Harsh jangde Notes

AN Harshvardhan Jangde BA-LLB 2021-26

Theft and Extortion Under IPC
Theft
Section 378 of the IPC defines theft as, “Whoever, intending to take dishonestly any movable
property out of the possession of any person without that person’s consent, moves that
property to such taking, is said to commit theft”. There are five explanations to the said
definition, mentioned in the code (IPC) which are further illustrated by 16 examples.

Hence we can say that section 378 of the IPC defines ‘theft’ as the dishonest removal of
moveable property ‘out of the possession of any person’ without the consent of that person.

Intention
Intention (be it in any form, like dishonesty) in theft plays a major role. Hence, if B owes
money to C for getting his car repaired and if C keeps the car with him lawfully, as a security
for a debt, and B takes the car out of C’s possession, with the intention of depriving C of the
property (car) which acted as a security for B’s debt, B commits theft, in as much as he takes
it dishonestly. Thus, it can also be concluded from the above situation that a person can be
convicted of stealing his property if he takes it dishonestly from another.

However, Section 378 (Illustration clause ‘p’) suggests that when anything is taken under a
claim of right, provided that claim is fair, good and bona fide, the thing so taken, cannot be
dishonest. Thus, such taking cannot amount to theft.

Fine For Theft

Section 379 of the IPC, penalizes ‘theft’. It lays down the punishment for theft as either
imprisonment for a term (which may extend to three years), or with fine, or both.

Ingredients for Theft

Theft has the following defining ingredients which must be proved in a given case, namely:

 Dishonest intention to take the property;

 The property must be moveable;
 It should be taken out of the possession of another person;
 It should be taken without the consent of that person;
 There must be some moving of the property to accomplish it’s taking;
  In the name of justification to theft, if a man in extreme want of food or clothing
steals either to relieve his present necessities, the law allows no such excuse to be
considered.

In other words, as per law, one can’t steal no matter what.

Movable property
The subject matter of theft must be moveable property. It must not be a static one
(immovable property). Moveable property is defined in Section 22 of the IPC.

Animals

While mentioning above about the movable property in section 378, it also includes ‘animals’
in its definition. The section itself explains the matter related to animals.

Any animal which is a pet, i.e. any animal within the possession of the owner is considered to
be the property of the owner. Any property, which is taken away from the owner without the
consent of the owner, amounts to theft.

Hence if A, being Z’s servant is entrusted by Z with the care of his dog takes and sells the
dog to some other party, without Z’s consent. Here A’s act will amount to theft.

Section 379 of IPC as mentioned earlier, quotes punishment for theft as imprisonment for a
term up to three years, or fine, or both.

As in any other theft case, the procedure here remains the same. When a person

approaches the police station with a complaint regarding the theft of an animal (pet), the
complainant must give a detailed description of the lost animal and if possible, along with the
photograph. It should be immediately filed as an F.I.R, a copy of which should be duly
signed, stamped and dated, along with the time and should be handed to the complainant. The
duty officer of the police station is responsible for making all the necessary entries. The
complainant has the right to file an F.I.R. Hence animals under movable property’s definition
are capable of theft.

Fish

Fish in their free state are regarded as ferae naturae (a Latin word meaning, of a wild nature.
Animal (roaming freely) is not the subject of absolute ownership. A qualified property in
such animals might be acquired by taking or taming them or while they are on one’s estate),
but they are said to be in the possession of that person who has possession of any area full of
water like a tank. Fishes are also regarded as being in the possession of a person who owns an
exclusive right to catch them in a fishery, but only within that spot. Thus, theft can be said to
have been committed if fish from a tank which is in the possession of its holder, is caught by
the offender without the consent of the owner.
Human corpse

Dealing with a human corpse in IPC can be considered to be a special case. There can be
many arguments to support this statement like a dead body is not a “person” in the eyes of the
law. Hence, it not being a person, removal of moveables from a dead body can not amount to
theft. To be considered theft, the movable property has to be taken out of the possession of
any person without his consent and a dead body is not a person. Removing ornaments from
the dead body hence, can not be equated to the removal of ornaments from the possession and
consent of a person. However, the proper provision to deal with this kind of a case is Section
403 of IPC (Criminal misappropriation).

