If an animal causes an injury we hold not the animal liable but its owner liable for such injury. Thus the first element of crime is a human being who- must be under the legal obligation to act in a particular manner and should be a fit subject for awarding punishment. Every crime requires a mental element and that is considered as the fundamental principle of criminal liability.
The basic requirement of the principle mens rea is that the accused must have been aware of those elements in his act which make the crime with which he is charged. It comes from the maxim that no person can be punished in a proceeding of criminal nature unless it can be showed that he had a guiltymind. It says some overt act or illegal omission must take place in pursuance of the guilty intention. Actus reus is the manifestation of mensrea.
The injury should be illegally caused to any person in body, mind, reputation or property as according to Section 44 of IPC, the injury denotes any harm whatever illegally caused to any person in body, mind, reputation or property.
Section 97 of IPC defines that the right of private defence of the body and of property? Section of IPC says that the right of private defence of the body commences as soon as a reasonable apprehension of danger to the body arises from an attempt or threat to commit the offence though the offence may not have been committed, and it continues as long as such apprehension of danger to the body continues.
Therefore the right commences and continues as long as danger to body lasts. There must be an attempt or threat, and consequent thereon an apprehension of danger, but it should not be a mere threat.
Difference between Robbery and Dacoity
There must be reasonable ground for the apprehension. For the purpose of exercising the right of private defence physical or mental incapacity of the person against whom the right is exercised is no bar.
The right of private defence provided by section 97 IPC is a right of protection and not of aggression. An act done in exercise of a right of private defence does not give rise to any right of private defence in return. Thus, rule of joint liability comes into existence. But there is an important fact which is that the law has a knowledge about the abettor, who has given help to another in crime.
This rule is very ancient and was applied in Hindu Law also. In English Law, criminals are divided in four categories, but in India there is only one distinction between the doer and his helper who is known as abettor. The crime of abetment comes under section to of the IPC. A person is said to instigate another when he incites, urges, encourages, provokes, counsels, procures or command him to do something. A person who by willful misrepresentations or by willful concealment of a material fact, which he is bound to disclose, voluntary causes or procures or attempts to cause or procures a thing to be done, is said to instigate the doing of that things.
A Police Officer is authorised by a warrant from a court of justice to apprehend X. Here B abets by instigation the apprehension of C. A newly wedded girl died of burns. The father of deceased had stated in FIR that the deceased committed suicide because of harassment and constant taunt for insufficient dowry.
It was held by the SC that the deceased had committed suicide at the instigation of her husband and in laws and it was not a case of accidental death.
Second clause of this section states that a person abets the doing of a thing who engages with one or more other persons in conspiracy for the doing of that thing.
If an act or illegal omission takes place in pursuance of that conspiracy and in order to doing of that thing then it is called abetment by conspiracy.
If an act or illegal omission takes place in prurience of that conspiracy. The wife had illicit intimacy with the accused. The wife told the accused about this program even though she knew that the accused was waiting for the opportunity to kill her husband and taking the opportunity he killed him. It was held that the wife was not guilty of abetment by conspiracy, even though her conduct was open to censure.ROBBERY (SECTION 390) IPC: What is Robbery, Essentials, Case laws
Explanation No. B in pursuance of the instigation stabs D. D recovers from wound. A is guilty of instigation B to commit murder. Here A, whether the act be committed or not is guilty of abetting an offence.Offences Relating To Property Property is mainly divided into two parts, namely movable and immovable. Any offence which is committed in regard to any property whether it is movable or immovable is punishable under the provisions of the law of Crimes or the Indian Penal Code[IPC].
These offences and the punishments relating to them are explained in details in sections to of the Indian Penal Code, Act No. XLV of The offences which are mainly recognized in the IPC are ten in number.
You will find details of each section in the following pages so do follow the NEXT tag. Robbery and dacoity. Criminal misappropriation of property. Criminal breach of trust. Receiving stolen property Cheating. Fraudulent deed and disposition of property. Read More. Notice Board. April 9th News 09 Apr Is India making adequate measure to stop the Corona Virus spread?
