Skip to main content

Robbery under IPC

                        Robbery under IPC

On a daily basis and in the common language, the phrases such as robbery, theft and extortion are used interchangeably but under the legal aspect it has different meaning. Under the Indian Penal Code, 1860 the definition is clearly defined which is distinct from each other. As we move further to understand what really robbery means and stands for, it is important to first understand the concept of theft and extortion by which the it will be easy to understand the main concept which is discussed in this article.

As per Section 378 of Indian Penal Code, 1860 “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”. The main elements for this offence is that there should be dishonest intention present, property is movable, taken out of the possession of another without consent. Therefore, if all these conditions are met then the individual is said to have committed theft and now he or she will be given punishment which is defined under Section 379 of the Indian Penal code, 1860. It shall be imprisonment of up to 3 years or fine or with both.

As per the Section 383 of Indian Penal Code, 1860 “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 property security is said to have committed extortion”. The main elements for this offence are that the accused should intentionally put the victim in fear of injury and induce him or her to pass on his or her property. It should be present that there is a pressure in the victim’s mind as it would in the reasonable person’s mind and he would act according to that only. The punishment which will then be awarded under Section 384 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 will be same as theft that is imprisonment for up to 3 years or fine or both.

Lastly, according to Section 390 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860, when there will be robbery there is either extortion or theft. It literally means that when one individual takes the personal property of the another individual against his will by using force and fear, with the intention of depriving the owner of his or her property permanently, then he is said to have committed robbery. Now, it is important to analyze that what fear means under the law. So, it means when the person is put under the apprehension of death, hurt, or wrongful restraint then it is said to have generated the fear in a reasonable person’s mind. The punishment for this is defined under the Section 392 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860. It mentions that whoever commit the offence of robbery will be imprisoned which may be extended to 10 years and shall also be liable to pay fine. Further, when it is committed on the highway which is different from the common lace then it will attract imprisonment for 14 years. Also, Section 393 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 defines punishment for the attempt to robbery which gives imprisonment for up to 7 years and shall also be liable to pay fine.
Labels:

Comments

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

Section 58B of The Advocates Act - Special provision relating to certain disciplinary proceedings

 Section 58B The Advocates Act Description (1) As from the 1st day of September, 1963, every proceeding in respect of any disciplinary matter in relation to an existing advocate of a High Court shall, save as provided in the first proviso to sub-section (2), be disposed of by the State Bar Council in relation to that High Court, as if the existing advocate had been enrolled as an advocate on its roll. (2) If immediately before the said date, there is any proceeding in respect of any disciplinary matter in relation to an existing advocate pending before any High Court under the Indian Bar Councils Act, 1926 (38 of 1926), such proceeding shall stand transferred to the State Bar Council in relation to that High Court, as if it were a proceeding pending before the corresponding Bar Council under clause (c) of sub-section (1) of section 56: Provided that where in respect of any such proceeding the High Court has received the finding of a Tribunal constituted under section 11 of the Indian B
Post a Comment
Read more

Case Laws related to Defamation in favour of ClaimantCase Laws related to Defamation in favour of Claimant. TOLLEY Vs, J.S FRY & SONS LTD – (1931) Facts The defendants were owners of chocolate manufacturing company. They advertised their products with a caricature of the claimant, who was a prominent amateur golfer, showing him with the defendants’ chocolate in his pocket while playing golf. The advertisement compared the excellence of the chocolate to the excellence of the claimant’s drive. The claimant did not consent to or knew about the advertisement. Issue The claimant alleged that the advertisement suggested that he agreed to his portrait being used for commercial purposes and for financial gain. He further claimed that the use of his image made him look like someone who prostituted his reputation for advertising purposes and was thus unworthy of his status. At trial, several golfers gave evidence to the effect that if an amateur sold himself for advertisement, he no longer maintained his amateur status and might be asked to resign from his respective club. Furthermore, there was evidence that the possible adverse effects of the caricature on the claimant’s reputation were brought to the defendants’ attention. The trial judge found that the caricature could have a defamatory meaning. The jury then found in favor of the claimant. Held The House of Lords held that in the circumstances of this case – as explained by the facts – the caricature was capable of constituting defamation. In other words, the publication could have the meaning alleged by the claimant. The Lords also ordered a new trial limited to the assessment of damages. NEWSTEAD V LANDON EXPRESS NEWSPAPER LTD, (1939) Facts: A newspaper published a defamatory article about Harold Newstead. However, another person with this name brought an action in libel. He claimed that the article had been misunderstood as leading to him. The defendant newspaper recognised that they published the article. Also, they denied that they had the intention of being defamatory of him. Consequently, the claimant argued that the newspaper was under a duty. The duty was to give a clear and complete description of the correct person. Moreover, the claimant argued that the defendants were in breach of the duty. Issues: The issue in Newstead v London Express Newspaper, was if the reasonable persons would have understood the words complained of to refer to the plaintiff. Held: The Court of Appeal stated that in accordance with the current law on libel, liability for libel does not depend on the intention of the defamer; but on the fact of the defamation. Accordingly, a reasonable man, in this case a newspaper publisher, must be aware of the possibility of individuals with the same name and must assume that the words published will be read by a reasonable man with reasonable care.

  Case Laws related to Defamation in favour of Claimant.  TOLLEY  Vs,  J.S FRY & SONS LTD – (1931) Facts The defendants were owners of chocolate manufacturing company. They advertised their products with a caricature of the claimant, who was a prominent amateur golfer, showing him with the defendants’ chocolate in his pocket while playing golf. The advertisement compared the excellence of the chocolate to the excellence of the claimant’s drive. The claimant did not consent to or knew about the advertisement.   Issue The claimant alleged that the advertisement suggested that he agreed to his portrait being used for commercial purposes and for financial gain. He further claimed that the use of his image made him look like someone who prostituted his reputation for advertising purposes and was thus unworthy of his status. At trial, several golfers gave evidence to the effect that if an amateur sold himself for advertisement, he no longer maintained his amateur status and might be aske
1 comment
Read more

Rules as to delivery of goods

                             Rules as to delivery of goods Section 2(2) of Sale of Goods Act defines ‘delivery’ as a ‘voluntary transfer of possession from one person to another.’ Thus, if the transfer of goods is not voluntary and is taken by theft, by fraud, or by force, then there is no ‘delivery. Moreover, the ‘delivery’ should have the effect of putting the goods in possession of the buyer. The essence of the delivery is a voluntary transfer of possession of goods from one person to another. There is no delivery of goods where they are obtained at pistol point or theft. 1. Mode of Delivery: According to Section 33, delivery of goods sold may be made by doing anything which the parties agree shall be treated as delivery or which has the effect of putting the goods in the possession of the buyer or of any person authorized to hold them on his behalf. Delivery of goods may be actual, symbolic or constructive. 2. Expenses of Delivery: According to Section 36(5), unless otherwise agree
Post a Comment
Read more