Electricity

Theft of electricity is a cognizable offence and police can investigate without any complaint
by the electrical inspector. The investigation does not require any complaint filed by the
person aggrieved by the theft or at the instance of the government.

Possession
As per Salmond, possession means, “the continuing exercise of a claim, to the exclusive use
of a thing constitutes the possession of it”. Possession means, “the state of having, owning, or
controlling something”. Although there are many kinds of possessions, some of the most
important ones are constructive and joint possession.

Constructive Possession: It refers to situations where a person has no hands-on custody of an

object. It can also be said that constructive possession exists where a person knows an object
and the ability to control it (object), even if the person has no physical contact with it.

Joint Possession: Under this, there are two points to be considered, which are as follows:

 Mere Custody doesn’t Amount to Possession;

 Temporary Deprivation or Dispossession is also Theft.

For any act to come under the definition of theft, it must make sure that the property must be
taken out of the possession of its holder without his/her consent.

Dishonest Intention
Intention (be it in any form, like dishonesty) in theft plays a major role. Hence, if B owes
money to C for getting his car repaired and if C keeps the car with him lawfully, as a security
for a debt, and B takes the car out of C’s possession, with the intention of depriving C of the
property (car) which acted as a security for B’s debt, he commits theft, in as much as he takes
it dishonestly. Thus, it can be concluded from the above situation that a person can also be
convicted of stealing his property if he takes it dishonestly from another.

However, Section 378 (Illustration clause ‘p’) suggests that when anything is taken under a
claim of right, provided that claim is fair, good and bona fide, the thing so has taken, cannot
be dishonest. Thus, such taking cannot amount to theft.
One of the ingredients to the offence of theft is dishonest intention to take property. The
intention is one of the most important deciding factors which helps in making sure that the
given act is theft. The intention to take dishonestly must exist at the time of the moving of
the property.

Without Consent
For better understanding on the concept of free consent and what constitutes of free , please
click here. The consent could be implied or express. Further, it may be of the person in
possession, or by any person having implied or express authority for that purpose.

Another example of this could be where A asks for charity from Z’s wife. Z’s wife gives A
money, food, and clothes, of which A is aware that they belong to Z, her husband. Here A
may think that Z’s wife is authorized to give away alms (money or food given to poor
people). If this was A’s intention in the form of an impression then he has not committed
theft.

The case would have been entirely different if, A was an illicit lover of Z’s wife and she (Z’s
wife) gives a valuable property, which A knows to belong to her husband Z, and Z has not
given authority to his wife to give that property away at her discretion. Here if A takes the
property (dishonestly), he commits theft.

Moving or taking
A puts a treat for B’s dog to induce the Z’s dog to follow him. Here, if A intended to
dishonestly take Z’s dog out of Z’s possession without his consent, A has committed theft as
soon as Z’s dog had begun following him.

If A meets a bullock carrying a box of treasure and he drives that bullock in a certain
direction for dishonestly taking the treasure in his possession, A commits theft of treasure, as
soon as the bullock begins to move.

Difference between Larceny and Theft

Going by the literal definition, larceny is illegally taking away somebody’s personal property,
with a depriving intention. Theft, on the other hand, is an act of taking of property with an
intent to deprive the rightful owner of it. Hence we can conclude that larceny is a kind of
theft restricted to personal property. Further, we can hence conclude that theft is an umbrella
term under which lies larceny. Hence we conclude that larceny and theft are two entirely
different things.

Punishment for Theft

Section 379 of the IPC establishes the punishment for theft as imprisonment up to 3 years or
fine or both. Other succeeding provisions contain more severe punishment for theft under
aggravating circumstances. For example, Section 380 of IPC punishes the commission of
theft in a building, tent or vessel used for dwelling or residence. The object of this provision
is to provide greater security to properties in dwelling premises. The punishment for this is
imprisonment up to 7 years along with fine.

