(1)
Theft
S 378 of the Penal code
define the offence of theft. According to it whoever, intending to take
dishonestly any moveable properly out of the possession of any person without
that person’s consent, moves that property in order to such take, is said to commit
theft.
Here the word “possession”
Possession in the case
of P.T. Rajan Babu U. Aretha Chandra
Babu, 2011 CRLJ 4541 (Key) The first respondent, though her title was declared,
had no actual possession of the property physically- None were the Petitioners in possession of the Property
for and on behalf to the first respondent. The claimed title over the property
for themselves, Hence no question of any
express or implied trust on Principle of agency is involved in the matter of
possession of petitioned Possession referred in section 378 is actual physical
possession.
Ingredients:
Ingredients thus use see
from the above definition of theft that for the completion of this offence the
following fine ingredients are necessary
(i) Dishonest intention to
take property;
(ii) The property must be moveable;
(iii) It should be taken
out of the possession of another person;
(iv) It should be taken
with out the consent of that person; and
(v) There must be some
moving of the property in order to accomplice the taking of it.
(Pratula saikia v. state of
Assam, 2012, CRLJ )
The five ingridients
are discussed below-
(i)
Dishonest intention to take property-
is the list of the offence
for the offence of theft it is necessary that the accused had dishonest
intention to take property. He did not take the tithing use bonafide claim or
right. Any person can however be convicted of stealing his own property.
The intention to take
dishonestly must exist at the time of the moving of the property. The taking must
be dishonest. It is not necessary that the taking must cause wrongful gain to
the taker, it with suffice it cause wrongful loss to the owner.
Taking
need not to be with intent to retain property permanently. It
is not necessary that the taking should be permanent or with as intention to
appropriate the thing taken (srochone churgo, 1895 22 cal)
There may be theft without
an intention to deprive the owner of the property permanently.
Mistake
When a person taken another
man’s property believing under a mistake
of fact and in ignorance has that the man
has right to take it, he is not gritty of theft because there is no dishonest intention,
even though he may cause wrongful loss. (Nagappa, (1890)13 Bam 344)
Removal
of debtor’s property by creditor to enforce Payment of debt-
A creditor who takes moveable property out of his debtor’s possession without
his consent, with the intention of coercing him to pay his debt, is guilty of
theft.
(Sri churn chhargo, (1895)22
cal 1017)
(ii) The property must he
moveable- Things attached to the land may become moveable properly by severance
from the earner, and that the act of severance may of itself be theft. Thus the
theft who severs and carries away any is put in exactly the same position as if
he carried away what had previously been severed. A sues of trees belonging to
of hers and not cut down at the time of sale does not constitute theft.
(Balos.(1882)1 weir 412)
It is not necessary that
the thing stolen must have some appreciable value.
Earth and stores- Cant loads of earth on
stones (suri.nerkataappayyasastiv. madula veskata (1904) 27 Mad)
Quarried and carried away
may from the land of another are subject of theft.
Timber – Extraction of teak
timber without cease amount to theft of government timber. In (Phaiyalat. state
of M.P, (1993) CRLJ) 29 (mp)
It was held that the act of
cutting of trees standing on government land amounts to that under S.378.
Human body- Human body
whether living or dead (except bodies, or portion) thereof, our mummies
preserved in museums on scientific institutes is not mineable property
(Ramadhin, (1902)25 am 129)
Water:
Water supplied by a water
company to a consumer, and starting in his pipes, may be the subject to
laniary. (fered v.o’ Brier (1883)
Water when conveyed in
pipes and so reduced into possession can be the subject of theft.
(mohadeoprasal (1923)45 All 680). But not water remain freely from a river
through an a pertained made and maintained by a person.
(iii) Out of the possessing
of any person. (Hossere v. Rajkrishra, (1873), 20 WR). As stated about a person
may steal his own property it, such property is in the possession of another
person and it is take out of such person’s possession with his consent and with
a dishonest intention.
Intention:
There is no theft of wild animals,
birds, or fish while at large, but there is a theft of animals.
A moveable thing is said to
in possession of a person when he is so situated with respect to it that he has
the power to deal with it as owner to the exclusion another of also other
person and when the circumstances are such that he may be presumed to intended to
do so in case of need.
Any person- The person from
whose possession the property is taken may or may not be the owner of it and
may have his possession either rightful on wrongful mere physical control of
the person over the thing is quiet enough.
Attachment:
Theft can be committed by
the owner of property under Attachment by removing it. The removal of crops
standing on land attached and taken possession of by the court under s. 145, of
cr.pe, amounts to theft.
Joint possession where here
are several joint owners in joint possession and any one of them dishonestly
takes exclusive possession he would be guilty of theft. A co-owner of moveable
property with another even if his share is defined can be guilty of theft. A
co-owner of moveable property with mother, ever it his share is Defied can be guilty
of theft, if he is found to remote the joint property without ever on implied
consent of the co-owner with a view to cause wrongful loss to the co- owner and
consequently wrongful join to himself on anybody else.
