What is theft, Extortion, Dacoity, Robbery, Kidnapping and Abduction, as per provisions of IPC?

 Under the IPC, these offences are easiest to remember if you link each one to its core act: theft = taking, extortion = obtaining by fear, robbery = theft/extortion plus instant violence, dacoity = robbery by 5 or more persons, kidnapping = taking away a person unlawfully, and abduction = compelling or inducing a person to go from a place by force or deceit.

Theft

Theft is defined in Section 378 IPC. It means that a person, with dishonest intention, takes movable property out of the possession of another person without that person’s consent, and moves that property in order to take it.

So, in simple words: theft means dishonestly taking someone’s movable property without consent.

Print Page

Supreme Court: How to appreciate evidence if FIR is lodged against unknown persons for the offence of robbery or dacoity?

 In cases where the FIR is lodged against unknown persons, and the persons made Accused are not known to the witnesses, material collected during investigation plays an important role to determine whether there is a credible case against the Accused. In such type of cases, the courts have to meticulously examine the evidence regarding (a) how the investigating agency derived clue about the involvement of the Accused in the crime; (b) the manner in which the Accused was arrested; and (c) the manner in which the Accused was identified. Apart from above, discovery/ recovery of any looted Article on the disclosure made by, or at the instance of, the Accused, or from his possession, assumes importance to lend credence to the prosecution case.{Para 14}

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

Criminal Appeal Nos. 201 of 2020 and 202 of 2020

Decided On: 04.02.2025

Wahid Vs. State Govt. of NCT of Delhi

Hon'ble Judges/Coram:

Pamidighantam Sri Narasimha,  and Manoj Misra, , JJ.

Author: Manoj Misra, J.

Citation: 2025 INSC 145 : AIR 2025 SC 1087 : (2025) 3 SCC 341,MANU/SC/0145/2025.

Print Page

Supreme Court: Courts Must Exercise Caution in Granting Bail in Rape, Murder Cases Once Trial Begins

 Ordinarily in serious offences like rape, murder, dacoity,

etc., once the trial commences and the prosecution starts

examining its witnesses, the Court be it the Trial Court or the

High Court should be loath in entertaining the bail

application of the accused. {Para 14}

15. Over a period of time, we have noticed two things, i.e., (i)

either bail is granted after the charge is framed and just

before the victim is to be examined by the prosecution before

the trial court, or (ii) bail is granted once the recording of the

oral evidence of the victim is complete by looking into some

discrepancies here or there in the deposition and thereby

testing the credibility of the victim.

16. We are of the view that the aforesaid is not a correct

practice that the Courts below should adopt. Once the trial

commences, it should be allowed to reach to its final

conclusion which may either result in the conviction of the

accused or acquittal of the accused. The moment the High

Court exercises its discretion in favour of the accused and

orders release of the accused on bail by looking into the

deposition of the victim, it will have its own impact on the

pending trial when it comes to appreciating the oral evidence

of the victim. It is only in the event if the trial gets unduly

delayed and that too for no fault on the part of the accused,

the Court may be justified in ordering his release on bail on

the ground that right of the accused to have a speedy trial

has been infringed.

REPORTABLE

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

EXTRAORDINARY APPELLATE JURISDICTION

SPECIAL LEAVE PETITION (CRIMINAL) NO. 13378 OF 2024

X Vs  STATE OF RAJASTHAN & ANR. 

Dated: 27th November, 2024

Citation: 2024 INSC 909.

Print Page

Test Identification Parade in Criminal Trials: Evidence Appreciation, Judicial Safeguards & Case-Law Analysis

 Introduction

In criminal trials involving offences such as dacoity and robbery, identification of the accused by the victims or witnesses is often the linchpin of the prosecution’s case. The Test Identification Parade (TIP)—a procedure whereby witnesses identify suspects in a line-up prior to trial—is a critical investigative tool that can make or break the prosecution’s narrative. Yet, its evidentiary value and reliability have repeatedly come under judicial scrutiny, especially when procedural lapses occur, such as the non-examination of the executive magistrate who conducted the parade.

This article offers a comprehensive analysis of TIP’s legal status, evidentiary nuances, mandatory precautions, and recent trends in Supreme Court and Bombay High Court jurisprudence. It is designed as a reference for judges, advocates, and executive magistrates handling identification evidence in serious crime cases.

Print Page

Whether Charge Of Retaining Stolen Articles Of Dacoity is tenable If Prosecution Fails To Prove Offence Of Dacoity?