Civil Service Essay Contest April - Tishreen Revolution Views this Week : Tropic of Cancer and States through which it passes Views this Week : Apr 10, pm.
Vivek on All the practices should be postponed Mar 18, pm.Explanation 1- A thing so long as it is attached to the earth, not being movable property, is not the subject of theft; but it becomes capable of being the subject of theft as soon as it is severed from the earth. Explanation 2- A moving effected by the same act which affects the severance may be a theft.
Explanation 3- A person is said to cause a thing to move by removing an obstacle which prevented it from moving or by separating it from any other thing, as well as by actually moving it. Explanation 4- A person, who by any means causes an animal to move, is said to move that animal, and to move everything which, in consequence of the motion so caused, is moved by that animal.
Explanation 5- The consent mentioned in the definition may be express or implied, and may be given either by the person in possession, or by any person having for the purpose authority either express or implied. Here, as soon as A has severed the tree in order to such taking, he has committed theft. He drives the bullock in a certain direction, in order that he may dishonestly take the treasure. As soon as the bullock begins to move, A has committed theft of the treasure.
A has committed theft. A carries the plate to a goldsmith and sells it. A by taking it, commits no theft, though he may commit criminal misappropriation of property. Not venturing to misappropriate the ring immediately for fear of search and detection, A hides the ring in a place where it is highly improbable that it will ever be found by Z, with the intention of taking the ring from the hiding place and selling it when the loss is forgotten.
Here A, at the time of first moving the ring, commits theft. Z carries it to his shop. Here A, though he may have committed criminal trespass and assault, has not committed theft, in as much as what he did was not done dishonestly. Here A takes dishonestly; A has therefore committed theft. She gives A money, food and clothes, which A knows to belong to Z her husband. She gives a valuable property, which A knows to belong to her husband Z, and to be such property as she has no authority from Z to give.
If A takes the property dishonestly, he commits theft. Here, as A does not take dishonestly, he does not commit theft. Whoever commits theft shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to three years, or with fine, or with both. Whoever, being a clerk or servant, or being employed in the capacity of a clerk or servant, commits theft in respect of any property in the possession of his master or employer, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to seven years, and shall also be liable to fine.
Whoever commits theft, having made preparation for causing death, or hurt, or restraint, or fear of death, or of hurt, or of restraint, to any person, in order to the committing of such theft, or in order to the effecting of his escape after the committing of such theft, or in order to the retaining of property taken by such theft, shall be punished with rigorous imprisonment for a term which may extend to ten years, and shall also be liable to fine. A has committed the offence defined in this section.
The PDFs really help in understanding concepts. It is very good and helpful. You are doing something unique which I really appreciate. I am grateful to you for this. Thank you for this service. Bare Acts Law Notes Rs Click to instantly go to that heading. Difference Between Void and Voidable Marriages. Ownership and Possession Explained.
Definition, Utility, and Importance of Jurisprudence.To browse Academia. Skip to main content. Log In Sign Up. Shreyansh Lunia. Theft In general, theft is committed when a person's property is taken without his consent by someone.
For example, A enters the house of B and takes B's watch without B seeing and puts it in his pocket with an intention to take it for himself. A commits theft.
However, besides the ordinary meaning conveyed by the word theft, the scope of theft is quite wide. Section of IPC defines theft as follows - Section - Whoever, intending to take dishonestly any movable property out of the possession of any person without that person's consent, moves that property in order to such taking, is said to commit theft.
Based on this definition, the following are the essential constituents of Theft - 1. Dishonest intention to take property - There must be dishonest intention on the part of the offender. As defined in Section 24 of IPC, dishonestly means that there must be a wrongful loss to one or wrongful gain to another. For example, A quietly takes money from B's purse for his spending.
Here, A causes wrongful loss to B and is thus guilty of theft. However,if the intention of the offender is not to cause a wrongful loss or wrongful gain, he does not commit theft even if he takes the property without consent.
For example, A gives his watch to B for repairing. B takes the watch to his shop. A, who does not owe any debt to B for which B has the right to retain the watch, follows B and forcibly takes back the watch. Here, A does not commit theft because he has no dishonest intention.
