Monday, June 24, 2024

๐—๐˜‚๐—ฑ๐—ถ๐—ฐ๐—ถ๐—ฎ๐—น๐——๐—ฟ๐—ฒ๐—ฎ๐—บโ„ข

๐™ฐ๐™ต๐™ต๐™พ๐š๐™ณ๐™ฐ๐™ฑ๐™ป๐™ด & ๐™ฐ๐™ฒ๐™ฒ๐™ด๐š‚๐š‚๐™ธ๐™ฑ๐™ป๐™ด

IPCMODEL ANSWER

ROBBERY

Explain briefly the offence of Robbery given under section 390 of Indian Penal Code, 1860 and discuss how the offence of Robbery is different from offence of theft and extortion.

Section 390 of Indian Penal Code, 1860, deals with the provisions of Robbery and according to this section, in every robbery there is either theft or extortion. According to section 390 of Indian Penal Code, 1860, theft is considered as robbery if the accused in order to commit theft or while committing theft or in carrying away or attempting to carry away any stolen property that has been obtained by theft voluntarily causes or attempts to cause death or hurt or wrongful restraint to any person, then in such a case, that accused can be held liable for having committed the offence of robbery given under section 390 of Indian Penal Code, 1860.

For example: – โ€˜Aโ€™ who was a thief entered into the house of โ€˜Bโ€™ and stole his valuable ring and while carrying away that ring he was seen by B who tried to stop him. โ€˜Aโ€™ in order to stop โ€˜Bโ€™ started throwing stones upon him and caused hurt to him. So, in this case, โ€˜Aโ€™ will be held liable for having committed the offence of robbery because he caused hurt to โ€˜Bโ€™ while carrying away the stolen property.

According to section 390 of Indian Penal Code, 1860, it is not necessary that an accused must cause death or hurt or wrongful restraint. He can be held liable also if he causes or attempts to causes fear of instant death or of instant hurt or of instant wrongful restraint. According to this section, fear must be of instant death or hurt or wrongful restraint. If the accused causes fear of death or hurt or wrongful restraint but not of instant death or hurt or wrongful restraint then in such a case, that accused cannot be held liable for having committed the offence of robbery given under section 390 of Indian Penal Code, 1860. So, it is clear that to secure the punishment to offender, prosecution has to prove that the fear was of instant nature and if he proves this thing then only the accused can be held liable otherwise the court will have to pronounce the judgment of acquittal.

In the leading case of Kusho Mahton and Anr. Vs. State of Bihar (SC 1974), the Honโ€™ble court held the accused liable for having committed the offence of robbery because while carrying away the stolen property the accused exploded a cracker to frighten the inmates who were trying to purse him. In this case, the Honโ€™ble court stated that to held accused liable, it is necessary to prove that fear was of instant nature and if this element has been proved beyond reasonable doubt, then only court can pronounce the judgment of conviction.

Moreover, according to section 390 of Indian Penal Code, 1860, an extortion can be considered as robbery if the offender is sufficiently near to the victim or any other person in whom the victim is interested and put that victim or another person in the fear of instant death or instant hurt or instant wrongful restraint and induces the victim to deliver the property to the offender, then in such a case, that offender can be held liable for having committed the offence of robbery given under section 390 of Indian Penal Code, 1860.

For example: – โ€˜Aโ€™ stopped โ€˜Bโ€™ on a national Highway and after showing revolver to โ€˜Bโ€™ asked him to give all his valuable things to him. Due to the fear of instant death, โ€˜Bโ€™ gave all his valuable things to โ€˜Aโ€™. In this case, โ€˜Aโ€™ will be held liable for having committed the offence of robbery by way of extortion.

According to section 390 of Indian Penal Code, 1860, to prove robbery by extortion, it is necessary to prove that the offender was so near to the victim that he could cause the fear of instant death or instant hurt or instant wrongful restraint. If the offender was not sufficiently near to the victim and cannot cause the fear of instant death or instant hurt or instant wrongful restraint, then that offender cannot be held liable for having committed the offence of robbery given under section 390 of Indian Penal Code, 1860.

According to the provisions of Section 390 of Indian Penal Code, 1860, it is not necessary that only that transaction will be considered as Robbery in which property has been extorted by extortion only and not obtained by theft and vice versa. In a transaction in which both extortion and theft has been committed by the accused, that can be considered as robbery also. So, it is clear that an accused can be held liable for having committed the offence of robbery by way of extortion as well as by theft.

For example: – โ€˜Aโ€™ stopped โ€˜Bโ€™ on the national highway and showed him revolver and asked him to give all his valuable things. B started giving his valuable things to A due to fear of instant death and besides this A forcefully taken away some things from the possession of B without his consent. In this transaction, A committed both the offence of extortion and theft. So, in this case, A can be held liable for having committed the offence of robbery by way of theft as well as by extortion.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

error: Content is protected !!