  Mr. Ayan Bhattacharya, learned lawyer appearing for the

appellant as Amicus Curiae vehemently argues that while the

charges under Sections 395/397, IPC have not been proved, the

appellant/accused could not be held guilty under Section 412, IPC

which forms an integral part of the charges under Sections

395/397, IPC. In support of his argument learned counsel has

cited a decision in the case of K. Venkateshwar Rao alias

Venkatal alias I. Rao-Vs- State Represented by Inspector of

Police, A.P. reported in (2002) 6 SCC 247. In the decision as

cited supra the Hon’ble Apex Court has held that while the charge of dacoity has not been proved by the prosecution, the charge under Section 412, IPC of retaining the stolen articles of dacoity fails automatically. In such context it will be apposite to refer to Section 412, IPC. Section 412, IPC provides that whoever

dishonestly receives or retains any stolen property, the possession

whereof he knows or has reason to believe to have been transferred by the commission of dacoity, or dishonestly receives from a person, whom he knows or has reason to believe to belong or to have belonged to a gang of dacoits, property which he knows or has reason to believe to have been stolen, shall 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. The language employed in the Section clearly shows that the articles an accused retains shall be related to those articles captured or received during the commission of dacoity. While the charge of dacoity fails, the charge under Section 412, IPC automatically fails in the light of the decision as cited supra.

IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA

Criminal Appellate Jurisdiction

Appellate Side

C.R.A. 21 of 1991

Ramabatar Rajbar @ Ramawatar Nimtar Rajwar Vs The State of West Bengal

PRESENT :

 JUSTICE RABINDRANATH SAMANTA

Judgment On: 18.05.2022

Print Page

Whether court should frame charge against accused for robbery or dacoity as per S 397 of IPC if weapon is not recovered from him?

 The fact that the weapon has not been recovered is no ground for not framing charges under Section 397 IPC. The effect of non recovery of the weapon would be seen only in trial and that cannot be a reason for not framing charges under Section 397 IPC.

 IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI 

CRL.REV.P. 108/2021

 STATE Vs  HASSAN AHMED

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SUBRAMONIUM PRASAD SUBRAMONIUM PRASAD, J.

Date of decision: 08th November, 2021

Print Page

Whether court can convict an accused for an offence U/S 397 of IPC if he has not used weapon during Robbery?

 12.7. Thus, as per the law laid down by this Court in the aforesaid two decisions the term ‘offender’ under Section 397 IPC is confined to the ‘offender’ who uses any deadly weapon and use of deadly weapon by one offender at the time of committing robbery cannot attract Section 397 IPC for the imposition of minimum punishment on another offender who has not used any deadly weapon. Even there is distinction and difference between Section 397 and Section 398 IPC. The word used in Section 397 IPC is ‘uses’ any deadly weapon and the word used in Section 398 IPC is ‘offender is armed with any

deadly weapon’. Therefore, for the purpose of attracting Section 397 IPC the ‘offender’ who ‘uses’ any deadly weapon Section 397 IPC shall be attracted.

In light of the above observations and the law laid down by this

Court in the aforesaid two decisions the case on behalf of the

accused in the present appeals is required to be considered. Even

as per the case of the prosecution and even considering the evidence on record it can be seen that the present accused A1 and A3 are not alleged to have used any weapon. The allegation of use of any weapon was against Benny and Prabhakaran. Therefore, in absence of any allegations of use of any deadly weapon by the appellants herein – Accused Nos.1 and 3 Section 397 IPC shall not be attracted and to that extent the Learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the appellants – accused are right in submitting that they ought not to have been convicted for the offence punishable under Section 397 IPC.

 REPORTABLE

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.903 OF 2021

GANESAN Vs STATE 

Print Page

Whether court can try three accused of dacoity if two accused are absconding?

  Now so far as the submission on behalf of the appellants –

accused that even no case is made out for the offence under Section 391 IPC and they cannot be punished under Section 395 IPC as what is required to be proved is involvement of five or more persons conjointly in committing the robbery and in the present case only four persons are tried and the prosecution has failed to prove the involvement of five or more persons. However, it is required to be noted that as such in the FIR there was a reference to five persons involved in committing the robbery. Even the charge-sheet was filed against five persons. However, as two accused absconded, the trial was split and three accused came to be tried. One accused Benny came to be tried subsequently and one person is still absconding. Even there are concurrent findings recorded by all the courts below that five persons were involved in committing the offence of robbery.

