TOPIC – 10

Offences of Theft, Extortion, Robbery and Dacoity

Relevant Provisions

Sections 378, 379, 383, 390, 22, 23, 24, 25, 27, 29, 30 and 44 of the Indian Penal
Code, 1860

Now 303, 308, 309, 2 (21), 2(36), 2(37), 2(7), 2(8), 2(31) and 2(14) of the Bharatiya
Naya Sanhita, 2023

Synopsis

Theft Extortion Robbery Dacoity

S. 378 r.w. s. 379 S. 383 S. 390 r.w. s. 392 S. 391 r.w. 395

Aggravated form Aggravated form Aggravated form Aggravated form

Theft Extortion Robbery Dacoity

SS. 380-382 SS. 384-389 S. 394-394 SS. 396- 399

In this chapter, we will delve into offence of theft, extortion, robbery and dacoity. These are
the offences against the property and belong to chapter XVII of the Indian Penal Code, 1860.
Even chapter XVII of the Bharatiya Nayay Sanhita, 2023, also contain the offences against
the property. Section 75, enhancement of punishment is also applicable to offences
punishable to imprisonment for three years or more belong to Chapter XVII along with
offences mentioned in Chapter XII of the IPC.

Theft

(S. 378 r.w 379)

(Now S. 303 of the BNS, 2023)

The purpose of this provision is to protect the possession of moveable property from any
unlawful transgression. Such possession may be lawful or unlawful in the law.
Section 378 defines theft as “whoever, intending to take dishonestly any moveable property
out of possession of any person without that person’s consent, moves that property in order of
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 effects 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.

Illustrations

(a) A cuts 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.

(b) A puts a bait for dogs in his pocket, and thus induces Z's dog to follow it. Here, if A's
intention be dishonestly to take the dog out of Z's possession without Z's consent, A has
committed theft as soon as Z's dog has begun to follow A.

(c) A meets a bullock carrying a box of treasure. He drives the bullock in a certain direction,
in order that he may dishonestly take the treasure. As soon as the bullock begins to move, A
has committed theft of the treasure.

(d) A being Z's servant, and entrusted by Z with the care of Z's plate, dishonestly runs away
with the plate, without Z's consent. A has committed theft.
(e) Z, going on a journey, entrusts his plate to A, the keeper of a warehouse, till Z shall
return. A carries the plate to a goldsmith and sells it. Here the plate was not in Z's possession.
It could not therefore be taken out of Z's possession, and A has not committed theft, though
he may have committed criminal breach of trust.

(f) A finds a ring belonging to Z on a table in the house which Z occupies. Here the ring is in
Z's possession, and if A dishonestly removes it, A commits theft.

(g) A finds a ring lying on the highroad, not in the possession of any person. A, by taking it,
commits no theft, though he may commit criminal misappropriation of property.

(h) 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.

(i) A delivers his watch to Z, a jeweller, to be regulated. Z carries it to his shop. A, not owing
to the jeweller any debt for which the jeweller might lawfully detain the watch as a security,
enters the shop openly, takes his watch by force out of Z's hand, and carries it away. Here A,
though he may have committed criminal trespass and assault, has not committed theft,
inasmuch as what he did was not done dishonestly.

(j) If A owes money to Z for repairing the watch, and if Z retains the watch lawfully as a
security for the debt, and A takes the watch out of Z's possession, with the intention of
depriving Z of the property as a security for his debt, he commits theft, inasmuch as he takes
it dishonestly.

(k) Again, if A, having pawned his watch to Z, takes it out of Z's possession without Z's
consent, not having paid what he borrowed on the watch, he commits theft, though the watch
is his own property inasmuch as he takes it dishonestly.

(l) A takes an article belonging to Z out of Z's possession without Z's consent, with the
intention of keeping it until he obtains money from Z as a reward for its restoration. Here A
takes dishonestly; A has therefore committed theft.

(m) A, being on friendly terms with Z, goes into Z's library in Z's absence, and takes away a
book without Z's 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's implied consent
to use Z's book. If this was A's impression, A has not committed theft.
(n) A asks charity from Z's wife. She gives A money, food and clothes, which A knows to
belong to Z her husband. Here it is probable that A may conceive that Z's wife is authorised
to give away alms. If this was A's impression, A has not committed theft.

(o) A is the paramour of Z's wife. She gives a valuable property, which A knows to belong to
her husband Z, and to be such property as she has not authority from Z to give. If A takes the
property dishonestly, he commits theft.