Aggravated Forms of Theft

Robbery
According to Section 390 of IPC, there is theft in every robbery. In other words, robbery is an
aggravated form of theft. Theft essentially means to take a movable property out of a person’s
lawful possession without obtaining his consent. Robbery generally takes place when, while
committing theft, the offender, either attempts to actually cause or merely cause fear of
instant death/hurt/wrongful restraint to any person.

Thus, theft becomes robbery when the offender commits any of the above acts while
committing theft. It can also happen when he completes the theft and tries to move the
property away.

Dacoity
Dacoity is the aggravated form of robbery which inturn is an aggravated form of theft.
Dacoity is said to take place when robbery is committed by 5 or more people and they all
share common intention.

Extortion
In literal terms, extortion refers to the illegal practice of obtaining anything by the
means/usage of threat or force. Section 383 of IPC defines extortion as, “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”.

For example;

If A threatens to publish a defamatory statement concerning Z unless Z gives him money. A

thus induces fear in Z to give him money. Hence, A has committed extortion.

If X sends club-men to threaten Z unless Z signs and delivers the required bonding to the
club-men. Here X commits extortion.

If X threatens Z that he/she will keep the child of Z under wrongful confinement and tells Z
that it can be avoided only when Z signs and delivers the promissory note to X. This note
states that Z needs to pay certain money to X. Here, X commits extortion.

Ingredients
For any offence to be extortion it must have the following ingredients:

1. Putting a person in fear.

2. The fear so caused must be a fear of injury either to himself or to people of his
interest.
3. The fear must be caused intentionally.
4. As a consequence of the exercised fear, the person put in fear must be induced by the
offender to deliver any property or any valuable security or anything signed or sealed
to any person which is capable of being converted into a valuable security.
5. The offender must act dishonestly in doing so, i.e., he must act to cause wrongful gain
or wrongful loss.

Theft and Extortion: Distinction

The offence of extortion differs from the offence of theft in many ways as these two terms are
entirely different from each other. The following are some differences:

Delivery of property is a major distinguishing factor when it comes to distinguishing between

theft and extortion. In theft, the property is removed or taken away without the consent of the
person who has possession of the concerned property. In the case of extortion, there is a
delivery of property with consent which is wrongfully obtained, by inducing fear.

Immovable objects and moveable objects both can be made the subject matter of extortion.
However, in case of theft, and only movable object can be the subject matter.

Another important distinguishing factor is the mode of delivery of the property:

In case of theft, the property is taken by the offender without the consent of said property’s
holder. Hence we can conclude that the property in case of theft is delivered by the offender
to himself. However, in case of extortion, the property is delivered to the offender by the
person having possession of the said property because he/she is induced to fear of injury
either to him/her or to the person of his/her interest. Hence, the delivery of property in
extortion is done by obtaining the consent of the property’s holder, but wrongfully.

Sri Hari Singh Gour in his book, “The Penal Law of India” has explained and distinguished
the offence of extortion in the following words: “The intimidation by which the extortionist
dishonestly victimises another is the principal distinguishing feature of the offence which is
otherwise allied to cheating and theft and other offences of which the object is dishonest
deprivation of property”.

The offence of extortion is more like cheating than like theft since cheating is also capable of
being committed in respect of immovable objects.

In a nutshell, it can be concluded as:

S. Differential
Theft Extortion
No. Basis
1. Defining Section 378. Section 383.
 Section

(In IPC)
2. Consent No consent is obtained. Consent is obtained, wrongfully.
Only moveable property
Both moveable and immoveable property may
3. Property is the subject of the
be the subject of the offence.
offence.
Element of
4. No force is used. Force is used.
Force
Factor of
5. No factor of fear exists. A factor of fear does exist.
Fear
Narrow: as it covers only Wide: as it covers any kind of property,
6. Scope the cases of movable valuable security or anything that may be
property. converted into a valuable security.
Property is dishonestly
7. Effect Property is delivered, due to fear of injury.
removed.