Merely because some of the accused absconded and less than five

persons came to be tried in the trial, it cannot be said that the offence under Section 391 IPC punishable under Section 395 IPC is not made out. What is required to be considered is the involvement and commission of the offence of robbery by five persons or more and not whether five or more persons were tried. Once it is found on evidence that five or more persons conjointly committed the offence of robbery or attempted to commit the robbery a case would fall under Section 391 IPC and would fall within the definition of ‘dacoity’. Therefore, in the facts and circumstances, the accused can be convicted for the offence under Section 391 IPC punishable under

Section 395 IPC. {Para 16}

 REPORTABLE

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.903 OF 2021

GANESAN Vs STATE 

Print Page

Whether the court can convict accused of the offence of dacoity if the prosecution fails to prove the presence of five or more person at the time of the crime of dacoity?

  The above judgment has been followed by Supreme Court in subsequent judgment in Manmeet Singh alias Goldie (supra) and relevant paras 32, 33 and 34 of the judgment are as under:

“32. With reference to the offence of dacoity under section 391, IPC in particular and the import of section 149, IPC, this Court in Raj Kumar v. State of Uttaranchal (2008) 11 SCC 709 had propounded that in absence of a finding about the involvement of five or more persons, an accused cannot be convicted for such an offence. Their Lordships, however, clarified that in a given case it could happen that there might be five or more persons and the factum of their presence either is not disputed or is clearly established, but the Court may not be able to record a finding as to their identity resulting in their acquittal as a result thereof. It was held that in such a case, conviction of less than five persons or even one can stand, but in the absence of a finding about the presence or participation of five or more persons, less than five persons cannot be convicted for an offence of dacoity.

33. The above pronouncements do acknowledge the extension of the concept of collective culpability enshrined in Section 149 IPC in Section 396 IPC contemplating murder with dacoity. An assembly of five or more persons participating in the offence is thus the sine qua non for an offence under Section 396 IPC permitting conviction of any one or more members thereof even if others are acquitted for lack of their identity. In absence of such an assembly of five or more persons imbued with the common object of committing dacoity with murder, any member thereof cannot be convicted for the said offence irrespective of his/her individual act of murder unless independently and categorically charged for that offence.

13. From the above mentioned judgments, it is clear that in case there is a conviction of less than five persons under Sections 395/397 IPC, Trial Court must arrive to a finding that there was involvement of five or more persons. In absence of such finding no conviction could be made out under aforesaid Sections. As rightly pointed out by the counsel for appellants that Trial Court has not recorded any such finding in this regard and it simply mentioned in the judgment that “three accused, facing trial before me, were also alongwith dacoits who committed dacoity in the house of Raj Kumar” and “prosecution has successfully established that the three accused committed dacoity in the house of Raj Kumar in the night of occurrence”. In my opinion, the above mentioned finding is not sufficient to conclude that five or more persons were involved in the offence and not sufficient to convict appellants, who are three in numbers under the offence of dacoity.

14. In view of above, prosecution has completely failed, in the present case, either to prove the participation of five or more persons in commission of offence or establish their identity. Therefore, in my considered view the conviction and sentence of appellants is being repugnant to letter and spirit of Sections 391 and 396 IPC, the same cannot be sustained.

In the High Court of Allahabad

(Before Saurabh Shyam Shamshery, J.)

Balbir Vs  State of U.P.

Criminal Appeal No. - 648 of 1983

Decided on July 9, 2020

Citation: 2020 SCC OnLine All 845 : (2020) 112 ACC 971 : (2020) 5 All LJ 174

Print Page

Whether not working country-made pistol is a deadly weapon for S 398 of IPC?

 The next issue to be examined is whether the country made

pistol (katta) can be termed as a “deadly weapon” as contemplated under Section 398 of the IPC. At this stage, it would be relevant to refer to the language of Section 398 of the IPC. The said Section is set

out below:

“398. Attempt to commit robbery or dacoity when armed

with deadly weapon.—If, at the time of attempting to

commit robbery or dacoity, the offender is armed with any

deadly weapon, the imprisonment with which such

offender shall be punished shall not be less than seven

years.”

30. It is apparent from the plain language of Section 398 of the IPC that if an offender is armed with a deadly weapon at the time of robbery or dacoity, the same would constitute an offence under Section 398 of the IPC.

