Document Fragment View

Matching Fragments

"Theft amounts to 'robbery' if, in order to the committing of the theft, or in committing the theft, or in carrying away or attempting to carry away property obtained by the theft, the offender for that end, voluntarily causes or attempts to cause to any person death or hurt or wrongful restraint, or fear R/CR.MA/5638/2018 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 24/11/2022 of instant death or of instant hurt, or of instant wrongful restraint. Before theft can amount to 'robbery', the offender must have voluntarily caused or attempted to cause to any person death or hurt or wrongful restraint, or fear of instant death or of instant hurt, or of instant wrongful restraint. The second necessary ingredient is that this must be in order to the committing of the theft, or in committing the theft, or in carrying away or attempting to carry away property obtained by the theft. The third necessary ingredient is that the offender must voluntarily cause or attempt to cause to any person hurt etc., for that end, that is, in order to the committing of the theft or for the purpose of committing theft or for carrying away or attempting to carry away property obtained by the theft. It is not sufficient that in the transaction of committing theft R/CR.MA/5638/2018 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 24/11/2022 hurt etc., had been caused. If hurt etc., is caused at the time of the commission of the theft but for an object other than the one referred to in sec.390, I.P.Code, theft would not amount to robbery. It is also not sufficient that hurt had been caused in the course of the same transaction as commission of the theft. The three ingredients mentioned in sec.390, I.P.Code, must always be satisfied before theft can amount to robbery, and this has been explained in Bishambhar Nath v. Emperor, A.I.R. 1941 Oudh, 476, in the following words:-

16. Here, there are allegations of hurt caused to the complainant during the course of the incident which, as alleged by the complainant, was insult and humiliation and during the course of the incident, it is alleged that anyone of the accused would have stolen the cash or gold chain. The judgment referred to hereinabove explains that the theft would amount to robbery if while committing the offence of theft or while attempting to carry away the property obtained by theft, the offender for that end voluntarily causes or attempts to cause to any person death or hurt or wrongful R/CR.MA/5638/2018 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 24/11/2022 restraint or fear of instant death or of instant hurt or of instant wrongful restraint. The said act should have been done in order to commit the offence of theft. Here, there is no such allegation that the accused persons had gathered to commit any offence of theft. Hence, Section 3(2)(va) would not be applicable in the case. Further, the offence under Section 395 of the IPC does not get covered in the Schedule under Section 3(2)(va) of the Atrocity Act. Hence, no case would be made out even under the Atrocity Act, nor the same would be falling under the IPC. Hence, in view of reasons given hereinabove, Section 3(1)(r) and Section 3(2) (va) of the Atrocity Act would not be applicable in both the impugned FIRs. Further, Section 395 of the IPC would not get attracted in FIR bearing CR no.I-185/2017. R/CR.MA/5638/2018 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 24/11/2022