(p) A, in good faith, believing property belonging to Z to be A's own property, takes that
property out of B's possession. Here, as A does not take dishonestly, he does not commit
theft.

Essential ingredients

1. There must be dishonest intention to take

2. Such dishonest intention is to take a moveable property
3. Such taking must be out of possession of any person
4. Such taking must be without the consent of the person in who possess that property
5. In order of such taking accuse actually moves that property.

There are five explanation and various illustration attached to this section. But, as we know
law lies in the section and explanations and illustrations do not increase the scope of law.
Therefore, we shall interpret the law laid in section 378 and whenever suitable made
reference to any explanation and illustration.

1. Dishonestly/dishonest intention
Dishonest intention is the gist of the offence. If the act done is not animo-furandi, it
will not amount to offence of theft. Section 23 [Now 2(36) and 2 (37)] and 24 [Now 2
(7) of BNS], taken together can be said to have dishonest intention if in taking the
property intention is to cause gain by unlawful means of the property to which the
person losing was legally entitled. The intention to take dishonestly exists when the
taker intends to cause ‘wrongful gain’ to one person or ‘wrongful losses’ to another.
When dishonest intention is totally absent, there will be no theft.
Taking another man’s property believing under a mistake of fact, or in jest, for the
purpose of causing him a little anxiety, does not amount to theft. Illustration (h), (i)
and (p) are in support of this discussion. When A, a creditor, took movable property
out of his debtor’s possession without his consent, with intention of coercing him to
pay his debt, A was held guilty of theft.
 In Mohar Singh v. State of Rajasthan (1981) SCC (Cri) 552, the accused had snatched
the revolver from a member of the complainant’s party, in order to prevent further
bloodshed. Thereafter, he surrendered the revolver to the police at earliest. Here, there
was absence of dishonest intention of the accused. Hence, accused cannot be liable for
the offence of theft.
The definition of ‘dishonestly’ under section 24 r.w. 23, clarify that gain or loss
contemplated need not to be total acquisition or total deprivation, but it is enough if it
is temporary retention of property by the person wrongfully gaining or temporary
‘keeping out’ of property from the person legally entitled. Illustration (l) of section
378 of the IPC also supports that. Law on offence of theft is different from English
Law on ‘Larceny’ on the point of permanent loss or gain is required in that.
K.N. Mehra v. State of Rajasthan
AIR 1957 SC 369
K.N. Mehra along with one another cadet, without permission took Dakota plane and
landed in Pakistan. They were prosecuted for theft. The main argument of the accused
was that there was no intention to take the plane Pakistan permanently. Court refused
the contention of the accused. Court observed that they were having permission to
take Harvard T-22 plane and not Dakota. Even they left at 5 A.M instead of scheduled
time of 6 A.M. Even they have not responded to the wireless message. All these
factors show dishonest intention take the plane may be temporarily.
2. Moveable property
Generally, moveable property means property of every description except immovable
property1. It means even intangible properties also amount to moveable property.
Therefore, legislature has consciously wanted to put intangible property out of the
scope of the offence of theft, defined under section 22, movable property, as corporeal
property of every description, except land, things attached to earth or permanently
fasten to anything which is attached to earth. Intangible property like patent,
copyrights etc. are not subject to theft. The word ‘every description’ shows that this
definition is very exhaustive.
(i) Animal- Animal except wild animal or ferae naturae is movable property and
subject to theft. Illustration (b) and (c) deal with dog and bollock respectively
prove them as movable property. A wild animal killed upon the soil, become
the absolute property of the land owner. When an animal is abandoned, cannot
be said to be in the possession of anyone. A bull dedicated to idol and allowed

1
Section 3 (36) of the General Clauses Act, 1897
 to roam at large remains the property of trustees of the temple and subject to
theft.
(ii) Fish- Fish present in the water tank with exclusive to catch may be subject to
theft. But when fish is in river, canals and seas are ferae naturae, cannot be
subject to theft.
(iii) Human corpse- Human corpse is only movable object which is incapable of
being moveable property but anatomical specimens are moveable property.
Stealing dead bodies after burial will not amount to theft but only offence u/s.
297 of the IPC, trespassing of burial places.
(iv) Electricity- In Avtar Singh v. State of Punjab, AIR 1965 SC 66, hon’ble
Supreme Court hold that electricity cannot be of corporeal nature and amount
to theft. Section 39 of the Electricity Act, 1910 deems the theft of electricity as
theft and enables punishment under section 379 of the IPC.
Now, section 135 of the Electricity Act, 2003, deals with theft of electricity
and provides for imprisonment for a term up to 3 years or fine or both.
(v) Water-Water running freely from a river through a channel made or
maintained by a person is not a subject of theft. Water conveyed in pipes is
reduced into possession of the person and thereby it becomes subject of theft.
(vi) Monies- Currency notes, coins either Indian or foreigner amount to movable
property.