Conclusion
Hence, we saw that Theft and Extortion are two entirely different things, despite their similar
appearance. Both have different ingredients. The intention is the gist of theft, whereas it’s not
the case with extortion. We saw what is possession. Now it is clear that larceny is illegally
taking away somebody’s personal property, with a depriving intention. Theft, on the other
hand, is an act of taking of any property with an intent to deprive its rightful owner. Hence,
we can conclude that larceny is a kind of theft restricted to personal property. Punishment for
both, theft and extortion under IPC is either imprisonment of three years or fine or both.
Aggravated forms of theft include robbery and dacoity. An ethical message to the readers,
let’s become that generation in which these terms don’t exist. Let’s not be a mere paper
generation who can write on paper good things, but let’s be doers of the word. Let’s create an
atmosphere where we don’t find such a term’s usage anymore. Let’s be the best citizens the
world has ever seen. Let’s do our job of law, to the best level possible. Let’s give this world,
new hope. Let’s be a new hope-giving light to this world. Let’s be that source of light that
shines forever and in whose light nations come. Nations receive the glory which we carry.
People get enchanted when they come to India and be thrilled by our country and be like this
is the kind of country we want ours to be. On this note I conclude my article.

Robbery and Dacoity Under IPC

Robbery
In modern American and English law, the crime of robbery is generally defined by the
statute. There are two types of definitions which are primarily used. The first which is closely
derived from the older English common law and the second one is which is Recommended
by the American Law Institute’s Model Penal Code. The terms like robbery, theft and
extortion are very similar to each other and they are often used interchangeably on a daily
basis. But the legal implication of all the three terms is different. The Indian penal code has
defined these terms very clearly. It has identified these as distinct crimes. Section 390 of the
Indian Penal Code has defined robbery and has defined theft and extortion in relation to
robbery. Before analyzing or understanding Section 390, first theft and extortion need to be
understood separately.

Theft
Theft has been defined under Section 378 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860. It says “ whoever
intends to take dishonestly any movable property out of the possession of any person without
that person’s consent and moves it, he/she is said to have committed a theft.”

For example: If A is employed by B and entrusted by C with the care of D’s cash, dishonestly runs
away with that cash, without D’s consent. Then A has committed theft.

In the case of Pyare Lal Bhargava v. State of Rajasthan, a government employee took a file
from the office and gave it to Mr.A and brought it back two days later. It was held that he
took the property away with a dishonest or malicious intention and that is enough to term it as
a theft.

Essentials of theft

The essentials of theft are:

 There has to be a dishonest intention to take the property away.

 The property should not be attached to the earth. It should be movable property. As soon as
the property is separated from the earth, it is capable of becoming the subject of theft. For
example, if A cuts down a tree on B’s ground, with the intention of dishonestly taking the
tree out of B’s possession without B’s consent. Then as soon as separates the tree, he
commits theft.
 The property must be taken out of the possession of another. A thing which is in the
possession of nobody cannot be the subject of theft.
 The most important thing is that the property must be taken away without consent.
 There should be physical movement of the property, however, it is not important that it
should be moved directly. For example, if someone cuts the string which is tied to the
necklace owing to which the necklace falls, it would be held that he or she has caused
sufficient movement of the property as required for it to amount to theft.

Punishment for theft

The punishment for theft is defined under Section 379 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860. It says
that a person who commits theft shall be punished with imprisonment of up to 3 years or with
fine or with both.

Extortion
Extortion is defined under Section 383 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860. This section says that
any person who intentionally puts another person in fear of injury and dishonestly induces
him or her to deliver any valuable property or anything signed which can be converted into
valuable security is said to have committed extortion.

For example, if D threatens A that he will keep A’s child in wrongful confinement and will
kill him unless A delivers to him a sum of Rupees one lakh. Then D has committed extortion.

Essentials of extortion

The essentials of extortion are:

 The person committing the offence should intentionally put the victim in fear of injury. The
fear of injury must be to such an extent that it is capable of unsettling the mind of the victim
and forcing him to give his property, as in the above-stated example.
 The person committing the offence should dishonestly induce the victim so to put in fear to
part with his (the victim’s) property.

