{ Section 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.
Illustrations
(a) 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. (b) 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.
(c) A meets Z and Z’s child on the high road. A takes the child and threatens to fling it down a precipice, unless Z delivers his purse. Z, in consequence delivers his purse. Here A has extorted the purse from Z, by causing Z to be in fear of instant hurt to the child who is there present. A has therefore committed robbery on Z.
(d) 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
Robbery is an aggravated form of either theft or extortion or of both.the essence of offence of robbery is presence of imminent fear or violence.A large number of cases of robberies are mixed cases of aggrevated forms of theft or extortion.
1)When theft is Robbery
Theft is Robbery in Following Cases
i)when someone voluntarily causes or attempts to cause any person
a)death or hurt or Wrongful restraint
b)fear of instant death or instant hurt or instant wrongful restraint.
ii)the above acts must be done for any of the following ends.
a)in order to the committing of theft
b)in committing theft
c)in carrying away,or attempting to carry away property obtained by theft
CASE LAW VENU ALIAS VENUGOPAL V/S STATE OF KARNATAKA1
Appellants allegedly intercepted victim and robbed gold and cash by threatening with knife. It was held that evidence of victim,her husband and recovery of vehicles used clearly est. the commission of offence of robbery by appellants.
It was also observed that robbery is only an aggravated form of offence of theft or extortion and aggravation is in use of violence, of death , hurt or restraint.Violence must be in course of death and not subsequently.the word for the end used in section 390 clearly mean that hurt caused must be with the object of facilitating committing of theft or must be caused whilr offendor is committing theft or is attempting to carry away property of theft.
Carry Away
For the offence of robbery, death,hurt or wrongful restraint may be caused either in committing theft,or in order to the committing of theft or it may even be caused after the committing of the theft in order to carry away the property obtained
For The End
As explained above the expression for the end indicates that the death,hurt or wrongful restraint is caused in order to the committing of theft or in committing theft, or carrying away property obtained by theft . But if a person causes hurt simply to avoid capture when he is surprised by the owner while stealing it would be case of theft and not robbery.
Illustration
A and B were stealing mangoes from the tree and were surprised by C afterwards B knocked down C and C became senseless the offence of robbery was hed to have been committed.Mere use of violence does not convert the offence of theft into robbery thu when the accuses abandoned the property and threw stones at the persons to deter the pursuits he was guilty of theft and not robbery.
Voluntarily Causes
The use of words voluntary causes in this section is significant because merely causing of incidental injury does not convert the offence into robbery.the injury must be voluntarily caused
Illustration
In a case of snatching of a nose ring of a woman wounded her in the nostril and caused her blood to flow.he was held guilty of robbery
Person
The word person is defined in section 11 of the code . It means both natural and juristic person
1) WHEN EXTORTION IS ROBBERY
Extortion is Robbery if the following conditions are fulfilled.
I) When a person commits extortion by putting another person in fear of instant death or instant hurt or instant wrongful restraint to that person or to some other person
II) Such a person by so putting another in fear , induces the person so put in fear then and there to deliver up the things extorted
III) The offender at the time of committing the extortion is in the presence of the person put in fear
In the presence of the person
for extortion to become robbery it is necessary that the offendor must be present before the person put in fear of injury.the explaination clarifies that a person is said to be present if he is sufficiently near to put the other person in fear.
Illustration
A takes out a knife and points at B and says to C that he will kill his son B if she refuses to part with her her golden chain C delivers that chain to A . A is guilty of the offence of robbery because he extorts money by putting b in the immediate danger to life.
CASE LAW MOHAMMAD ABDUL HAFIZ V/S STATE OF AP
A,B,C,D and E set out for committing dacoity in a house.E being drunk fell on the way under the tree.A,B,C,D entered the house and by the show of force took away all the gold ornaments they all came back and gave E his part of money.the court held that A,B,C,D are liable for offence of Robbery and E will be liable for Abetting Robbery.
PUNISHMENT FOR ROBBERY{ SECTION 392}
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.
If Robbery is committed on highway between sunset and sunrise then it is more severely punishable.
CASE LAW GEORGE V/S STATE OF KERELA
The deceased had been working for PW 28 at his farm. On one day he left for his work and at the time of leaving his house two persons PW 3 and PW 7 had seen him putting on two gold rings and watch.PW had also noticed him putting on the above articles.Till mid day he was at the farm and after havin lunch he had left the place.Since the deceased didn’t turn up to work next day and then PW 28 sent an employee at deceased house to find the reason.then his brother started searching for him and after 2 days they found his dead body .after the investigation the appellant was arrested after the further inquiry it was found that the death is caused because of drowning and no external injuries were found on his body thus the court held that there was no link between murder and death thus the conviction under section 302 was set aside and conviction under 392 was upheld.
