Theft, Robbery and Dacoity under IPC (Section 378, 390, 391) - Overview, Structure, Properties & Uses

Theft, Robbery and Dacoity under IPC

Edited By Ritika Jonwal | Updated on Jul 02, 2025 05:43 PM IST

The offences of Theft, Robbery and Dacoity are offences against the property. Moveable and immovable property are the two basic categories into which it is separated. Any violation committed to any property, whether it is mobile or immovable, is subject to punishment under the Indian Penal Code [IPC] or the laws of crimes. Sections 378 through 460 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860, give a thorough description of these offences and the corresponding punishments. The property right was acknowledged as a fundamental right even under Article 19(f) of the Constitution of India at the time of its adoption; however, it was subsequently designated a legal right under Article 300-A. These laws were made to protect this invaluable human right.

This Story also Contains

Theft Under IPC
Essentials of Theft Under IPC
Sections Under IPC on Aggravated Forms of Theft
Punishment for Theft
Case Law on Theft
Robbery Under IPC
Essentials of Robbery
When Theft is Robbery
When Extortion is Robbery
Punishments of Robbery Under IPC
Case Laws on Robbery
Dacoity Under IPC
Essentials of Dacoity
Types of Dacoity
Case laws on Dacoity
Difference Between Robbery and Dacoity
Conclusion

Theft, Robbery and Dacoity under IPC

Theft Under IPC

Theft is defined under Section 378 of the IPC, 1860. The deliberate moving of any movable object to dishonestly remove it from someone's possession without that person's agreement is known as theft.

Illustration- A lures Z's dog to follow by placing a dog treat in his pocket. In this case, if A's dishonest goal is to remove the dog from Z's custody without getting Z's permission. Since Z's dog started to follow A, A has been stealing.

In the case of, K.N. Mehra v. State of Rajasthan it was held that The primary components of stealing are the absence of the victim's consent at the time of moving and the existence of dishonest intent at that time.

Essentials of Theft Under IPC

Dishonest Intentions

When someone takes property intending to cause another person to suffer unlawful loss or gain either of these scenarios constitutes dishonest intention. The act of stealing is incomplete without this intention, which is referred to as animus furandi. Consequently, it was determined that when a respectable person merely pinches the cycle of another person to replace his own, which was absent at the moment, no stealing takes place.

Movable Property

Section Explanation addresses the need for the property to be mobile in order for it to be susceptible to theft. Since it is not movable property in the first place, anything that is affixed to the earth cannot be stolen. But, anything that is cut off from the soil instantly becomes movable property, and the act of cutting it off is equivalent to theft.

Taking out of Someone’s Possession

For theft, it makes no difference if the person whose possession of the item is taken is not the genuine owner or if their right to it is only apparent. The crucial component of the offence is possession, not ownership. A theft is a theft, end of story. Thus, taking something from a thief is considered stealing.

As with finding misplaced items, taking decorations from a deceased person's body is not theft but rather criminal misappropriation since it does not qualify as taking property from that person. When an owner removes something that the court has mandated to be connected to, it is considered theft.

Without Consent

Goods that have been stolen must be removed without the owner's express or implicit consent. A permission that is fraudulently obtained and leads to a false portrayal of the facts is void. Conversely, when someone visits a well-liked friend's library, they take out a book without the friend's consent and return it at a later time. It won't be deemed theft because the book was taken with the other party's tacit consent and no ill intent.

Movement of Property

Such property should not be moved while still in the owner's custody. Such property doesn't need to be physically carried taken. A person is considered to have committed theft if he puts bait in his pocket, luring the dog to approach him to steal the dog from its owner. Additionally, theft will happen if someone utilizes the internet to hide any movable objects from another person in their home where they might be hidden from view. This type of property movement doesn't even have to be continuous. It is not always necessary for the person stealing the property to gain anything from it.