In the landmark case of R.S. Nayak v. A.R Antulay, A.R. Antulay, a CM, promised the sugar
cooperatives whose cases were pending before the government for consideration that their
cases would be looked into if they donated money. It was held that fear or threat should be
used for extortion, and since in this case, there was no fear of injury or threat it would not
amount to extortion.

Punishment for extortion

Section 384 of the Indian Penal Code defines the punishment for extortion. It states that any
person who commits extortion shall be punished with imprisonment of up to 3 years or with
fine or with both.

Essential Ingredients of Robbery

Section 390 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 says that in all robbery there is either extortion or
theft. The Black law’s dictionary defines robbery as the felonious act of taking the personal
property of another from a person or immediate presence against his will accomplished by
using force and fear, with the intention of permanently depriving the owner of the thing.

Causing Death, Hurt or Wrongful Restraint or Fear

Death, hurt, wrongful restraint or fear can be caused when theft is a robbery or when
extortion is robbery. These two are explained below with the help of illustrations.

When theft is robbery

Theft is a robbery when in order to commit theft, the offender voluntarily causes or attempts
to cause to any person death, subject him to wrongful restraint, cause hurt or induce fear of
instant death, instant wrongful restraint or cause instant hurt.

Theft can be called as a robbery when the conditions given below are satisfied:
  When the offender voluntarily attempts to cause death;
 wrongful restraint;
 fear of instant death;
 instant wrongful restraint;
 instant hurt.

And the above acts are done:

 while committing the theft,

 While carrying away the property acquired by theft, or
 While attempting to carry away property.

For example, if A holds B down and fraudulently takes B’s money from B’s clothes without
B’s consent. Here A has committed theft and by committing theft he has voluntarily caused
wrongful restraint to B. Therefore, A has committed robbery.

When extortion becomes robbery

Extortion becomes robbery when the person committing the offence of extortion put the other
person in fear and commits extortion by putting that person in fear of death, instant wrongful
restraint to that person or to some other person and by doing so induces the person so put in
fear then and there deliver the thing that has been extorted.

For example, if A meets B and B’s child is on a road. A takes the child and threatens to fling
it down a height unless B delivers his purse. B delivers his purse. Here A has extorted the
purse from B by causing B to be in fear of instant hurt to the child who is present. A has
therefore robbed B. However if A obtains the property by saying that your child is in my
hand of my gang and he/she will be put to death unless you send us ten lakh rupees. This will
amount to extortion, and punishable as such, but it would not be considered as robbery unless
B is put in fear of instant death of his child.

Possession of Stolen Property

Property is an important part of the law. Section 410 to Section 414 of the India Penal Code
talks about the concept of stolen property. Section 410 of the Indian Penal code defines it as
when a person transfers his/her property to another person. It can happen by way of theft,
extortion or robbery. It includes all kinds of properties which a person can misappropriate for
criminal breach of trust.

These kinds of instances related to property are known as stolen properties. Section 410 of
the Indian Penal Code also says that if a person transfers the property by using any of the
means given below that will be considered as stolen property. These means are:

 Theft;
 Extortion;
 Robbery;
 Criminal misappropriation;
 Criminal breach of trust.
Section 411 of the Indian Penal Code says that any person who dishonestly possess or retains
the property will be punished with at least 3 years of imprisonment, fine or both.

Punishment for Robbery

Indian Penal Code, 1860 deals with all kinds of punishments related to criminal law . Under
Section 392 of this code, the punishment for robbery is defined. This section says that any
person who commits robbery shall be punished with imprisonment which may be extended
up to ten years and shall also be liable for fine.

Further, this section says that if a person commits a robbery on a highway then the term for
imprisonment will be of 14 (fourteen) years. Section 393 of the Indian Penal Code defines the
punishment for an attempt to commit robbery. The punishment for this is imprisonment for
up to 7 years and also liable for fine.