31. In the present case, the appellant was armed with a country

made pistol while attempting to commit robbery and therefore, he has been convicted under Section 393 read with Section 398 of the IPC on the assumption that the country made pistol is a ‘deadly weapon’.

32. Thus, the key question to be addressed is whether the country

made pistol (katta) can be termed as a “deadly weapon” even if it is in a state of disrepair and therefore, cannot be used as such without carrying out the necessary repairs. The term ‘deadly’ qualifies the term ‘weapon’. Thus, in order for any weapon to be termed as deadly, it should one which is capable of or likely to cause death if used in the manner in which it is intended to be used. In order for any object, instrument or thing to qualify as a weapon, it should be one, which is intended to be used as such. There may be a large number of instruments or objects, which can be used in a lethal manner, however, if they are not intended or meant to be used in that manner, they cannot be understood to be weapons for the purposes of Section 398 of the IPC. The natural import of the word ‘weapon’ is clearly an object,a device, an instrument or any other thing, that is, intended to be used as a weapon and is inherently one. The term ‘deadly’ specifies the lethal quality of the weapon. A deadly weapon is one, which is lethal and is likely to cause death when used in the manner in which it is intended. By its very nature, a deadly weapon is one, which is likely to result in a fatality.

33. It is necessary to bear in mind that the mere possession of a

deadly weapon while committing a robbery constitutes an offence punishable under Section 398 of the IPC. It is not necessary for the offender to have used the weapon or even threatened to use such a deadly weapon.

34. There are large number of instruments or objects, which if used in a particular manner, may result in a fatality. Even an innocuous writing instrument such as a pen, if used in a particular manner, may result in fatality. However, a pen is not a deadly weapon and merely carrying the said writing instrument, at the time of committing robbery or dacoity, would not constitute an offence punishable under Section 398 of the IPC. Thus, the necessary ingredients of a ‘deadly weapon’ are: first, that it should be a weapon and capable of being used as such; and second, that it must be inherently lethal and if used in the intended manner is likely to result in death.

35. Viewed in the aforesaid perspective, a firearm, that is, incapable of being used as a weapon, cannot be construed to be a deadly weapon for the purposes of Section 398 of the IPC. Thus, even though the country made pistol recovered from the appellant constitutes a firearm, it cannot be considered as a deadly weapon. This is because at the material time, it could not be used to inflict any fatal injury, if used in the manner in which it was meant to be used – that is, for the purpose of firing a bullet –on account of it being in disrepair.

36. The question whether a firearm, which is non-functional can

qualify as a “deadly weapon” as contemplated under Section 398 of the IPC, is also squarely covered by the decision of the Coordinate Bench of this Court in Rakesh (supra). The relevant extract of the said decision is set out below: -

“17. The purpose of using a deadly weapon at the time of

committing robbery, dacoity or attempting one, is

obviously to overawe and instill a sense of fear in the

victim. However, when the so called weapon is in a non

working condition, used merely as a camouflage, whether

such weapon could fall within the definition of ‘deadly

weapon’ is a matter of debate. It can be urged that the

victim who is put in fear of life or grave injury, lest he

parts with his belongings, has no way of knowing that the

weapon being pointed at him is not in working condition or

is fake. The victim in such situation will not resist the

offence thinking that his/her life is in danger. The fear for

life/hurt created in the mind of the victim is a direct result

of the act of the accused.

18. However for the purpose of Section 398 IPC, this

argument does not merit acceptance. As noticed above

even carrying a “deadly weapon” at the time of offence

attracts Section 398 IPC and the actual use or brandishing

is not required. Section 398 IPC applies when at the

time of the attempted robbery or dacoity the accused has

caused or threatened the victim of bodily harm and injury

etc. and at that time the accused was in possession of a

deadly weapon. The word ‘deadly’ qualifies and is

descriptive of the term “weapon”. If the accused is not

carrying a “weapon” or carrying a “weapon” which is not

in a working condition and cannot cause any grievous

bodily harm or injury, it would not qualify and cannot be

regarded as a deadly weapon. The effect thereof is that the

legislative mandate of minimum punishment under Section

398 IPC is not applicable in such cases. Punishment,

howsoever, prescribed under Section 393 IPC is applicable

and also stringent enough and can extend upto 7 years.

