Document Fragment View

Matching Fragments

Sec.387:-Putting person in fear of death or of grievous hurt, in order to commit extortion.--Whoever, in order to the committing of extortion, puts or attempts to put any person in fear of death or of grievous hurt to that person or to any other, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to seven years, and shall also be liable to fine.
Sec.388:-Extortion by threat of accusation of an offence punishable with death or imprisonment for life, etc.--Whoever commits extortion by putting any person in fear of an accusation against that person or any other, of having committed or attempted to commit any offence punishable with death, or with 1[imprisonment for life], or with imprisonment for a term which may extend to ten years or of having attempted to induce any other person to commit such offence, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to ten years, and shall also be liable to fine; and, if the offence be one punishable under section 377 of this Code, may be punished with 1[imprisonment for life].
1. accused intentionally puts the victim to fear of injury to his /her person or to any other person,
2. thereby accused dishonestly induces the person put to fear,
3. to deliver to any person any property/valuable security, 5.2. Thus, extortion is made out whenever fear of injury is extended with an intent to induce the person put to fear impelling the victim to deliver property or any valuable security. 5.3. In the instant case, petitioner instilled fear in the mind of complainant and her father with an intent to induce them to part with Rs.20,00,000/- and deliver the same to the petitioner. Thus, the first two essential ingredients of putting the complainant and her father to fear of injury and induce them to part of their property/valuable security is prima facie made out, from the bare reading of allegation in the charge-sheet. However, the third ingredients of delivery of property/valuable by the complainant in favour of someone is missing since in the case herein neither did the complainant nor her father part with the Rs.20,00,000/- nor was the said amount delivered to the petitioner/accused. 5.4. The allegations thus reveal that in the absence of delivery of valuable security in favour of the petitioner, the offence of extortion as defined in Sec.383 of IPC and punishable u/S.384 of IPC, may not be committed in entirety but it remains to be seen whether any attempt to commit extortion is made out or not ? 5.5. However, the offence of extortion is dealt with in IPC from Sec.383 to 389 as an aggravated form of theft and therefore, these sections are sandwiched between the sections pertaining to theft and robbery.
5.8. Therefore, it is obvious that the provision from Sec.385, 387 and 389 of IPC relate exclusively to instances of attempted extortion where entire transaction of extortion as defined in Sec. 383 IPC is not complete.
5.9. Consequently, since the commission of extortion and an attempt to commit extortion are both provided for in the sections from Sec.383 to 389, the resort to be made to the residuary clause u/S 511 of IPC is uncalled for.
5.10. The aforesaid view of this Court emphasing the subtle difference between attempt and commission of offence is supported by the law laid down by Apex Court in Satvir Singh And Ors vs State Of Punjab And Anr, (2001) 8 SCC 633 (Paras-9, 10 and 11) which are reproduced below for ready reference and convenience:-

5.12. The offence in question of extortion is a serious offence which is considered to be graver than theft but not as graver as robbery. However, the seriousness of the offence of extortion, is evident from the very fact that attempt to commit extortion is separately punishable u/S.385, 387 and 389 of IPC.

6. Testing the attending factual matrix on the anvil of legal provision and the analysis made (supra), it is seen that charge-sheet reveals that the first two foundational ingredients of extortion i.e. putting the victim/complainant to fear and thereby to induce her/her father to part with property/valuable security are very much alleged. However, the fact remains that the victim and her father who were subjected to fear and inducement did not deliver Rs.20,00,000/- as demanded by the petitioner and other co-accused. Thus, the allegations prima facie reveal satisfaction of the first stage of extortion where all possible steps were taken by petitioner to perpetuate the offence of extortion but the last step of delivery of valuables was not taken by the complainant. This clearly reveals that petitioner had taken all possible steps of instilling fear in the mind of complainant to persuade/induce the victim. This positive overt act of petitioner clearly demonstrate that attempt was made by petitioner to commit extortion.