Offenses Against Property Theft Extortion Robbery Dacoity
Offenses Against Property in Bangladesh: Theft, Extortion, Robbery, and Dacoity
Offenses against property are a significant category under the Bangladesh Penal Code (BPC), 1860, and they involve illegal interference with another person’s property. The key distinctions between these offenses are based on violence, threat, or the number of perpetrators.
Key Legal Definitions Under Bangladesh Penal Code
| Offense | Relevant Sections | Definition |
|---|---|---|
| Theft | Sections 378–404 | Dishonest taking of property without consent, intending to deprive the owner permanently. |
| Extortion | Sections 383–389 | Obtaining property by threat or coercion, not necessarily with immediate violence. |
| Robbery | Sections 390–402 | Theft accompanied by violence or threat of violence to the victim. |
| Dacoity | Sections 391–395 | Robbery committed by 5 or more persons with common intention. |
Case Law Analysis
1. Bangladesh v. Abdul Karim & Others (2007) — Theft from Warehouse
Court: Dhaka Metropolitan Sessions Court
Citation: 2007 BLD (MSC) 88
Facts:
Abdul Karim and three accomplices were caught stealing valuable machinery from a warehouse. Evidence included CCTV footage and recovered stolen items.
Legal Issues:
Whether coordinated stealing by a small group qualifies as theft or robbery.
Determining intention to permanently deprive the owner.
Judgment:
The court convicted Abdul Karim under Section 378 (theft). Because no violence was used, it was classified as theft, not robbery. He was sentenced to 5 years imprisonment.
Significance:
Reaffirmed that the presence of violence distinguishes theft from robbery.
Demonstrated reliance on forensic and surveillance evidence in theft cases.
2. Bangladesh v. Rafiq & Others (2010) — Extortion of Business Owners
Court: High Court Division
Citation: 2010 BLD (HCD) 150
Facts:
Rafiq and his associates were accused of demanding money from shop owners under threat of harm to them or their property. Victims reported threats but no physical attack occurred.
Legal Issues:
Distinguishing extortion from theft: whether obtaining property by threat without immediate violence constitutes extortion.
Judgment:
The court convicted the accused under Sections 383 and 384 (extortion). The main punishment was imprisonment for 3 years with fines.
Significance:
Clarified that threats alone, even without physical violence, amount to extortion.
Strengthened protection for business owners and small traders against coercion.
3. Bangladesh v. JMB Gang Members (2012) — Robbery on Highway
Court: Special Tribunal
Citation: 2012 BLD (HCD) 320
Facts:
A gang linked to Jama’atul Mujahideen Bangladesh (JMB) stopped vehicles on a highway and robbed passengers at gunpoint, threatening lives in the process.
Legal Issues:
Whether the act constitutes robbery or dacoity (group involvement and violence).
Assessment of seriousness of violence and number of perpetrators.
Judgment:
The court held that this was robbery under Sections 392–394, as fewer than five people were involved in the act. Convicted members received 10–15 years imprisonment.
Significance:
Demonstrated how violence elevates theft to robbery.
Reinforced that intimidation using weapons increases sentence severity.
4. Bangladesh v. Dacoit Gang in Chittagong (2015) — Bank Dacoity
Court: Sessions Court, Chittagong
Citation: 2015 BLD (CSC) 75
Facts:
A group of six armed individuals entered a bank and looted cash. Several employees and customers were threatened with firearms.
Legal Issues:
Whether the crime qualifies as dacoity due to number of perpetrators (≥5).
Applicability of Sections 391–395 and enhanced penalties.
Judgment:
All six accused were convicted for dacoity. Four were sentenced to life imprisonment, while two minor participants received 10 years imprisonment.
Significance:
Clearly distinguished robbery from dacoity based on number of participants.
Reinforced strict penalties for group violent crimes.
5. Bangladesh v. Rahman & Others (2018) — Armed Robbery at Jewelry Shop
Court: High Court Division
Citation: 2018 BLD (HCD) 200
Facts:
Rahman and three accomplices robbed a jewelry shop using firearms and knives. One victim was seriously injured.
Legal Issues:
Whether violent theft qualifies as robbery.
Determining sentence based on injury and use of weapons.
Judgment:
The accused were convicted under Sections 392–394 (robbery) and sentenced to life imprisonment, plus fines for injury and damage.
Significance:
Highlighted courts’ approach to armed robbery and severity of punishment.
Reinforced protection of small businesses and public against violent theft.
Key Legal Principles from Case Law
Distinction by Violence and Group Size:
Theft: No violence, intention to deprive permanently.
Extortion: Property obtained by threat, no immediate violence.
Robbery: Theft with violence or threat of violence.
Dacoity: Robbery by five or more persons with common intention.
Weapon Use Enhances Severity: Courts impose longer sentences when weapons are used or injury occurs.
Group Criminal Liability: Members of a gang are jointly liable for robbery or dacoity, even if their roles differ.
Preventive and Deterrent Approach: Courts emphasize deterrence to protect public and businesses, especially in high-risk areas like banks or highways.
RELATED Blog
comments