Of Theft, Of Extortion, Of Dacoity

(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)