Punishment for Being a Member of Gang of

Robbers
Section 412 of the Indian Penal Code deals with the punishment for being a member of a
gang of robbers. This section deals with the person who retains or receives stolen property the
possession of which he/she knows that it is due to the commission of a dacoity. It further says
that when a person receives from another person whom he or she knows or has justification to
believe that property belongs to a group of dacoits, and knows or has reason to believe that
the property have robbed or stolen.

For all such people, the punishment is imprisonment of life or with a rigours term which can
be extended to 10 years. This section punishes everyone who receives any property which has
been acquired by the commission of dacoity.

Attempt to Commit Robbery

Attempt to commit robbery has been defined under Section 393 of the Indian Penal Code,
1860. It explicitly says that any person who attempts to commit robbery will be punished
with rigorous imprisonment whose term can be extended to 7 years and he or she will also be
liable to pay the fine.

Dacoity (Aggravated Form of Robbery)

Aggravated form of robbery not only includes robbery but it also includes theft and serious
injuries to the victim. When five or more than five persons commit or attempt to commit a
robbery that is known as dacoity. It is more of an aggravated form of robbery and generally,
the robber is armed with deadly weapons.

Dacoity is defined under Section 391 of the IPC and the punishment for it is defined under
Section 395 of the IPC. The only difference between robbery and dacoity is a number of
participants. Section 395 punishes every member of the group in dacoity whether that person
takes an active part or not. The punishment under this section is imprisonment up to 10 years
with fine.

Dacoity
According to the dictionary of oxford, dacoity means an act of violent robbery which is
committed by an armed gang. There is only one factor which differentiates dacoity from
robbery and that is the number of offenders. One person can also commit a robbery and more
than 1 person can also commit robbery. But when 5 or more than 5 commit a robbery it is
termed as dacoity.

Section 391 of the Indian Penal Code defines robbery. It says that when 5 or more than 5
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”.

Essential Ingredients
In order to commit dacoity, there are 3 essentials which must be there. These essentials are:

 There should be at least five or more than five persons;

 They should conjointly commit or attempt to commit dacoity;
 They should have dishonest intention.

Sentence for Dacoity

Punishment for dacoity is defined under Section 395 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860. This
section says that a person who commits dacoity shall be punished with imprisonment for life,
or with rigorous imprisonment for a term which can be extended to ten years, and shall also
be liable to pay the fine. This offence is cognizable, non-bailable, and non-compoundable in
nature.

The State vs Sadhu Singh and Ors in this case, four and one kurda Singh was involved in
committing a dacoity. They all were armed with deadly weapons such as rifles and pistols.
They committed a robbery at the house of gharsiram. They injured Gharsiram, jugalkishore,
Sandal and Jugalkisore. The dacoits, in this case, tried to take a wristwatch and a shawl of
one person but as they were villagers the dacoits were not able to take anything with them.
When dacoits started running from the villagers they received a hot chase from them and in
return dacoits shot a fire. As a result, dharma, one of the villagers died but the villages
captured one of the dacoits. In this case, the dacoits were charged under Section 395 of the
Indian Penal Code.

Aggravated form of Dacoity

Aggravated form of dacoity is defined under Section 396 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860.
Under Section 396 aggravated form is defined as dacoity with murder. It says that if anyone
of five or more than five persons, who are conjointly committing dacoity, commits murder in
so committing dacoity, every one of those persons shall be punished with death and shall also
be liable to fine.

The ingredients of Section 396 are:

 The offence of dacoity must be committed with the joint act of the accused persons;
 Murder must be committed in course of the commission of the dacoity.

If anyone of the five or more persons who are committing robbery commit murder while
committing dacoity then, every one of them will held liable for murder even if some of them
did not participate in committing the murder. Under Section 396 of the IPC, it is not
necessary to prove whether the murder was committed by a single person or it was committed
by all of them. It is also not necessary to prove the common intention. The prosecution is
only required to prove that the murder was committed while committing the dacoity. If the
prosecution successfully proves that the murder was committed while committing dacoity,
then all of the members will be punished under Section 396 of the IPC.