(iv)
Without to that another person’s consent
The removal of the property
must be without the consent of the person in possession of it the consent may
be expressed or implied and may be given expressed or implied on by any person
having for that purpose expressed on implied authority. No charge of theft can therefore
lie where creditor taken property from a
debtor who subsequently finds that the debt was time barred and he been under
no obligation to line anything to the creditor.
Extortion-
Sec-(383-389) deals with
extortion.
It can be said that
extortion which occupies a middle place between theft and robbery as the
element of force is present in this offence, which is missing in the offence of
theft.
As per sec.383 of Pc, 1860-
Whoever intentionally puts any person in fear of any injury to that person or
to any other and there by dishonestly induces the person so put deliver to any
person any property or valuable security or anything signed or sealed which may
be converted into a valuable security commits extortion.
And as per sec.384, the punishment
of extortion shall be three years imprisonment or with or both.
Ingredients the section
requires two things-
i. Intentionally putting a
person in fear of inquiry to himself or another.
ii. Dishonestly inducing
the person so put in fear to deliver to any person any property or valuable
security.
These ingredients have been
restated by these as follows-
i. the accused must put any
person in fear of inquiry to him or to any other person.
ii. The putting of a person
in such fear must be intentional.
iii. The accused must there
by induce the person so put in fear to deliver to any person any property or
anything signed or sealed which may be converted into a valuable property.
iv. Such inducement must be
done dishonestly.
Difference
between extortion and theft:-
i. As to consent in
extortion consent is obtained by putting the person in possession of property
in fear of property in fear of injury to himself or any other person. Where as
in theft, the offender’s insertion into take the property without the owner’s
consent.
ii. Property
In extortion both moveable
and immoveable property may be the subject of the offence. whereas theft is limited
only to moveable property.
iii. Scope-
Extortion is wider in scope
as it covered any kind of property but theft covers only the cases of moveable
property.
iv. Effect-
In extortion, the property
is delivered. But in theft there is dishonest removal of property. So from the
above discussion. Extortion is a crime in which one person off attempts to
force another person to do something against his/her will. It is used to force
the victim to give property to the perpetrator.
Dacoity
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 to five or more, every person so committing, attempting or aiding is
said to commit “dacoity” (Section 391)
Ingredients
The ingredients of the
offence of dacoity are;
(a) Five persons attempting
to commit robbery, or
(b) Five persons committing
robbery, or
(c) One person committing
robbery plus four present and aiding in its commission, or
(d) One person attempting
robbery plus four present and aiding the attempt.
In the case of dacoity the
prosecution must prove:
(1) That robbery was
committed or attempted:
(2) That five or more
persons conjointly committed or attempted to commit robbery, or that the whole
number of persons conjointly committing or attempting to commit robbery and persons
present and aiding such commission or attempt amounted to five or more.
Punishment
Sec. 395 of the penal code,
1860 Provides that whoever commits dacoity shall be punished with imprisonment
for life or which rigorous imprisonment for a term which shall not be less than
four years nor more than ten years, and shall all be liable to fine.
Dacoity
with murder
Section 396 enacts that if
any one of the dacoits commits murder in committing dacoity every one of them
shall be perished with death or imprisonment for life or rigorous imprisonment
for a tearm which may extend to ten years and shall also be liable to fine.
In the lashkar V. Crown
(1921 I. L.R. 2 Lan.275 Case)
The house of a person was
raided by a gang of 5 dacoits, one of whom was armed with a gun. The dacoits
ransacked the house and made good their escape with their booty. A number of
villagers had assembled outside the house and in fighting their way through the
crowd and of the dacoits shot one man dead and inflicted fatal wounds upon
another, who died shortly afterwards.
The question before the
court was whether under these cerium stances every dacoit was equally liable
for the consequences of the act of one of them.
It was held that number
committed by dacoits while carrying away the stolen property was murder
committed in the commission of dacoity; and every offender was therefore liable
for the number committed by one of them.
Aggravated
forms of robbery or dacoity
The following are the
aggravated forms of robbery or dacoity:
Punishment:
Rigorous
imprisonment for at last 7 years . [sec. 397]
(2) Being armed with any
deadly weapon at the time of attempting to commit robbery or dacoity.
Punishment- Rigorous
imprisonment for at last 7 years. [sec.398]
Distinction
between robbery and dacoity
(1) the essence of the
difference between the two lies only in the humbler of persons involved in the
offence.
(2) Robbery can be committed
by one culprit, whereas in dacoity there must be five or more.
(3) Dacoity is an
aggravated and more serious form of robbery.
(4) There is no consent in
both, but in dacoity it is obtained wrongfully as in extortion.
|
Submitted By:
(1)
Maksuda Nishat Urmi, (13249044)
(2)
Raju Ahmed (13099053)
(3)
Belayet Hassain (13119063)
(4)
Foisal Ahmad (13109065)
(5)
Md. Osman Goni (13099083)
(6)
Preanka Thakur, (13239099)
|