You can also Check

Sections Under IPC on Aggravated Forms of Theft

Section 380-

Theft in any structure, tent, or boat used for residential purposes or to hold goods

Section 381-

Theft of goods belonging to a master by a clerk or servant

Section 382-

Theft that involves planning to kill someone, harming, restraining, or instilling fear of death in someone to carry out the theft, making an escape thereafter, or keeping the item that was stolen in the process

Punishment for Theft

Section 379 of the Indian Penal Code 1860 deals with the Punishment for Theft. According to this, Any individual found guilty of stealing faces a maximum sentence of three years in prison of any kind, a fine, or both.

Case Law on Theft

Pyare Lai v. State

In this case, it was held that If he removed any movable goods from someone else's possession intending to return it later, that would qualify as theft. However, according to English law, property must be stolen to permanently deprive someone else. The appellant in the aforementioned instance worked as a superintendent for the government.

K N Mehra v. State of Rajasthan

The components of stealing were fully outlined in the case of "K N Mehra v. State of Rajasthan" by the Hon'ble Supreme Court. Two air wing cadets (one a trainee navigator and the other expelled for poor behaviour) deceitfully took an Air India aircraft (other than the one assigned) to Pakistan instead of Dakota, as required by the training program, without even obtaining authorisation from the relevant authorities. They landed in Pakistan and discovered themselves in the middle of nowhere, so they tried to call the Indian High Commissioner in Pakistan. They were meant to return to Delhi, but on the way, they were stopped at Jodhpur and arrested for stealing. As a consequence, the court found the accused guilty of stealing and sentenced them to jail.

Robbery Under IPC

Aggregated forms of theft and extortion or both are Robbery. Section 390 of the Indian Penal Code 1860 deals with Robbery. According to Section 390 of IPC, In the following situations, theft is the same as robbery. When trying to steal something or when intending to steal anything To that aim, the offender willfully causes or seeks to inflict harm, death, wrongful restraint, or fear of any of these to someone.

Robbery is an essential crime because there is an imminent threat of violence or terror. The language used to accomplish that purpose implies that carrying out the theft would require stealing, taking stolen goods, or inflicting pain, death, or unlawful restraint. Violence can therefore be committed before, during, or after stealing, but it must be committed for one of the purposes mentioned above.

Illustration- Without getting Z's permission, A restrains Z and steals money and jewellery from Z's clothing. Here, A has stolen something, and in the process of doing so, he has willfully put Z under unjustified restraint. A has consequently committed robbery.

Essentials of Robbery

Causing Hurt, Fear, Death and Wrongful Restraint

When stealing is categorized as robbery or when extortion is categorized as robbery, the people involved may suffer from specific consequences including death, injury, wrongful restraint, or fear.

Theft becomes Robbery

When stealing, carrying away the stolen property, or attempting to do so, the offender intentionally causes or attempts to cause death, wrongful restraint, or hurt, or instils fear of immediate death, immediate wrongful restraint, or immediate hurt to any person. This is when theft is considered robbery.

Extortion becomes Robbery

When an individual causes fear in another person and gains something valuable by instilling fear of death or immediate wrongful restraint in that person or another, it is considered robbery. The frightened person is then immediately forced to hand over the pilfered item.

Possessing Stolen Property

Sections 410 through 414 of the Indian Penal Code address the concept of stolen property. Section 410 defines stolen property as the transfer of one's property to another person by theft, extortion, robbery, criminal misappropriation, or criminal breach of trust. It comprises a wide range of property sorts that can be illegally seized.

These circumstances of property obtained unlawfully are referred to as stolen properties. Property transferred through any of the previously described channels is considered stolen property per Section 410. These tactics include criminal misappropriation, robbery, theft, extortion, and criminal breach of trust. According to Section 411 of the Indian Penal Code, anyone found to be dishonestly in possession of or holding onto stolen goods faces a minimum sentence of three years in jail, a fine, or both.

When Theft is Robbery

The Indian Penal Code, of 1860, defines theft as dishonestly taking someone else's property without that person's consent and relocating it. This definition is found in Section 378.

According to the Indian Penal Code, theft is classified as robbery if the perpetrator knowingly causes or attempts to inflict death, harm, or unlawful restraint during the conduct of the crime, or if the offender instils fear of immediate death, harm, or wrongful restraint in any person. These can be done to aid in the theft or make a getaway with the stolen goods, and they can take place before, during, or following the theft.

