Theft, Burglary, And Robbery Offences
1. Theft (Sections 378–404 IPC)
Definition (Section 378 IPC):
Theft is the dishonest taking of another person’s movable property without their consent with the intention to permanently deprive the owner of it.
Key Elements:
Dishonest intention.
Property must be movable.
Taking must be without the owner’s consent.
Intention to permanently deprive.
Landmark Cases on Theft:
State of Maharashtra v. Chandraprakash Kewalchand Jain (1992)
Facts: The accused was accused of removing property from a godown of a private company.
Judgment: Supreme Court clarified that temporary removal without intention to permanently deprive is not theft. Intent is crucial.
K.K. Verma v. State of Punjab (1967)
Facts: Accused took documents from an office without permission.
Judgment: Taking confidential documents, even without monetary value, qualifies as theft if intended to be permanently deprived.
R. v. Hussey (1970, UK precedent used in India)
Facts: Accused took a bike for a joyride and returned it.
Judgment: No theft, because intention to permanently deprive was absent.
State of Rajasthan v. Kashi Ram (2006)
Facts: Accused stole agricultural produce from fields.
Judgment: Court ruled open fields with crops are movable property when harvested, and stealing them constitutes theft.
Tukaram S. Dighole v. State of Maharashtra (2010)
Facts: Theft of jewelry from a house under renovation.
Judgment: Emphasized burglary vs theft distinction; if entry is trespassory, the theft can also attract burglary charges under Section 457 IPC.
2. Burglary (Sections 457, 460 IPC)
Definition (Section 457 IPC):
Burglary involves entering a building or tent used as a human dwelling, or as a place for property storage, with intent to commit theft, or any felony therein at night.
Key Elements:
Entry into a building or place.
Intent to commit theft or other crime.
Often at night (but day burglary is possible under 459 IPC).
Landmark Cases on Burglary:
State of Punjab v. Gurmit Singh (2005)
Facts: Accused entered a warehouse and stole goods.
Judgment: Court clarified that burglary requires criminal intent at the time of entry; subsequent intent after entry does not count.
R v. Collins (1973, used in Indian courts)
Facts: Accused entered a house through a window and committed theft.
Judgment: Confirmed that even partial entry suffices for burglary, as long as the intent exists.
State v. Suresh (1999)
Facts: Theft occurred during renovation work with consent from contractor but not owner.
Judgment: Court held it was burglary because entry was unauthorized and intended to commit theft.
Ramachandra Rao v. State of Karnataka (2003)
Facts: Accused broke into a shop during the day.
Judgment: Reinforced distinction between daytime and nighttime burglary, highlighting Sections 457 and 460 IPC.
Shiv Kumar v. State of UP (2001)
Facts: Burglary involved stealing property after entering an abandoned house.
Judgment: Entry into a building used for habitation or storage, even if temporarily unoccupied, counts as burglary if intent is proven.
3. Robbery (Sections 390–402 IPC)
Definition (Section 390 IPC):
Robbery is theft accompanied by voluntary use or threat of force to overcome resistance. Essentially, it is theft + violence or threat.
Key Elements:
Theft or attempted theft.
Use or threat of force to commit theft.
Immediate presence of the victim.
Landmark Cases on Robbery:
State of Maharashtra v. Gajanan Puranik (2008)
Facts: Accused snatched bag from victim using a stick.
Judgment: Court held that even minimal use of force to commit theft converts it into robbery.
K.K. Verma v. State of Punjab (1967)
Facts: Theft escalated to assault.
Judgment: Violence during theft constitutes robbery under Section 392 IPC.
R v. Dawson and James (UK 1976, cited in Indian courts)
Facts: Accused pushed victim to snatch property.
Judgment: Even minor force suffices for robbery, as long as theft is intended.
State of Rajasthan v. Jagdish Singh (2005)
Facts: Robbery at ATM using threat of weapon.
Judgment: Using a deadly weapon aggravates punishment under Section 394 IPC.
Bachan Singh v. State of Haryana (1990)
Facts: Multiple accused used force to steal goods from shopkeeper.
Judgment: Group involvement and use of weapons increase severity; robbery in gang attracts Section 395 IPC.
Vijay v. State of Karnataka (2002)
Facts: Accused demanded money from a traveler and threatened to harm.
Judgment: Court held that threat alone, if immediate and credible, suffices for robbery.
Summary of Key Differences
| Offence | Main Ingredient | Use of Force | Intent Requirement |
|---|---|---|---|
| Theft | Dishonest taking of movable property | No | Must intend permanent deprivation |
| Burglary | Entry into building to commit theft/felony | Sometimes (trespass) | Intent at entry crucial |
| Robbery | Theft + force/threat | Yes, immediate | Theft intent + force/threat |
RELATED Blog
0 comments