3. Taking- Taking not only permanently but also temporarily amount to theft. When the
dishonest intention is coupled with even temporarily taking result in to offence
commission. In the Pyare Lal Bhargawa v. State of Rajasthan, AIR 1963 SC 94, the
accused being superintendent in a government office take a file to his house for a day
to facilitate his friend to change some papers present in that. SC held that for the
offence of theft, one need not to take movable property permanently out of the
possession to another, with the intention not to return it to him. It would satisfy the
definition if he took any moveable property out of the possession of another person,
though he intended to return it later.
In State of Maharashtra v. Vishwanath Tukaram Umale AIR 1979 SC 1825, apex
court observed that taking of a movable property out of possession need not to be
permanent or for a considerable length of time nor is it necessary that the property
should be found in the possession of the accused. Even a transient transfer of
possession is sufficient to meet the requisite of theft.
4. Possession
Ownership and possession are two different things. Section 378 uses the word ‘…out
of possession…’, this indicates that offence of theft is directed against possession.
Even owner of movable property can be liable for theft. Illustration (k) to section 378
depicts the same. In illustration (i), A has not committed theft because ‘Z’ was not
having possession rather custody of watch. Even dishonest intention is also missing in
the above example. The term ‘possession’ has not been deliberately defined by Law
Commissioners, who drafted IPC, as it is unnecessary and impossible. Possession
means physical control, whether rightful or wrongful, over a corporeal thing.
Possession

De facto Possession De jure Possession

De facto possession is mere custody. A servant has only custody of the articles which
belongs to his master. Illustration (d) supports that possession of servant is mere
custody. As remarked by the Law Commission, generally possession is a simple
question of fact.
Ownership of goods is immaterial for the offence of theft even a person, who got
wrongful possession also has same protection of section s. 378.
Thus if ‘B’ steals the goods of ‘A’ and then ‘C’ steals the same goods from ‘B’, both
‘B’ and ‘C’ have committed theft. In absence of ‘A’, ‘B’ can maintain the prosecution
against ‘C’, because law protects vicious possession also. In illustration (e), ‘A’ got
the possession, therefore not liable to the offence of theft.
Knowledge of the existence of a thing is not essential to invest the owner of an article
with possession in certain case. If a man sends coat to tailor, in the pocket of which he
left his purse, he retain the possession of the property of purse and money inside that.
Again possession can be further classified into mediate possession and immediate
possession. Mediate possession also known as constructive possession.
Possession

Mediate Possession Immediate Possession

(a) Constructive Possession – This is also known as de jure possession or mediate
possession or possession in law. When a person does not has direct control or
control is not immediate i.e. either through servant or clerk etc. Section 27 of the
IPC says that when property is in the possession of a person’s wife, clerk or
servant, on account of that person, it is in that person’s possession within the
meaning of this code. Explanation further clarified that even when a person
 employed temporarily, or on a particular occasion in the capacity of a clerk or
servant, is a clerk or servant within the meaning of this section.
Illustration (f) and (g) to section 378 of the IPC clarify that something present in
the house of a person deemed to be in the possession of that person even though
that person was not aware. In illustration (d), entrustment to servant, amount to
mere custody and owner still has the possession in law. Illustration (o) also shows
that property in the hand of wife does amount to possession of husband only.
(b) Joint Possession- Where there are several joint owners in joint possession and any
one of them dishonestly takes exclusive possession, he will be guilty of theft. A
coparcener dishonestly takes the separate property of another coparcener; he will
be guilty of theft.