When Extortion is Robbery

The Indian Penal Code, of 1860 defines extortion in Section 383. According to this section, extortion is defined as the deliberate infliction of fear of harm on another person to deceitfully coerce them into delivering valuable property or signing anything that could be used as valuable security.

When an offender extorts someone while physically present in the person's presence, it is considered robbery under the Indian Penal Code. The individual being extorted or another person is made to fear imminent death, immediate harm, or immediate wrongful restraint by the perpetrator. The perpetrator forces the victim of extortion to give over the desired object or property right then and there by creating this dread.

Robbery in both situations refers to the unauthorised taking of property through theft or extortion combined with coercion, fear, or force. Robbery is a more serious criminal offence with possibly worse punishments than theft or extortion because it involves violence, hurt, or improper constraint.

Punishments of Robbery Under IPC

provision 392 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 specifies the penalty for robbery. According to this provision, anyone convicted of robbery faces a maximum ten-year jail sentence and the potential for fines. Moreover, the sentence may be enhanced to 14 years in jail if the robbery occurs on a highway. According to Section 393, there is a seven-year maximum sentence for attempted robbery and a possible fine.

Case Laws on Robbery

In the case of, State of Maharashtra v. Joseph Mingel

In this case, The question of whether theft becomes robbery was one of the primary points of discussion here. Further evidence of how Indian courts view robbery as a more serious crime is shown by the court's ruling that every element of theft as defined by Section 378 must be proven to build a case of robbery.

Dacoity Under IPC

When five or more people use violence or the threat of violence to take items from individuals or groups, it is referred to as an armed robbery or group robbery, and when two or more people work together to conduct a robbery, it is known as dacoity, as per Section 391 of the Indian Penal Code.

Under the IPC, dacoity is a serious crime with harsh penalties. The sentence can be life in prison or even the death penalty if the dacoity results in the victim suffering a significant injury or passing away. In other situations, the penalty can be a fine, ten years in jail, or both.

Robbery is not as serious a crime as dacoity because it involves fewer people and the use of weapons. Usually armed with a weapon, dacoits perform coordinated acts of dacoity to frighten and harass their victims.

Section 395 of the Indian Penal Code stipulates that anyone found guilty of dacoity faces a life sentence or a hard term of up to ten years in jail, in addition to a fine.

Essentials of Dacoity

To determine the specificity of an offence, a few essential components must be present. To distinguish one offence from another, certain components are required. The primary components of the offence of dacoity are as follows:

Robbery had been perpetrated or attempted by the accused.
Robbers must number five or more when they commit or attempt to commit robbery. This also applies to the helper who is in attendance.
Each of these people ought to act in concert.

Types of Dacoity

Section 396- Dacoity With Murder

Joint culpability for all those who commit dacoity and murder together is established by Section 396. For example, if one dacoit murders alongside a dacoity in a group of dacoits. The act will hold everyone equally responsible. This clause has a maximum sentence of ten years in hard prison, life in prison, or death, along with a fine.

In the case of, Shyam Behari v. State of Uttar Pradesh

In this case, it was held that The question of whether one accused person can be found guilty of both murder and dacoity depends on the specific facts and circumstances of each case, namely whether or not the dacoity act could be considered ongoing at the time of the murder.

Section 397- Dacoity to Cause Grievous Hurt or Death

For robbery and dacoity, Section 397 stipulates a minimum penalty of seven years if dangerous weapons are used or if the victim suffers serious injury. It eliminates any possibility of constructive culpability and assumes an individual act.

Section 398- Dacoity with Deadly Weapon

Instances of attempted dacoity are covered by Section 398. It doesn't apply to situations where there has been robbery. When someone carries a weapon and has it with them, expecting to use it when necessary, they are said to be "armed with a weapon." It is sufficient if the criminal carries a lethal weapon in a way that gives the impression that it could be used against him at any time. There will be penalties for Section 398.