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

 Judgment delivered on: 15.09.2020

 CRL. A. 807/2017

SONU @ RAJA  Vs STATE 

Print Page

Important Notes on Indian Penal Code

1) Notes on S 34 and S149 IPC- Principle of constructive liability

https://www.lawweb.in/2018/08/notes-on-s-34-and-s-149-ipc-principle.html

2) Notes on offence of Forgery

https://www.lawweb.in/2018/08/notes-on-offence-of-forgery.html

3) Notes on offence of Mischief and Criminal Trespass

https://www.lawweb.in/2018/08/notes-on-offence-of-mischief-and.html

4) Notes on offence of receiving of stolen property

https://www.lawweb.in/2018/08/notes-on-offence-of-receiving-of-stolen.html

5)Notes on offence of Mischief and Criminal Trespass

Print Page

Calcutta HC: Knowledge of commission of dacoity is necessary to attract penal liability for harbouring dacoits U/S. 216-A IPC

There is no evidence on
record that the appellant was aware that they were planning to commit
dacoity in the convent. Raucous and unbridled behaviour of the accused
persons during marriage or their expensive habits without anything more
would not create an irresistible inference in the mind of a reasonable man of
ordinary prudence that they were planning to commit dacoity in the
convent.
It is apposite to note that in Emperor the Court held penal liability
would not be attracted if a person harbours dacoits in general and it must
be proved that he had harboured such dacoits who intended to commit a
‘particular dacoity’. Knowledge of the appellant with regard to dacoity
conducted at the convent does not appear to be proved beyond doubt as
evidence of P.W. 11 is too vague to be convincing and the other evidence on
record do not inspire confidence to come to such conclusion.
In the light of the aforesaid discussion, I am of the opinion, that the
prosecution case has not been proved beyond reasonable doubt and the
appellant is entitled to get an order of acquittal.

IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
Present:
The Hon’ble Justice Joymalya Bagchi
And
The Hon’ble Justice Ravi Krishan Kapur
C.R.A. 693 of 2017
With
CRAN 1241 of 2018

Gopal Sarkar  Vs. State of West Bengal

Judgment on : 20.12.2019
Joymalya Bagchi, J. :

Print Page

Whether paper cutter blade is a deadly weapon so as to constitute an offence U/S 397 of IPC?

9. Section 397 IPC reads as under:—

“Robbery, or dacoity, with attempt to cause death or grievous hurt.—If, at the time of committing robbery or dacoity, the offender uses any deadly weapon, or causes grievous hurt to any person, or attempts to cause death or grievous hurt to any person, the imprisonment with which such offender shall be punished shall not be less than seven years”.

10. Section 397 IPC envisages that if at the time of committing robbery or dacoity the offender uses any deadly weapon or causes grievous hurt or attempts to cause death or grievous hurt, the imprisonment with which such offender shall be punished shall not be less than seven years.

11. In Rajender Yadav v. The State (NCT of Delhi), 2013 VII AD (Delhi) 359, this Court has held that where the prosecution case itself is that only vegetable knife was found in the possession of the accused, the knife cannot be considered a ‘deadly weapon’ to award the sentence of seven years which is a minimum sentence to be given with the aid of Section 397 IPC”. In Jagdish v. The State, 1985 Crl. L.J. 1621, this Court has held thus:

“Para 9. “A deadly weapon is a thing designed to cause death, for instance, a gun, a bomb, a rifle, a sword or even a knife. A thing not so designed may also be used as a weapon to cause bodily injury and even death. It will be a question of fact in each case whether the particular weapon which may even be a knife can be said to be a deadly weapon. In the instant case, there is evidence to the effect that the knives which the accused were having were small in size. They were ordinary vegetable cutting knives. This renders the possibility of those knives being deadly weapons highly doubtful and as such the appellants shall be entitled to benefit thereof. Consequently it would be unfair to impose the minimum sentence contemplated in Section 397 on the appellants merely because they used those knives in the commission of the crime. …. …..”

12. In Rakesh Kumar v. State of NCT of Delhi, 2005 (1) JCC 334, a Single Judge of this Court has held that there are knives of hundreds of type available in different length and width. All the knives cannot be graded as “deadly weapon” within the meaning of Section 397 IPC. It is the length, shape and the manner of use which makes a knife “deadly weapon”. In Charan Singh v. State, 1998 Crl. L.J. NOC 28 (Delhi), it was held that in order to bring home a charge under Section 397, the prosecution must produce convincing evidence that the knife used by the accused was ‘deadly weapon’.