5. Any person
Section 11 of the IPC defines ‘person’ in widest amplitude. It says that the word
‘person’ includes any company or association or body of persons, whether
incorporated or not. Therefore, person also includes artificial legal person along with
natural person. Here, even unincorporated body that is not strictly legal person also be
termed as person viz. partnership firm. Property may be in possession of any of such
persons. Law protect the unlawful transgression in the right of possession of any such
person.
6. Consent
Offence of theft is removing a moveable property without the consent of the person in
whose possession was the movable property. Explanation to section 378 says that
consent may be express or implied, and may be given either by the person in
possession or by any person having for that authority either express or implied.
Illustration (m), shows that person having the authority has given the consent.
In K.A. Mathai v. Kora Bibbikutty, (1976) 7SCC 212, Supreme Court held that
accused financier is purchase of Hire-Purchase agreement amounts to theft as such
resumption of possession is tainted with requisite dishonest intention.
However, SC in Charanjit Singh Chaudhary v. Sudhir Mehra AIR 2001 SC 3721,
held that the financier, who took back the vehicle for default in payment in
accordance with hire purchase agreement, would not amount to theft as dishonest
intention is absent.
7. Moves- ‘Moving’ portray the actus reus with dishonest intention to take a moveable
property out of the possession of any person make the person who moves guilty of the
offence of the theft. Moving does not always involve the use of force by the accused
 rather doing anything which result into change of the physical position of the
moveable property. Explanation 3 of the section says that 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. In case of animal,
using sound to allure the animal or using the bait amount to moving of that animal and
everything attached to that animal. Explanation 4 confirm this by saying that a person
, who by any means causes any animal to move is said to move that animal, and to
move everything which, in consequence of the motion so caused, is moved that
animal.
Immoveable properties are subject of theft but separating a thing from land and
converting into moveable property, may amount to theft. In such a case the act that
causes severance, amount to moving. If such severance was with requisite mens rea
would amount to theft. Explanation 2 to section 378 expresses the same preposition.
Illustration (a) portrays a situation where a three was cut on ‘Z’‘s ground with
dishonestly taking the tree out of ‘Z’ possession without ‘Z’ consent. Here, as soon as
‘A’ has severed the tree in order of taking, moving for section 378, has been taken
place.

Offence of theft cannot be committed against the immovable property

Section 378 applies only to movable property. Immovable properties are not subject matter of
theft. A house and everything permanently fastened to house will not come within purview of
theft. But material of house and after removal permanently fastened thing may amount to
theft. A tree when cut down and severed may amount to theft. Explanation 1 of section 378
says that a thing so long as it attached to 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
earth. Explanation 2 clarifies that a moving effected by the same act which affects severance
may be a theft.

Theft by owner of his own property

Theft is dishonest removal of movable thing from the possession of any person who has
rightful claim to be in possession of that thing. Thus, owner of thing removes that thing from
his friend’s house with intention to charge him amount to theft by owner. Illustration (j) says
that ‘A’ owes money to ‘Z’ retains the watch lawfully as a security for the debt, and ‘A’ takes
the watch out of ‘Z’ ‘s possession, with intention of depriving ‘Z’ of the property as a
security for his debt, he commits theft, in as much as he takes it dishonestly.
Another, illustration (k) says that ‘A’ having pawned his watch to ‘Z’, takes it out of ‘Z’s
possession without ‘Z’s consent, not having paid what is borrowed on the watch, he commits
theft, though watch is his own property in as much as he takes dishonestly.

Theft between spouses

There is no presumption of law that husband and wife constitute one person in India for the
purpose of criminal law. Therfre, if a wife removes her husband’s property from his house
with dishonest intention would amount to theft [Butchit (1893) ILR 17 Mad 401]. A Hindu
woman cannot be guilty of theft when she removes stridhan without consent of her husband
as the property belongs to her exclusively. But her husband can be convicted for theft if he
removes it without his wife’s consent [Natha Kalyan (1897) 8 BHC (cr) 11]

Snatching (S. 304 of BNS)

In the IPC, there is no offence of snatching though in many states it is. Under IPC snatching
is punishable under section 379 as offence of theft. Now, BNS has snatching as a separate
offence but punishable with the same punishment. Under the BNS, theft amount to snatching
if in order to commit theft, the offender suddenly or quickly or forcibly seizes or secures or
grabs or takes away from any person or from his possession any movable property.

Punishment of theft (S. 379)

The punishment for the offence of theft is imprisonment of either description for a term
which may extend to 3 years or fine or both.

