with rigorous imprisonment for a term which may extend to seven years, and shall also be liable to fine.

The offender must attempt to commit robbery, section 393 punishes for the same.

AGGRAVATED FORM: ROBBERY

Section 394 in The Indian Penal Code

394. Voluntarily causing hurt in committing robbery-

If any person, in committing or in attempting to commit robbery, voluntarily causes hurt, such person, and any other person jointly concerned in committing or attempting to commit such robbery, shall be punished with imprisonment for life, or with rigorous imprisonment for a term which may extend to ten years, and shall also be liable to fine.

DACOITY

Section 391 in The Indian Penal Code

391. Dacoity-

When five or more persons conjointly commit or attempt to commit a robbery, or where the whole number of persons conjointly committing or attempting to commit a robbery, and persons present and aiding such commission or attempt, amount to five or more, every person so committing, attempting or aiding, is said to commit “dacoity”.

ESSENTIALS: TO PROVE ROBBERY

There must be 5 or more than 5 persons to act in association
Such act must be robbery or attempt to commit robbery
the 5 persons must consist of those who themselves commit or attempt to commit robbery

PUNISHMENT: DACOITY

Section 395 in The Indian Penal Code

395. Punishment for dacoity-

Whoever commits dacoity shall be punished with imprisonment for life, or with rigorous imprisonment for a term which may extend to ten years, and shall also be liable to fine.

Saktu v State of UP, AIR 1973

AGGRAVATED FORMS: DACOITY

Section 396 in The Indian Penal Code

396. Dacoity with murder-

If any one of five or more persons, who are conjointly committing dacoity, commits murder in so committing dacoity, every one of those persons shall be punished with death, or imprisonment for life, or rigorous imprisonment for a term which may extend to ten years, and shall also be liable to fine.

Section 397 in The Indian Penal Code

397. Robbery, or dacoity, with attempt to cause death or grievous hurt-

If, at the time of committing robbery or dacoity, the offender uses any deadly weapon, or causes grievous hurt to any person, or attempts to cause death or grievous hurt to any person, the imprisonment with which such offender shall be punished shall not be less than seven years.

Section 398 in The Indian Penal Code

398. Attempt to commit robbery or dacoity when armed with deadly weapon-

If, at the time of attempting to commit robbery or dacoity, the offender is armed with any deadly weapon, the imprisonment with which such offender shall be punished shall not be less than seven years.

Section 398, IPC states that if at the time of committing robbery or dacoity, the offender armed with the any deadly weapons and it provides the punishment for the same.

Section 399 in The Indian Penal Code

399. Making preparation to commit dacoity-

Whoever makes, any preparation for committing dacoity, shall be punished with rigorous imprisonment for a term which may extend to ten years, and shall also be liable to fine.

Preparation means arranging the means or measures necessary to constitute the offence. Ordinarily, stage of preparation not consist as an offence per se punishable but Dacoity under section 399, IPC made punishable a preparation to commit dacoity.

Section 400 in The Indian Penal Code

400. Punishment for belonging to gang of dacoits-

Whoever, at any time after the passing of this Act, shall belong to a gang of persons associated for the purpose of habitually committing dacoity, shall be punished with 1[imprisonment for life], or with rigorous imprisonment for a term which may extend to ten years, and shall also be liable to fine.

This section makes of the fact belonging to a gang of dacoits by itself an offence. The essential ingredients of the section are there must be gang of persons and gang must be associated for the purpose of habitually committing dacoity.

Section 402 in The Indian Penal Code

402. Assembling for purpose of committing dacoity-

Whoever, at any time after the passing of this Act, shall be one of five or more persons assembled for the purpose of committing dacoity, shall be punished with rigorous imprisonment for a term which may extend to seven years, and shall also be liable to fine.

This section explains that mere assembling of 5 or more persons for the purpose of committing dacoity and provides the punishment for the same.

CONCLUSION

The chapter- 17, IPC related to offences against property explains the theft, extortion, robbery and dacoity very briefly. Theft and extortion both are considered as smallest unit. Robbery is an aggravated form of both theft and extortion. It means every theft or extortion is not robbery but every robbery is either theft or extortion, means robbery is genus and theft or extortion is species. Dacoity is an aggravated form of robbery. Dacoity is a sum total of robbery and robbery is sum total of theft or extortion shows that all the offences having nexus between them. If one is not committed then other is also not constituted.

Latest Posts

Archives

Offences against Property: Theft, Extortion, Robbery and Dacoity

INTRODUCTION

Theft

Essentials: To Prove Theft

1. Movable Property

Things which can become a subject matter of theft:

2. POSSESSION

3. WITHOUT CONSENT

Punishment: Theft

Aggravated Forms: Theft

Extortion

Essentials: To Prove Extortion

Aggravated Forms: Extortion

Ramjee Singh v State of Bihar, 1987

Case Law

Purshottam Jethanand v State of Kutch, AIR 1954

Robbery

Essentials: To Prove Robbery

Harish Chandra v State of UP, AIR 1976

Punishment: Robbery

Punishment: Being a Member of Gang of Robbers

Attempt to Commit Robbery

Aggravated Form: Robbery

Dacoity

Essentials: To Robbery

Punishment: Dacoity

Aggravated Forms: Dacoity

Case Law

Raj Kumar @ Raju v State of Uttaranchal, AIR 2008

CONCLUSION

Leave a Reply Cancel reply

Partners with Us

Services

Contact Us

Join Us