Similarly, when A, believing, in good faith, a property in possession of B, to be his, takes it from B, it is not theft. Mehra v. It was held that permanent taking of the property is not required, even a temporary movement of the property with dishonest intention is enough and thus this was theft.
Property must be movable - An immovable property cannot be stolen or moved from the possession so a theft cannot happen in respect of an immovable property. However, as per Explanation 1 of sectionas long as a thing is attached to earth, not being movable, is not subject of theft.
However, as soon as it is severed from the earth, it is capable of being the subject of theft. Further, Explanation 2 says that a moving affected by the same act that causes severance, may be theft. For example, a tree on A's land is not capable of being the subject of theft. However, if B, with an intention to take the tree, cuts the tree, he commits theft as soon as the tree is severed from the earth.
In White's case,a person introduced another pipe in a gas pipeline and consumed the gas bypassing the meter. Gas was held to be a movable property and he was held guilty of theft. Property must be taken out of possession of another - The property must be in possession of someone. A property that is not in possession of anybody cannot be a subject of theft. For example, wild dogs cannot be a subject of theft and so if someone takes a wild dog, it will not be theft. It is not important whether the person who possess the thing is the rightful owner of that thing or not.
If the thing is moved out of mere possession of someone, it will be theft. For example, A, a coin collector, steals some coins from B, a fellow coin collector.
A finds out that they were his coins that were stolen earlier. Here, even though B was not the rightful owner of the coins, he was still in possession of them and so A is guilty of theft. In HJ Ransom vs Triloki NathA had taken a bus on hire purchase from B under the agreement that in case of default B has the right to take back the possession of the bus.In this blog post, Srishti Khindaria, a student of Amity Law School, Delhi, Guru Gobind Singh Indraprastha University, analyses the provisions of Section of the Indian Penal Code, and tries to establish a difference between the terms robbery, theft, and extortion which are commonly used interchangeably in everyday parlance.
There is also a mention of the difference between robbery and dacoity. The terms robbery, theft, and even extortion seem very similar and even used interchangeably at times in everyday usage.
However, in the legal sense and within the ambit on the Indian Penal Code, these terms are distinct and have been very clearly defined as distinct crimes. The demarcation between these is given under section of the Penal Code. But before analyzing that section, first, theft and extortion need to be understood separately.
A has committed theft. In the case of Pyare Lal Bhargava v. A and brought it back in two days later. It was held that permanently taking away the property was not necessarily required, even temporary movement with a dishonest or malicious intention is enough and will amount to theft.
The punishment for theft is given under Section of the Indian Penal Code, By this section, any person who commits theft shall be punished with imprisonment of up to three 3 years or with fine or with both.
Extortion has been defined under Section of the Indian Penal Code, A has committed extortion. Nayak v. Antulay A. Antulay, a chief minister, promised the sugar cooperatives whose cases were pending before the government for consideration that their cases would be looked into if they donated money.
It was held that fear of injury or threat must be used for extortion, and since in this case, there was no fear of injury or threat it would not amount to extortion. Punishment for extortion, which is similar to that of theft, has been given under Section of The Indian Penal Code, By this section any person who commits extortion shall be punished with imprisonment of up to three 3 years or with fine or with both. Here A has committed theft, and by committing of that theft, has voluntarily caused wrongful restraint to Z.
Extortion becomes robbery when the offender at the time of committing the offence of extortion is in the presence of the person put in fear and commits extortion by putting that person in fear of instant death, instant wrongful restraint or instant hurt to that person or some other person and by doing so induces the person, so put in fear to then and there deliver the thing that has been extorted.
A takes the child and threatens to fling it down a precipice unless Z delivers his purse. Z, in consequence, delivers his purse. Here A has extorted the purse from Z, by causing Z to be in fear of instant hurt to the child who is present. A has therefore robbed Z. The punishment for robbery is given under Section of the Indian Penal Code, By this section, any person who commits robbery shall be punished with rigorous imprisonment which may be extended up to ten years and shall also be liable to pay a fine.
If the robbery is committed on the highway between sunset and sunrise, then the period of imprisonment may be extended up to 14 years.