Aggravated form of theft

S. 380 S. 381 S. 382

(Now S. 305 of BNS) (Now S. 306 of BNS) (Now S. 307 of BNS)

Theft in dwelling Theft by clerk or Theft after preparation made

House etc. servant etc. for causing death, hurt or restraint

In order to the commission of theft

 Pyare Lal Bhargava v. State of Rajasthan

AIR 1963 SC 1094

1. Facts- Accused, Pyare Lal Bhargawa was a superintendent in the chief Engineer’s
office, Alwar. At behest of his friend Ram Kumar Ram, he got a file from the
secretariat through a clerk and took that file to his home to made available to Ram
Kumar Ram. Ram Kumar Ram removed some papers in the file and replace with
some other papers. After discovery of said fact, Pyare Lal was prosecuted for the
offence of theft.
2. Case History-
Trial Court
Conviction
Session Court
Conviction
High Court (Revision)
Conviction
Supreme Court

3. Issue-Whether the act has done by Pyare Lal amount to offence of theft?
4. Arguments- Accuse contended that- (i) Accused, as superintendent was in possession
of the file and therefore, could not have taken the file himself.
(ii) There was no intention to take dishonestly, as he had taken it only for the purpose
of showing it to his friend.
(iii) He did not intend to take it dishonestly, as he didn’t receive any wrongful gain or
any wrongful loss to anyone.
5. Decision- SC did not agree that appellant was in possession of file. He was only one
of officer working in that department and therefore, cannot be said to be in legal
possession of the file. Nor court accepted the argument that for the offence of theft
one need to take movable property permanently out of the possession of another with
intention of not to return it to him.
Supreme Court held that even we cannot agree that there was no wrongful loss.
Wrongful loss is loss by unlawful means of property to which the person losing it is
legally entitled. The loss need not because of permanent deprivation of property but
may be caused even by temporarily dispossession, though the person taking it
 intended to restore it sooner or later. A temporary deprivation or disposition of the
property of other causes wrongful loss. That a person will act dishonestly if he
temporarily dispossess another of his property is made clear by illustration (b) and (l)
of section 378 of the IPC. We, therefore, hold that the accused has committed the
offence of theft.

Sekar v. Arumugham

(2000) Cr.L.J. 1552 (Mad.)

1. Facts- Petitioner Sekar had availed a loan of amount four lakhs from the Bank of
Madura, Trichy for purchase of Ashoka Leyland lorry. Petitioner had executed a deed
of hypothecation of lorry in favour of bank with a clause that in the event of default of
payment of instalment of loan, the bank had right to seize the lorry. There was default
in the payment of instalment and therefore bank seized the lorry.

2. Case History- Aggrieved by the action of bank, petitioner had filed a civil suit. But
suit was ultimately dismissed. Meanwhile, he filed a writ petition under article 226 of
the Constitution, but same was also rejected due to pendency of suit. He, then, filed
complaint before the magistrate for the offence of theft but same was also rejected.
Then, he filed criminal revision before additional District Judge. Court held that only
the owner of the properly can claim right to seize the vehicle and the petitioner cannot
the right. The Bank continues to be owner of the lorry and as such, the dismissal of
the petition is proper and correct.
3. Issue- Whether bank or its officers can be prosecuted for the offence of theft?
4. Arguments- It was argued that there was authorisation by clause 14 (3) in
hypothecation deed to seize the vehicle. Therefore, the seizure by bank in default of
payment of instalment cannot be termed as theft.
5. Decision- High Court held that when the respondent has been empowered to seize the
lorry under clause 14 (3) of the hypothecation deed, it cannot said that the respondent
has committed theft of the lorry, when bank seized the same in default of instalment
of loan.
Extortion
S. 383 (Now 308 of BNS)
S. 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 valuable security commits ‘extortion’.
Illustrations
(a) 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.
(b) 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 sings
and delivers the note. A has committed extortion.
(c) A threatens to send club-men to plough up Z's field unless Z will sign and deliver
to ‘B’ a bond binding Z under a penalty to deliver certain produce to B, and thereby
induces Z to sign and deliver the bond. A has committed extortion.
(d) A, by putting Z in fear of grievous hurt, dishonestly induces Z to sign or affix his
seal to a blank paper and deliver it to ‘A’. ‘Z’ sings and delivers the paper to A. Here,
as the paper so signed may be converted into a valuable security. A has committed
extortion.

Essential Ingredients-
There are three essential ingredients of offence of extortion-
1. Intentionally putting a person in fear of injury to him or some other person
2. The purpose of which is to dishonestly induce the person put in fear
3. To deliver property or valuable security or anything signed or sealed which may be
converted into valuable security.

Extortion takes an intermediate place between theft and robbery and it is more akin to
robbery than to theft.

