Posted November 10, 2013 by advocateguru in Learning Centre
 
 

Robbery

 

Essential Ingredients

Robbery is an aggravated form of either theft or extortion. The opening words of Section 390, IPC, show that there cannot be any robbery, if there is no theft or extortion. Both in theft and extortion, dishonesty is an essential ingredient. So, if there is no element of dishonesty in an act, there can be no offence of theft or extortion and consequently there cannot be an offence of robbery. Similarly, removal of movable property from the possession of another is a necessary element to constitute an offence of theft. If this element is absent, then there is no theft and consequently, there will be no robbery either. Thus in order to verify whether a particular act would amount to a robbery or not, one has to first establish that the offence has ingredients of theft or extortion, since robbery s nothing but an aggravated form of theft and extortion. Theft or extortion or attempt to commit any one of the two is an inevitable ingredient of robbery.

Causing Death, Hurt or Wrongful Restraint or Fear Thereof

One of the essential ingredients to constitute the offence of robbery is that the offender should have caused to any person death, hurt or wrongful restraint, or the fear of instant death or instant hurt or instant wrongful restraint. Only when such element exist, the offence of theft would be robbery and not otherwise.

For that end’

Section 390 will apply 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 words ‘for that end’ are thus very crucial, which distinguish a case of theft accompanied with assault which is covered by Sections 379 and 323 from that of robbery. 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 under Section 390, IPC.

Possession of Stolen Property

Possession of stolen property has always been considered as sufficient presumptive evidence to prove the commission of theft and robbery.


advocateguru