Further, under Section the punishment for an attempt to commit robbery is enshrined. According to this section, anyone who attempts to commit robbery shall be punished with rigorous imprisonment for up to seven years and also be liable for a fine. When five or more people commit or attempt to commit a robbery, it is known as dacoity.
It is an aggravated form of robbery. The main difference between robbery and dacoity is the number of participants in the crime. Dacoity is defined under Section of the Indian Penal Code, Every member of the gang is punished in dacoity whether or not he takes the active part in it.
Imprisonment up to 3 years or fine or both.Post a Comment. Section of the Indian Penal Code, defines Robbery.
Robbery means to deprive a person of his or her property. Section of the Indian Penal Code prescribes the punishment for robbery which may be ten years of rigorous imprisonment for a term which may extend to ten years and also fine.
Here A has committed theft, and, in order to the committing of that theft, has voluntarily caused wrongful restraint to Z. A has therefore committed robbery. Z, in consequence, surrenders his purse. Here A has extorted the purse from Z by putting him in fear of instant hurt, and being at the time of committing the extortion in his presence.
A takes the child, and threatens to filing it down a precipice, unless Z delivers his purse. Z, in consequence, delivers his purse. Here A has extorted the purse from Z, by causing Z to be in fear of instant hurt to the child who is there present.
A has therefore committed robbery on Z. This is extortion, and punishable as such: but it is not robbery, unless Z is put in fear of the instant death of his child. In all Robbery there either theft or extortion. The essence of the offence of robbery is that the offender, for committing theft or for carrying away or attempting to carry away the looted property, voluntarily causes or attempts to cause death or hurt or wrongful restraint.
The offence under this Section is cognizable, non-bailable, non-compoundable and triable by Magistrate of First class. It says that, whoever attempts to commit robbery shall be punished with rigorous imprisonment for a term which may extend to seven years, and shall also be liable to fine.
The offence under Section of the Indian Penal Code is cognizable, non-bailable, non-compoundable and triable by Magistrate of First class. Share to Twitter Share to Facebook. Subscribe to: Post Comments Atom. See Also. Possession : Meaning, Definition and Kinds of possession.
An Overview of Section 390 of the Indian Penal Code
According to Salmond, in the whole range of legal theory, there is no conception more difficult than that of Possession. Damnum sine injuria. Injuria sine damno. Doctrine of Res Gestae. Definition of Transfer of Property and essentials For valid Transfer. Define the term Transfer of propertywhat are the Essentials of a valid Transfer of Property?Hey, This post is really amazing and informative.
A professionally managed best patent law firm in IndiaKnS Partners is regularly engaged by its clients for thoughtful and reliable IP solutions. The firm balances commercial realities with legal practicality. It caters to customers from all industries including Pharmaceutical, Automotive, Telecom, Energy, Chemicals. This firm is at the forefront of changes that are changing the patent landscape in India and has received numerous awards and accolades. Thank you for sharing this post.
Sir can u please explain the constitutional validity of the offence of attempt to commit suicide with decided cases. Thank you so much. I'm pursuing LLB along with my part time job This notes could helped me a lot Hey, This information is very helpful.
KnS Partners is the best trademark law firm in India. It is expanding intellectual property services for global corporations, research institutes, technology-driven industries, and government institutions in India and helping Indian businesses worldwide to procure and protect intellectual property rights. Thanks for sharing. Pages Home Blog By Registration Act. Law of Torts. Indian Penal Code. Is there any difference between Indian Law and English Law.?
Section 97 of IPC defines that the right of private defence of the body and of property? Every person has a right, subject to the restrictions contained in section 99, to defend :. Secondly: The property, whether movable or immovable, of himself or of any other person, against any act which is an offence falling under the definition of theft, robbery, mischief or criminal trespass, or which is ana attempt to commit theft, robbery, mischief or criminal trespass.
Section 97 lays down that every person has a right subject to restrictions contained in section 99, to defend his own body, and the body of any other person, against any offence affecting the human body.
Section of IPC provides that the right of private defence of the body commences as soon as a reasonable apprehension of danger to the body arises from an attempt or threat to commit the offence though the offence may not have been committed, and it continues as long as such apprehension of danger to the body continues.