(1) Fear- For the commission of the offence of extortion, one must intentionally put
any person in fear. But what degree of fear would justify a person of ordinary
strength of mind in giving up his property, in order to escape from the injury with
which he was threatened.
In Re Donolly’s 1 Leach 229, where the accused was charged with robbery
through extortion by threating to victim that he will charge him before magistrate
of attempt to unnatural offence. The court held guilty with following observations-
on the one hand, the fear is not confined to an apprehension of bodily injury; and
on the other hand, it must be such a nature as, in reason and common experience,
is likely to induce a person to part with his property against his will, and to put
him as it were under a temporary suspension of the power of exercising it through
 influence of the terror impressed; as well in sound as in legal construction, the
place of force, or an actual taking by violence or assault upon the person.
(2) Injury [S. 44 (Now S. 2 (14) of BNS))]- Injury, here does not limited to bodily
harm only. It denotes any harm whatever illegally caused to any person in body,
mind, reputation or property.
In R.S. Nayak v. A.R. Antulay, AIR 1986 SC 2045, the Chief Minister of
Maharashtra, asked the sugar co-operatives, who had placed a charter of demand
before the government of Maharashtra to made contributions to the Indira Gandhi
Pratibha Pratisthan (IGPP).
It was contended by the accused that if a man does demand something in order to
promise to do something which is not legally bound to do such act, would not
amount to extortion. Apex Court accepted this contention that fear of injury was
absent. Injury denotes harm whatever illegally caused. The Chief Minister was not
bound to accept the demand of sugar co-operatives. Therefore, such demand
would not amount to the offence.
In Purshtom Jethanad v. State of Kutch, AIR 1964 SC 154, the accused police
officer, while checking the passport, collected the passport of Ananda Ratan in a
village and demanded a sum of 800 in return. The SC held that there was an
implied threat for prosecution in respect of the same and withholding of the
passport on that threat. Even assuming that the passports were genuine,
wrongfully withholding the same was equally a fear of injury and hence, the
offence was covered under section 384 of the IPC.
(3) Dishonest inducement [S. 24 (Now s. 2 (7) of BNS)]-Word dishonestly defined
as whoever does anything with intention of causing wrongful gain to one person
or wrongful loss to another person, is said to do that thing dishonestly. Section 23
of the IPC, defines ‘wrongful gain’ as gain by unlawful means of property to
which the person gaining is not legally entitled.
Similarly, ‘wrongful loss’ is loss by unlawful means of property to which the
person losing is legally entitled. The combined effect of section 23 and 24 refers
to intention. Inducement as per oxford’s dictionary means something that is given
to somebody to persuade them to do something.
(4) Property- The offence of extortion is not limited to movable property rather
extend to even immovable property and intangible movable property also.
Legislature intent is very clear here, not to limit meaning of property. It also
extends to valuable security or anything signed or sealed which may be converted
into valuable security. Money is a movable property. A man might commit
 extortion by compelling another to assign to him as estate, or to create a mortgage
or annuity in his favour.
(5) Valuable security [S.30 of IPC (Now S. 2(31) of BNS)] - Valuable security
denotes a document [S. 28 (Now S. 2(8) of BNS)] which is, purports to be , a
document whereby any right is created, extended, transferred, restricted,
extinguished or released, or where by any person acknowledges that he lies under
legal disability, or has not a certain legal right. An example was given in
illustration, A writes his name on the back of a bill of exchange. As the effect of
this endorsement is transfer the right to the bill to any person who may become
the lawful holder of it, the endorsement is a ‘valuable security’

Difference between theft and extortion

Sl. No. Theft Extortion

1. It is an offence only against This offence extend even to
movable property valuable security or any other
property also
2. Accused removes property himself There is delivery of property
3. No fear is applied to the victim in Fear of injury is prerequisite for the
this offence offence of robbery
4. Property is taken without the Consent, here is not valid consent as
consent of possessor it was obtained through fear of
injury
5 Property is taken out of Property’s delivery was given by
possession of any person any person to accuse out of fear

Jadunandan Singh v. Emperor

AIR 1941 Pat. 129
1. Facts- Accuse Alakh and Jadunandan and some other persons assaulted Narain
Dusadh and Sheonandan Singh. Petitioner Alakh gave a bhala blow to Narain on the
right leg, and other people assaulted him with lathis. The petitioner Jadunandan and
other assaulted Sheonandan. Jadunandan after this forcible took the thumb
impressions of Narain on one piece of blank paper, and of Sheonandan on three blank
papers.
2. Case History- Magistrate
Conviction
Additional Session judge
Appeal failed
Revision application to Patna HC
3. Issue- Whether act of the accused, Jadunandan amount to extortion or not?
4. Arguments- Accused contended that definition of extortion requires prosecution to
prove that the victims were put in fear of injury to themselves or others, and further,
thereby dishonestly induced to deliver paper containg their thumb impression.
5. Decision- There is no finding of extortion in this case. The lower courts only speak of
the forcible taking of the victim’s thumb impression; and as this does not necessarily
involve inducing the victim to deliver papers with thumb impressions (papers which
could no doubt to converted into valuable security). Court hold that offence of
extortion is not established.

