Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

14. Contention of learned counsel for the appellant that since no weapon was used or shown at the time of committing theft, hence only Section 379 IPC only is made out and not Section 392 IPC deserves to be rejected. In this regard it would be appropriate to note Section 390 IPC which reads as under:

"390. Robbery.--In all robbery there is either theft or extortion.

When theft is robbery.--Theft is "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 of instant death or of instant hurt, or of instant wrongful restraint.

15. Section 390 IPC which defines robbery thus provides that in order to commit theft or while carrying away or attempting to carry away property obtained by theft, if the offender voluntarily causes or attempts to cause to any person death or hurt or wrongful restraint or fear of instant death or of instant hurt or instant wrongful restraint, the same would be robbery and not theft. In the facts of the present case while the appellant and co-accused while fleeing away with the stolen goods i.e. rickshaw and rehri were being chased, the weapon of offence which is a deadly weapon was shown and an instant fear of hurt was caused to the complainant and other person. Thus the offence falls within the ambit of Robbery as defined under Section 390 IPC punishable under Section 392 IPC.

16. The above noted issue also arose before the Division Bench of the Bombay High Court in the decision reported as 1997 Cri LJ 3988 State of Maharashtra v. Vinayak Tukaram Utekar wherein the Court repelling a similar contention held:

25. In our judgment inasmuch as during his act of taking away the property obtained by the theft Respondent Vinayak caused hurt to the informant, his act would fall within the ambit of section 390, Indian Penal Code."

(Emphasis supplied)

27. We are in respectful agreement with the said judgment of the Apex Court.

28. Mrs. Revati Dere with her characteristic ingenuity urged that the crucial words used in section 390, Indian Penal Code are "for that end". She urged that if the end is 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 theft and the offender causes any injury etc. the offence would certainly be robbery. But she urged that in this case a perusal of the evidence of the informant clearly indicates that the intention of the respondent in assaulting the informant Hemant Holkar with a knife was only to extricate himself from his clutches and not to ensure his taking away of the property which he had snatched from the informant.