Robbery In Highways
Legal Framework
Definition of Robbery — Section 390 IPC
Robbery is a theft with violence or threat of violence. Section 390 defines robbery as an aggravated form of theft where the offender uses or threatens to use immediate violence to obtain the property.
Highway Robbery
Highway robbery refers to robbery committed on a public road, street, or highway.
It often involves a group or gang attacking travelers, passengers, or transport vehicles.
Because of the vulnerability of victims on highways, the crime is considered particularly serious.
Highway robbery sometimes overlaps with dacoity (Section 391 IPC), but dacoity requires five or more persons, while robbery can be committed by fewer.
Relevant Sections for Highway Robbery:
Section 390 IPC — Robbery
Section 392 IPC — Punishment for Robbery
Section 395 IPC — Dacoity (if 5 or more persons involved)
Section 397 IPC — Robbery or dacoity with attempt to cause death or grievous hurt
Section 398 IPC — Attempt to cause death or grievous hurt during robbery or dacoity
Punishment for Robbery (Section 392 IPC):
Imprisonment for 7 years and fine.
If committed on a highway or in a dwelling, imprisonment may extend to 10 years and fine.
Important Elements for Highway Robbery:
| Element | Explanation |
|---|---|
| Theft | Dishonest taking of property |
| Use of Violence | Actual or threatened violence |
| Location | On highway/public road or street |
| Number of Persons | 1 or more (less than 5 for robbery) |
Important Case Laws on Robbery in Highways
1. Ram Karan v. State of Uttar Pradesh, AIR 1951 SC 118
Facts: Accused robbed travelers on a public highway using weapons and threats.
Judgment: Supreme Court held that robbery on a highway is a grave offence attracting enhanced punishment.
Significance: Confirmed that the place (highway) elevates the offence severity under Section 392.
2. State of Rajasthan v. Kashi Ram, AIR 2006 SC 1449
Facts: Multiple accused committed robbery on highway by forcibly snatching valuables.
Judgment: Supreme Court confirmed conviction under Sections 392 and 397 IPC, emphasizing the fear and threat on victims traveling on highways.
Significance: Held that use of weapons or threats aggravates punishment.
3. Shivappa v. State of Karnataka, AIR 1968 SC 837
Facts: Accused robbed passengers on a public road using firearms.
Judgment: Supreme Court observed that highway robbery affects public peace and confidence in security on public roads.
Significance: Highlighted the public order aspect of highway robbery.
4. Harshadrao Abasaheb Shinde v. State of Maharashtra, AIR 1977 SC 1715
Facts: Accused charged with robbery on highway with threat to kill victim.
Judgment: Supreme Court upheld conviction under Section 392 and 397, stating that threat of death elevates offence to a more serious level.
Significance: Clarified scope of Sections 397 and 398 in highway robberies.
5. State of Maharashtra v. Chandraprakash Kewalchand Jain, AIR 1990 SC 1100
Facts: Accused committed dacoity (robbery by five or more persons) on a highway.
Judgment: Court discussed distinctions between robbery and dacoity, but emphasized that highway location is an aggravating factor.
Significance: Defined parameters distinguishing robbery and dacoity in highway cases.
6. Hari Ram v. State of Punjab, AIR 1962 SC 930
Facts: Robbery involving snatching of goods from a moving vehicle on highway.
Judgment: Supreme Court held that robbery can occur even if property taken forcibly from a moving vehicle on a highway.
Significance: Clarified that location and mode of theft matter for categorizing robbery on highways.
7. Ramesh v. State of Haryana, AIR 1982 SC 1413
Facts: Armed robbery on a highway with intent to cause grievous hurt.
Judgment: Supreme Court affirmed conviction under Sections 392 and 397 IPC.
Significance: Emphasized protection of highway users and harshness of punishment.
Summary Table of Case Laws
| Case Name | Year | Legal Principle | Outcome/Significance |
|---|---|---|---|
| Ram Karan v. UP | 1951 | Robbery on highway attracts enhanced punishment | Established importance of highway location |
| State of Rajasthan v. Kashi Ram | 2006 | Use of weapons/threats aggravates robbery | Confirmed punishment under 392 and 397 IPC |
| Shivappa v. Karnataka | 1968 | Highway robbery threatens public peace | Highlighted impact on public order |
| Harshadrao Shinde v. Maharashtra | 1977 | Threat to kill during highway robbery elevates offence | Upheld conviction under 397 IPC |
| Maharashtra v. Chandraprakash Jain | 1990 | Differentiated robbery & dacoity on highways | Clarified legal distinction & aggravating factors |
| Hari Ram v. Punjab | 1962 | Robbery from moving vehicle on highway valid | Confirmed robbery in diverse highway contexts |
| Ramesh v. Haryana | 1982 | Armed robbery causing grievous hurt on highway | Emphasized harsh punishment for highway robberies |
Conclusion
Robbery on highways is treated as a serious crime under IPC due to the vulnerability of victims and public safety concerns.
The location of the offence (highway/public road) elevates the punishment and severity of the crime.
Courts consistently uphold stringent punishment under Sections 392 and 397 IPC for robbery with violence or threat on highways.
Use of weapons or intent to cause grievous hurt/death aggravates the offence further.
The distinction between robbery and dacoity is often considered in highway cases depending on the number of offenders.
RELATED Blog
0 comments