State of Karnataka v. Basavegowda

(1997) Cr.L.J. 4386 (Kant.)

1. Facts- The respondent- accused, Basavegowda took her wife Bhagyamma, 10 days
after their marriage to Burudala Bore forest under the pretext of going to friend’s
wedding. He threatened to kill her unless she parted with all her jewellery.
Bhagyamma finding no other option removed all her ornaments and handed over to
the accused. Thereafter, the accused is alleged to have assaulted her with a big stone
whereupon, she screamed. The accused continued to assault her with fists and seeing
other two people coming there, he ran away. Bhagyamma was admitted to the
hospital.
2. Issue- Whether Basavegowda has committed the offence of robbery of the jewellery
of Bhagyamma.
3. Arguments- Respondent- accused submitted that the accused was the husband of
Bhagyamma. It is perfectly legitimate for him to keep the wife’s ornaments in his
custody and that he did so, that the custody does not become unlawful. Learned
advocate proceeds on the assumption that the husband has every right to be found in
possession of wife’s ornaments and that the recovery of ornaments from him cannot
be treated as a guilty under these circumstances.
 4. Decision- Court said that we do not dispute the fact that under natural situations, a
wife may even entrust her ornaments to the husband for safe custody or a prudent or
careful husband may, for reasons of safety, keep the ornaments with his control and
such an ornaments could never lead to the inference that the husband was disentitled
to retain the wife’s ornaments and that he is a guilty under these circumstances.
Particularly, in criminal cases, such facts are not to be considered in a vacuum, but
must be looked at strictly in relation to the special situation that prevails in that
particular case. We have taken note of the fact that Bhagyamma has very clearly
stated in her evidence that these ornaments belong to her as they had been made by
her father for her wedding. She also states that they were in her custody and on her
person and that the accused under threat took the ornaments away from her. If the
custody of the ornaments has come to the accused under these circumstances, then his
possession becomes clearly unlawful. We need to add here that ornaments and
personal property belonging to a wife necessarily constitute her personal possessions
and divesting a wife of these against her wishes or without her consent would clearly
bring the case within the ambit of criminal offence. It is misnomer to argue that
irrespective of such situation, that the possession of the wife’s personal ornaments by
husband still continues to be lawful. In our considered view, the extortion of the
ornaments from Bhagyamma under threat and subsequent recovery of these
ornaments from the custody of the accused would clearly make him liable for an
offence of extortion punishable under section 384.

Robbery

Section 390 (Now S. 309 of BNS)

S. 390 Robbery (First clause) - In all robbery there is either theft or extortion.

This means that robbery is an aggravated form of either theft or extortion. Both theft and extortion
requires dishonestly as an essential element. Therefore, without the element of dishonestly, there
cannot be the offence of robbery. Similarly, taking of movable property out of possession of any
person is necessary ingredient of the theft. If the above mention element is absent, then the act would
not amount to theft and consequently, there will be no robbery. Thus in order to established an act
amount to robbery, one has to first prove that the act amount either to theft or extortion. Either
commission of theft or extortion or the attempts to commit the same are inevitable elements of
robbery.

S. 390 Robbery (Second clause) - 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.

S. 390 Robbery (Third clause) - 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 road, 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 filing 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
Theft Extortion

Section 378 Section 383

+ +

Causes or attempt In the presence of the

to cause death, hurt person put in fear of
or wrongful instant death, instant hurt
restraint or fear of or instant restraint to that
same person some other person

Robbery

Section 390

Robbery or attempt to
attempt to Robbery + 5 or
more persons

Dacoity

Section 391

Elements of robbery when it resulted from theft

1. Theft or attempt of theft

2. Voluntary infliction/causes or attempts to cause
(a) Death (S.46/s.2 (6) of BNS)
(b) Hurt (S.319/s. 114 of BNS)
(c) Wrongful restraint (S. 339/s. 126 of BNS)
(d) Fear of instant death, hurt or wrongful restraint
3. Aforesaid act/attempt or fear must be either in order to facilitate the commission of
theft or in carrying away the stolen property.
Illustration (a), describes the offence of robbery committed from the offence of theft.