13. In this case also, the paper cutter blade used was having blade of 6.5 cm, inasmuch as has no sharp and pointed edge, for which no licence was needed, as per the Notifications issued by the Delhi Administration, inasmuch as, no witness has deposed that the paper cutter blade recovered from the appellant qualified to be a knife and more particularly a ‘deadly weapon’. In this case, prosecution has failed to lead any evidence to show that appellant had used a “deadly weapon” while committing robbery, thus, in my view, ingredients of offence under Section 397 IPC are not attracted in this case. In absence of necessary ingredients that have not been established by the prosecution, conviction of appellant under Section 397 IPC cannot be sustained. Accordingly, conviction of appellant is altered from Section 397 IPC to 392 IPC.

In the High Court of Delhi at New Delhi

(Before A.K. Pathak, J.)

Guddu  v.  State 

Crl.A. 721/2018

Decided on March 19, 2019

Citation: 2019 SCC OnLine Del 7855

Print Page

Whether accused can be convicted for dacoity if no test identification parade was held?

 As regards the claim of appellant that nonidentification
of the
accused by the witness would not substantiate the
prosecution case, admittedly no prosecution witness has
identified the accused—appellant which does not mean that
the prosecution case against the accused is on false footing.
As a general rule, identification tests do not constitute
substantive evidence. The purpose of identification test is only

to help the investigating agency as to whether the investigation
into the offence is proceeding in a right direction or not. In our
view, nonidentification
of the appellant by any prosecution
witness would not vitiate the prosecution case. It is evident
from the confessional statement of the accused that at the
time of occurrence he and another accused Rampati Manjhi
were guarding outside the informant’s house while other
accused were committing dacoity inside. We do not think that
there is any justification to the argument that as none of the
prosecution witnesses could be able to identify the appellant,
he cannot be termed as accused. In our view, such nonidentification
would not be fatal to the prosecution case in the
given facts and circumstances.
15. The identification parade belongs to the stage of investigation,
and there is no provision in the Code which obliges the
investigating agency to hold or confers a right upon the
accused to claim, a test identification parade. They do not
constitute substantive evidence and these parades are
essentially governed by Section 162 of the Code. Failure to

hold a test identification parade would not make inadmissible
the evidence of identification in Court. The weight to be
attached to such identification should be a matter for the
Courts of fact. In appropriate cases it may accept the evidence
of identification even without insisting on corroboration [See :
Kanta Prashad v. Delhi Administration, 1958 CriLJ 698
and Vaikuntam Chandrappa and Ors. v. State of Andhra
Pradesh, AIR 1960 SC 1340].
REPORTABLE
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 1333 of 2009

RAJU MANJHI Vs STATE OF BIHAR


Dated:August 02, 2018.
N.V. RAMANA, J.

Print Page

Notes on offence of receiving of stolen property

Receiving stolen property (S 410- 414)

Ordinarily a culprit who obtains property by theft of other criminal means would be anxious to dispose it of,mainly with a view to destroy evidence,and also to convert it into money.If the receiver were to go unpunished,robbers and thieves would prosper.S 411 to 414 are enacted to punish receivers of stolen property.Thus receiving or obtaining stolen property,knowing it to be such,is punishable with imprisonment for 3 years or fine or both.(S 411 of IPC)

Print Page

Notes on offence of theft,extortion,robbery,and dacoity

Theft (S.378 of IPC)
Five ingredients of offence of theft are as under:
1) Dishonest intention to take property,
2) Property must be movable,
3) It should be taken out of possession of another person,
4) Property should be taken without consent of owner,
5)There should be some removal of property in order to accomplish the taking of it.

Print Page

Whether court can record finding of offence of dacoity in absence of participation of five or more person?

 With reference to the offence of dacoity under section 391, IPC in particular and the import of section 149, IPC, this Court in Raj Kumar vs. State of Uttaranchal 2008 (11) SCC 709 had propounded that in absence of a finding about the involvement of five or more persons, an accused cannot be convicted for such an offence. Their Lordships, however, clarified that in a given case it could happen that there might be five or more persons and the factum of their presence either is not disputed or is clearly established, but the Court may not be able to record a finding as to their identity resulting in their acquittal as a result thereof. It was held that in such a case, conviction of less than five persons or even one can stand, but in the absence of a finding about the presence or participation of five or more persons, less than five persons cannot be convicted for an offence of dacoity.

Supreme Court of India

Manmeet Singh Alias Goldie vs State Of Punjab on 24 March, 2015

Bench: M.Y. Eqbal, Amitava Roy

Print Page