If the offenders are running and while chasing them if one of the dacoits kill someone then
the other members of the gang can not be held guilty under Section 396 of the IPC. In one of
the landmark case laws i.e. Laliya v state of Rajasthan it was observed that whether the
murder is a part of dacoity or not, it totally depends on the circumstances of that time.

The court decided that the attention has to be paid on these points before coming to a
conclusion. These points are:

 Whether the dacoits retreated or not and the murder was committed while retreating or
not?
 What is the time interval between the attempt of murder and dacoity?
 What is the distance between the places where they attempt to murder and attempt to
dacoity was committed?

In one of the cases i.e. in Shyam Behari v. State of Uttar Pradesh, the dacoit killed one of the
victims, who had caught the robber’s associate in an attempt to commit dacoit. The robber
was convicted under Section 396 of IPC because any murder committed by the dacoits during
their fight would be treated as murder.

Offences Connected with Dacoity

Before committing any offence intention plays a very important role in it. Under criminal
law, the intention is known by Mens Rea. Mens rea means guilty of Mind. For every criminal
offence, there should be Mens rea on the part of the offender. If put in other words it means
that there has to be intention to commit a crime. The term “Intention” has not explicitly
defined under the Indian Penal Code, 1860 But under IPC Section 34 of it deals with
common intention.
Section 34 of IPC defines acts done by several persons in furtherance of common intention.
This section says that “when a criminal act is done by several persons in furtherance of the
common intention of all, every such person is liable for the act in the same manner as if it
were done by him alone.”

This section requires a particular criminal intention or knowledge and the act should be
committed by more than one person. Everyone who joins the act with the knowledge of the
consequences, all of them should be made liable under this section.

Preparation to Commit Dacoity

Section 399 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 has talks about preparation to commit dacoity. It
says that 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.

Assembling for the Purpose of Committing Dacoity

Assembling for purpose of committing dacoity is defined under Section 402 of the Indian
Penal Code. It says that whoever, at any time after the passing of the 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.

Belonging to Gangs of Dacoits

Belonging to gangs of dacoits is defined under Section 400 of the IPC. It says that anybody
who at any time after the passing of this act, shall belong to a gang of persons associated for
the purpose of habitually committing dacoity will 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.

Judicial Pronouncements

Arjun Ganpat Sandbhor vs state of Maharashtra

In this case, a truck driver was killed and the truck was taken away by the dacoits. This
incident took place in darkness. The evidence of the son of the deceased, who was in the
truck at the time when the accident took place was not free from doubt. He admitted at that
time that he used to have forgetting tendency. Test identification parade was not held
according to guidelines prescribed under Criminal Manual. In the view of the totality of the
evidence the accused was entitled to acquittal.

Md Imamuddin & Anr. vs. State of Bihar

In this case, the plea was to reduce the punishment for dacoity. Some of them were accused
to commit dacoity in a running train. They were sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment
for seven years and two years for respective offences. The accused remained in custody for a
substantial amount of time, about 50 per cent of the punishment. Their punishment was
reduced to half and which they have already passed the time in imprisonment.

Conclusion
This article explains the concept of Robbery and Dacoity according to the Indian Penal Code,
1860. But in order to understand Robbery and dacoity, one needs to understand the concept
of theft and extortion. So, in this article before going to robbery and dacoity, theft and
extortion has been explained with the relevant examples and relevant case laws. These are
important to understand because these terms may seem to be similar but they are different in
its legal application. They are often used interchangeably. This article gives an overview of
all these concepts keeping in view and according to the Indian Penal Code, 1860.

What Causes Hurt

Section 319 of the Indian Penal Code defines hurt.

1. To cause hurt, a person causes bodily pain to the other. Or,

2. One can communicate a disease to the other person. Or,
3. A person may cause infirmity to the other person.

Note: Bodily pain does not include mental pain.

Example 1
A, a person beats B with a stick in order to get his work done. Here A is causing hurt to B by
giving him bodily pain.

Example 2
A, a person suffering from communicable disease deliberately comes in contact with another
person B to make him infected. Here A is causing hurt to B.
Example 3
A knows that B has a weak heart. He deliberately goes to B in the early morning and gives
him news that his son has committed suicide. And B, in consequence of this shock, faces
heart attack. A has caused hurt.