CASE LAW SIKANDER V/S STATE
Where the accused caused knife injuries on the victim which enabled him to remove ear rings of the victim and key from her salwar she was wearing the case will be covered by section 392 read with 397 and the sentence in the view of sentence 397 could not be less than 7 years and could extend upto 10 years.
CASE LAW EZHIL V/S STATE OF TAMIL NADU 5
In this cvase three persons were chared with the offences under section 364,392, and 302 read with section 34 and section 120 B of IPC .The dead body of deceased was found lying near bridge in village. Articles belongin to deceased were recovered from possession of the accused who were travelling together in a car.Such possession by accused is very much proximate in point of time of death of deceasedSeizure of blood stained bed sheet, lungi,and chappals and also passport and driving licence pof deceased from the boot of car was proved .It was held keeping in view the proximity of time within which the act of murder was supposed to have been committed and body found and the articles recovered from the possession of the accused allowed to court to conclude that they commited murder in order to commit robbery. Thus they were convicted under section 302 and 392 read with section 34 of IPC .
[SECTION 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
RECENT CASE LAWS
Raj kumar alis Raju V/S Sate NCT of Delhi
Ombir singh the husband of the deceased resided with his wife 3 children his sister and niece. Accused Raj Gautam was a tenant in one of the two rooms in theiw house.one day Raj Nirmal alomg with the other appellant raj kumar and one more person named dharmendra alias babbu came to his house and together played the game of cards after some time he went to his room and slept the three stayed in their room and left in the morning while leaving Raj Nirmal told Ombir singh that he was going to the village and may not return by the night.His wife niece and children left the house and ombir singh left for office in afternoon ombir singh received a call that his wife has met an accident and he rushed home and found the dead body of his wife and things were scattered and old ornaments were missing .
The accused raj nirmal and raj kumar appellant here were later apprehended and on their search gold items were recovered from them.
The court here mentioned the case law satwant khan vs state of rajasthan where in the court hed that recovery of the ornaments of the deceased from the accused in some course of investigation then the suspicion cannot be conclusive that accused has committed the offence
Also illustration a of section 114 of Evidence act states that when ornament are recovered from the accused it can lead to presumption that the accused had committed robbery or received the stolen property unless there are circumstances tpo show that theft/robbery and murder took place in one transaction the accused would not be liable for the offence under section 302 IPC.
Hence the SC partially allowed the appeal and overruled the decision of the HC and the Trial Court and the conviction of the appellant under the section 302 IPC was revoked and on the basis of presumption under section 114 of the Evidence act the conviction under section 392 was upheld.
Ramesh Dasu Chauhan V/s State of Maharashtra
Deceased Kamlesh Trivedi about 79 years of age resided with her daughter and granddaughter. The deceased Kamlesh used to live alone the whole day when the daughter and granddaughter used to go to work and college respectively.One day the grand daughter returned to home after the college and she found her grandmother lying dead in the home in the drawing room and she noticed that the tv and few other items were missing then she rushed to her neighbors and informed them.one of the neighbors told that they had seen 2 young men in front of the apartment and after the investigation the men were apprehended and the items were recovered from them.Case under section 302 and 392/34 was registered.
The trial court in this case convicted the appellant under section 302 and 392 read with section 34 and then the appeal was filed with the HC and the HC dismissed the appeal.
The case went to SC and the SC made the following findings.The SC made reference to the case law Sharad Birdichand Sarda V/S State of Maharahtra the court in this case mentioned the golden principles to be kept in mind when the case is being decided on the basis of circumstantial evidence.
The circumstances from which the conclusion of guilt is to be drawn should be fully established.
The facts so concluded should be cinsistent with the hypothesis of the guilt of the accused The circumstances should be conclusive in the nature and tendency.
It should exclude every possible hypothesis except one to be proved.
There should be chain of evidence so complete as not to leave any reasonable.
And in
neighbor.later when the police brought the two mwen then they were identified and the neighbor and they also remembered the red bike which had stickers on the mudguard the neighbor also remembered the registration number of the motorbike.this case the two boys were seen with their bike near the apartments by one of the
Thus the court held that both the lower courts were correct in their findings and conclusion that the appellants only entered the house of Kamlesh Trivedi and committed murder with the intention of causing Robbery and hence the appeal of the appellants were dismissed
No comments:
Post a Comment