Section 399- Preparation to Commit Dacoity

Section 399 penalizes the act of just planning to commit dacoity. Dacoity is a crime that has repercussions even during the planning phase. The preparation shows that a scheme to commit dacoity has been established. The planning is done under this plan. Creating, organizing, or setting up the commission of the dacoity offence is a type of preparation.

Section 400- Punishment for being a member of a Dacoity Group

Individuals who are part of a group of people who have made dacoity their regular business are subject to punishment under Section 400. The essence of the offence is its relationship with the regular pursuit of dacoity. An association is a pairing for a shared goal.

In the case of, State v. Hetep Boro

In this case, According to the Gauhati High Court, proving the accused's involvement in a particular dacoity is not necessary to prove guilt under Section 400 of the Indian Penal Code. Rather, under Section 400, guilt may still be shown using evidence that was rejected to prove guilt under Section 395.

Case laws on Dacoity

In the case of, Raju Sampath Darode v. The State of Maharashtra

In this case, The accused has been given the death penalty by the Bombay High Court for both killing his bosses and engaging in dacoity. By deceiving their on-duty watchman on December 2, 2007, the accused gained entry to the home of his employers, Ramesh and Chitra. In the living room, there was a puddle of blood where Ramesh was discovered. The defendant stabbed him in the forehead and heart. He sealed his mouth with tape. His wife Chitra was sitting in a chair, her neck chopped, and she was beaten with telephone wire. Jewellery, foreign currency, and nine lakhs in pilfered cash were also found in the house.

Difference Between Robbery and Dacoity

Robbery	Dacoity
Robbery is defined in section 390 of the Indian Penal Code.	The Indian Penal Code defines dacoity in Section 391.
Robbery is not as serious of a crime.	Dacoity is more dangerous because of the greater threat.
If dacoity were to occur, the punishment would be more severe.	The punishment is severe.
perhaps carried out by a single individual	committed by a minimum of five individuals
The Indian Penal Code, Section 392, provides for punishment.	The Indian Penal Code, Section 395, specifies punishment.

Conclusion

The offences of Theft, Robbery and Dacoity as mentioned in this article are offences against property. This crimes are termed as serious crimes under the Indian Penal Code 1860. Section 378 of the Indian Penal Code 1860 deals with offences of theft where the offender takes away a movable property without the consent of the owner. Section 390 of the IPC deals with the offence of Robbery. In an offence of Robbery, the offender steals property by inflicting harm, or injury to the owner of the property. Section 391 of the Indian Penal Code deals with Dacoity. When five or more people use violence or the threat of violence to take items from individuals or groups, it is referred to as an armed robbery or group robbery. Dacoity is the term for when two or more persons work together to commit a robbery.

Frequently Asked Questions (FAQs)

1. What is the meaning of theft?

The IPC, 1860, defines theft in Section 378. Theft is defined as the intentional movement of any moveable property intended to be dishonestly taken out of someone's possession without that person's consent.

2. What is the meaning of Robbery?

According to Section 390 of IPC, In the following situations, theft is the same as robbery. When trying to steal something or when intending to steal anything To that aim, the offender willfully causes or seeks to inflict harm, death, wrongful restraint, or fear of any of these to someone.

3. What is the IPC section for Robbery and Dacoity?

The offence of Robbery is mentioned under section 390 of IPC and 391 of IPC deals with Dacoity.

4. What is the difference between robbery, dacoity and theft?

Since dacoity entails theft, extortion, and robbery in addition to other offences, it is the most serious of them. Therefore, dacoity cannot be committed unless five people rob a business, and robbery cannot be done unless force is used in either theft or extortion.

5. Is Dacoity Bailable or not?

Dacoity is a Non-Bailable Offence.

6. Can digital or virtual items be subject to theft under the IPC?

Yes, digital or virtual items can be subject to theft under the IPC. While the IPC was drafted before the digital age, courts have interpreted "movable property" to include digital assets, cryptocurrencies, and other virtual items that have value. Unauthorized access and transfer of such items can constitute theft.