Punishment for Hurt

If any person causes hurt as described in section 319 of the Indian Penal Code, he shall be
punished up to the period of one year or fine or one thousand rupees fine or both.

What Causes Grievous Hurt

Section 320 of the Indian Penal Code talks about grievous hurt. There are eight situations or
cases which amount to grievous hurt to a person. These are the situations that cause extreme
hurt to a person.

Eight cases of grievous hurt in IPC are:-

1. Emasculation
2. Injury to Eyesight
3. Deprivation of hearing
4. Loss of Limb or Joint
5. Impairing of Limb
6. Permanent disfiguration of head or face
7. Fracture or dislocation of bone or tooth
8. Endangering life, severe bodily pain, etc.

1. Emasculation

This hurt can be caused to only males because it means depriving a man of his sexual
capability. It takes away the power of a man to perform sexual activities. It can be done by
squeezing the testicles of a man as a counteract. For making the case under grievous hurt, the
impotence of a man must be permanent and not temporary.

2. Injury to Eyesight

If any person causes injury to either of the eyes or both eyes of a person, then he causes
grievous hurt. The injury must be of a permanent nature. It may be deprivation of the visual
power of a person.

3. Deprivation of hearing

If any person causes injury to either of the ear or both ears of a person and it makes the other
person deaf permanently, then the person is said to cause grievous hurt.

4. Loss of Limb or Joint

If any person deprives the other person of any member or joint, he causes grievous hurt. The
joint is the area where two bones are joined. Depriving of a limb or joint makes a person
incapable of doing task by such organs or limbs or joints.
For example, cutting down the hand from the human body shall cause loss to the person.

5. Impairing of Limb

The permanent impairment of the limb is a serious damage to the body. Impairing is the
destruction of that joint or organ. Such injury lessens the power of that organ to function
normally.

For example, A causes such harm to the knee joint of B, that B is unable to bend his leg to sit.
‘A’ has impaired the powers of B organ.

6. Permanent disfiguration of head or face

Where the act of the person causes such injury to other person, which results in disfiguration
of the actual structure of that part of the body, causes grievous hurt.

For example, A hits a sharp-edged weapon on B’s face, and as a consequence, a piece of B’s
face mass fall down. ‘A’ has disfigured B’s face.

7. Fracture or dislocation of bone or tooth

A fracture means when the bone of a person gets broken and dislocation means when the
bone or tooth of a person actually shifts or dislocate from its actual position.

For example, A hits on the elbow of B with an iron rod while he was sleeping. As a result, the
joint bone of B got dislocated from its actual place and shifted slightly left. ‘A’ has caused
grievous hurt.

8. Endangering life, severe bodily pain, etc.

If the act of a person puts another person’s life in danger. Or,

Cause severe bodily pain that a person suffers for twenty days. Or,
Cause severe bodily pain that the person is unable to do his ordinary work and daily activities
for a period of twenty days, he is said to cause grievous hurt.

For example, A hits B’s head with an iron rod repeatedly that he faints and falls down. B is
taken to the hospital. Due to the contusion of blood, he is unable to eat, drink, or sleep
properly. He is unable to perform normal routine activities. ‘A’ has caused grievous hurt
under this clause.

Note: If a person is unable to go to his office or work does not mean grievous hurt under this
section.

Q.E vs. Vasta Chela, 1894

If, after injury, a person does not get admitted to the hospital does not mean that the injury is
not serious. The real test is whether the person is unable to follow his daily and ordinary
activities for twenty days or not. If not, then it is grievous hurt. It is not necessary to get
admitted to the hospital.
In case if the injury does not continue for the period of twenty days or more or it gets healed
before the period of twenty days, then it shall not be considered grievous hurt.

Punishment for Grievous Hurt

If any person causes injury enumerated in section 320 of the Indian penal code, he is said to
cause grievous hurt. The person shall be punished with imprisonment up to seven years and
fine (exact amount not mentioned).