Elements of robbery when it resulted from extortion

1. There must be extortion

2. At the time of commission of extortion, offender must be in the presence of that
person who was put in fear
3. There must be fear of instant death, instant hurt, or of instant wrongful restraint of that
person or to some other person.
1. Instant- Meaning of instant is immediate. In, illustration (d), ‘A’ property from ‘Z’
by saying- “your child is in the hands of my gang and will be put to death unless you
send us 10,000 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.
But illustration (c) covers the case of instant. ‘A’ meets ‘Z’ and Z’s 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 present there. A has therefore committed robbery ‘Z’.
2. In presence of- Explanation to S. 390, explains that the offender is said to be present
if he is sufficiently near to put the other person in fear of instant death, or instant hurt,
or of instant wrongful restraint. Therefore, in the presence of the accused is a question
of fact.
3. For that end- Offence of robbery is committed only if the death, hurt or wrongful
restraint or fear thereof is caused for the purpose of achieving the end object of
commission of theft or carrying away the stolen property. The phrase ‘for the end’ is
very crucial, which distinguish a case of theft accompanied with assault (S. 379 r.w. s.
323) from that of robbery. The word ‘for the end’ means that the hurt caused must be
with the object of facilitating the commission of theft or must be caused while the
offender is committing theft or is carrying away or is attempting to carry away
property obtained by theft (Venu @ Venugopal v. State of Karnataka AIR 2008 SC
1199).
Thus, if the death, hurt or wrongful restraint has not been caused for the end of
achieving the object of theft or carrying away the stolen property, then it will not
amount to an offence of robbery.
 Dacoity
S. 391 (S. 310 of BNS)
Dacoity has been defined as ‘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’
Essential ingredients
1. Act must be robbery or attempt to robbery
2. Either there are five persons must consist of those who themselves or those who are
present and aid the principal actors in the commission or attempt of such robbery.

Dacoity is nothing but robbery committed by five or more persons. The total number of
persons involved at whatever level, either as main persons or as aiders, must be five. They
should be involved in either committing, attempting to commit or in aiding the
commission of robbery.

1. Five or more persons- It is essential to have five or more persons in commission of

robbery to constitute dacoity.
(i) Ram Shanker Singh v. State of U.P., AIR 1956 SC 441, in this case six persons
were charged with committing dacoity. Three out of the six persons were acquitted.
The charges framed did not indicating that along with six persons, there were some
other unknown persons with them who had committed dacoity. It was held that the
remaining three persons could not be convicted for dacoity rather only to lesser
offence of robbery.
(ii) In Raj Kumar @ Raju v. State of Uttranchal, AIR 2008 Sc 3248, the SC has
reiterated that for commission of offence of dacoity a minimum of 5 persons is an
essential ingredient of dacoity and s. 396 does not come into play if persons convicted
for committing dacoity happened to be less than 5.
2. Conjointly commit or attempt to commit robbery- The word ‘conjointly’ means
united or in association. All five persons must act in a concerted manner participating
in the transaction.
In Re Muppanna Appanna, AIR 1948 Mad 96 (1949), a group of five persons come to
a house of sleeping family and beat up. Three of the accused went inside and the other
two kept guard outside. All the accused helped to remove the boxes. Later two of the
accused carried away the boxes. It was held that the beating and the robbery were all
 part of the same transaction and that all held to be guilty of committing dacoity under
section 391 and 395 of the IPC.
3. Dishonest intention-Though the section does not use the term ‘intentionally aid’, the
requirement of intention can be imported into the section, as an essential element of
dacoity and robbery is an aggravated form of theft and extortion. Since dishonest
intention is an essential element of theft and extortion. Thus, there cannot be an
offence dacoity under this section, unless an element of ‘dishonest intention’ on the
part of the offender is present.

Possession of stolen property- Possession of stolen property has always been

considered as sufficient presumptive evidence to prove the commission of theft and
robbery. Illustration (a) to section 114 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 provides that
court may presume that a man who is in possession of stolen goods soon after the
theft, is either the thief or has received the goods knowing them to be stolen, unless he
can prove its possession.
However, a court, while drawing the presumption under section 114 of the Indian
Evidence Act, on the basis of recent possession of belongings of the victim with the
accused, need to adopt a cautious approach and to have an assurance from all angles
that the accused not merely committed theft or robbery but also killed the victim.