Introduction:
This article focuses on the concept of theft, robbery, and extortion as outlined under Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS)
Theft under the BNS:
Section 303 of the BNS defines theft as the intentional dishonest taking of movable property out of someone's possession without their express or implied consent. It should be noted that the property must be movable, and the act must involve taking it out of the possessor's control for theft to occur.
Consent:
Theft requires the removal of property without the owner's consent, whether express or implied.
Movement of Property:
The movement of property need not be permanent; even temporary movement can constitute theft. The law does not consider necessity as a defense, reinforcing the principle that theft is a strict liability offence.
Watch JudiX’s 1 minute video explainer on the new offence of Snatching under BNS
Robbery under BNS:
Section 309 of BNS defines robbery as a subset of theft involving the voluntary causing of death, hurt, wrongful restraint, or fear of these during or after the theft. The timing and impact of these actions distinguish robbery from theft. Punishment for robbery includes imprisonment up to 10 years and a fine, with an extended term for highway incidents during specific hours.
Extortion under BNS:
Extortion, defined in Section 308 of BNS, involves intentionally inducing fear to dishonestly obtain property, valuable security, or signed/sealed items. Extortion occupies a middle ground between theft and robbery, focusing on obtaining property through threat-induced fear. The punishment for extortion includes imprisonment, a fine, or both.
Case Laws:
1. K.N Mehra v. State of Delhi:
- In this case, the court clarified that temporary taking of property may still be considered theft. It emphasized that the offence doesn't require a permanent deprivation but includes even a temporary act of taking dishonestly.
2. Troylukho Nath Chowdhry v. State:
- The Troylukho Nath Chowdhry case is important in understanding the concept of consent in theft. The court held that if the owner, through his servant, aids the offender in committing theft, intending to serve punishment, it does not constitute theft. This case laid down that for theft, there must be an absence of genuine consent or cooperation from the possessor, and mere acquiescence due to fear of punishment does not suffice.
3. Mahalakshmi Spinners Ltd v. State of Haryana:
- This case dealt with the theft of electricity. The court emphasized that the theft of electricity is covered under a special act (Electricity Rules, 1956) and cannot be prosecuted under the Indian Penal Code. It reinforces the principle that special laws prevail over general laws. This ruling prevents overlapping prosecutions.
Differences Between Theft, Robbery, and Extortion:
1. Use of Force or Threat:
- Theft: Involves dishonestly taking property without the use of force or threat.
- Robbery: Includes the use of force or threat during or after the theft, overpowering the victim's will.
- Extortion: Involves obtaining property through intentional inducement of fear, which may include force or threat.
2. Timing of Force or Threat:
- Theft: Force or threat is absent during the act of taking property.
- Robbery: Force or threat occurs during or immediately after the theft.
- Extortion: Fear-induced consent is used to obtain property, making the threat an integral part of the offense.
3. Fear and Consent:
- Theft: Does not rely on fear-induced consent; the focus is on the act of taking without rightful ownership.
- Robbery: Fear is a crucial element, and property is taken with the victim's will overpowered by force or threat.
- Extortion: Fear is intentionally induced to obtain property with the victim's consent, albeit coerced.
4. Immobility of Property:
- Theft: Applies to movable property only.
- Robbery: Primarily involves movable property but may also extend to other elements like fear or restraint.
- Extortion: Can involve both movable and immovable property.
Frequently Asked Questions (FAQs) on theft, robbery and extortion under BNS
Q1: Does theft under BNS require the absence of the owner's consent?
A1: Yes, theft necessitates the removal of property without the owner's consent, whether expressed or implied. Genuine consent or cooperation from the possessor is crucial in distinguishing theft from other offenses.
Q2: Can temporary movement of property
constitute theft under BNS?
A2: Yes, according to BNS, even temporary movement of property can constitute theft. The law does not recognize necessity as a defense, reaffirming that theft is a strict liability offense.
Q3: How does BNS define robbery, and what distinguishes it from theft?
A3: Section 309 of BNS defines robbery as a subset of theft involving the voluntary causing of death, hurt, wrongful restraint, or fear during or after theft. The use of force or threat, along with its timing and impact, distinguishes robbery from simple theft.
Q4: Can theft under BNS involve immovable property?
A4: No, theft under BNS, like the IPC, applies to movable property only. However, robbery and extortion under BNS may extend to both movable and immovable property, broadening their scope beyond simple theft.
Theft, robbery and extortion under BNS (Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita)
Коментарі