Document Fragment View

Matching Fragments

9. Vide order of sentence dated 18.12.2007 the appellant was sentenced to undergo RI for three years and to pay a fine of Rs.2000/-, in default of payment of fine to undergo SI for two months.

10. On behalf of the appellant it has been pointed out that the judgment of the Trial Court suffers from a grave infirmity and infallibility.

(i) Distinction between Section 392 and 379 of the IPC has not been appreciated. Attention has been drawn to the definition of „robbery‟ as contained in Section 390 of the IPC. It is submitted that the essential ingredients for this offence is either to cause or attempt 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. Attention has also been drawn to the first illustration i.e. Illustration

14. The line of distinction between „robbery‟ as defined under Section 390 of the IPC and „theft‟ as defined in Section 378 of the IPC is thin but nevertheless distinct. Theft becomes robbery if in the process of committing the theft the offender causes or attempts to cause either death or hurt or a wrongful restraint. Death is admittedly excluded in this case; „hurt‟ has been suffered by the victim; Ex.PW-7/A which is the MLC of PW-1 shows that he had suffered injuries on the back of his head and four stitches were applied thereon. This is encompassed within the definition of „hurt‟ as contained in Section 319 of the IPC. „Wrongful restraint‟ has been defined under Section 339 of the IPC which necessarily entails a voluntary obstruction of any person so as to prevent that person from proceeding in any direction in which that person has a right to proceed. Testimony of PW-1 clearly has established that he was wrongfully restrained by the present appellant and had been prevented from going towards the factory when his briefcase was snatched by the appellant. Ocular and medical evidence as discussed supra has established the ingredients of Section 390 of the IPC.

15. Section 390 of the IPC in fact contemplates that the accused should have from the very start the intention to deprive the complainant of the property and should for that purpose either hurt him or place him under wrongful restraint. Where A and B were stealing mangoes from a tree, C surprised them, on which A knocked him down senseless with a stick; where a person, in snatching a nose-ring, wounded the woman in the nostril and caused her blood to flow, this offence was committed. Where the accused slapped the victim after dispossessing him of his watch in order to silence him an offence under Section 390 was made out. These are instances of robbery for which the accused stood convicted. See Husrut Sheikh (1866) 5 WR (Cr) 85, Teekai Bheer (1866) 5 WR (Cr) 95 and Harish Chandra AIR 1976 SC 1430.