7. What is the concept of "recent possession" in theft cases?

"Recent possession" is a legal principle used in theft cases. If a person is found in possession of stolen property soon after the theft occurred, without a satisfactory explanation, it creates a presumption that the person committed the theft. This principle shifts the burden of proof to the accused to explain their possession.

8. What is the concept of "continuing offense" in relation to theft?

A "continuing offense" in relation to theft refers to a situation where the theft is not a single act but continues over a period of time. For example, if someone steals electricity by tampering with a meter, each day of illegal use is considered a fresh offense. This concept affects the calculation of the limitation period for prosecution.

9. How does the concept of "consent" apply in cases of theft involving minors or individuals with mental disabilities?

In cases involving minors or individuals with mental disabilities, the concept of consent becomes complex. Generally, these individuals are not considered capable of giving valid consent. Therefore, even if they appear to willingly give away property, it may still be considered theft if the accused was aware of their incapacity to consent.

10. How does the concept of "temporary possession" affect theft charges?

Temporary possession can significantly affect theft charges. If a person has temporary lawful possession of property (e.g., a valet with car keys) and then misappropriates it, it's not considered theft but criminal breach of trust. Theft requires taking possession unlawfully from the beginning.

11. How does the concept of "continuous robbery" apply in Indian law?

The concept of "continuous robbery" applies when a series of acts committed in the course of a single transaction can be considered one continuous offense. For

12. Can a person be charged with robbery if they use force to retain property they believe is rightfully theirs?

This situation presents a complex legal question. If a person genuinely believes the property is rightfully theirs, they may lack the dishonest intention required for theft or robbery. However, using force to retain property, even if believed to be one's own, can lead to other criminal charges. The court would consider the reasonableness of the belief and the proportionality of force used.

13. What is the concept of "preparation" versus "attempt" in theft and robbery cases?

"Preparation" refers to arranging means or circumstances for committing an offense but is not punishable. "Attempt" is when the person takes steps towards committing the offense and is punishable. In theft cases, entering a house with intent to steal is an attempt, while merely planning is preparation. For robbery, brandishing a weapon might constitute an attempt, while merely carrying one could be preparation.

14. Can a person be charged with dacoity if they were present but did not actively participate in the robbery?

Yes, a person can be charged with dacoity even if they were merely present and did not actively participate in the robbery. Under the principle of "common intention," all members of a group of five or more persons involved in a dacoity are equally liable, regardless of their individual roles.

15. How does the principle of "joint liability" apply in cases of dacoity?

The principle of "joint liability" in dacoity means that all members of the group (five or more) are equally liable for the offense, regardless of their individual roles. This is based on the concept of "common intention." Even if one person actually committed the robbery, all present are considered equally guilty of dacoity.

16. Can a person be charged with dacoity if they join the group after the robbery has begun?

Yes, a person can be charged with dacoity even if they join the group after the robbery has begun. The key factor is their intention to participate in the common purpose of the group. If they knowingly join and assist in any way, including helping with escape or securing the stolen property, they can be held liable for dacoity.

17. Can a person be charged with dacoity if they were coerced into participating?

If a person was genuinely coerced into participating in dacoity, they may have a defense of duress. However, the coercion must involve a threat of death or grievous bodily harm, and there should be no reasonable way to escape the threat. The burden of proving this duress typically falls on the accused. Even if successful, this defense might mitigate the punishment rather than completely absolve the person.

18. How does dacoity differ from robbery in Indian criminal law?

Dacoity is essentially an aggravated form of robbery. While robbery can be committed by one or more persons, dacoity specifically requires five or more persons to jointly commit robbery. The involvement of a larger group makes dacoity a more severe offense with harsher punishments.

19. Can a person be charged with robbery for using force to reclaim their own property?

Generally, a person cannot be charged with robbery for using force to reclaim their own property. However, this depends on the circumstances. If excessive force is used or if there's a dispute over ownership, it could potentially lead to other criminal charges. It's always advisable to seek legal recourse rather than using force.

20. How does the principle of "mens rea" (guilty mind) apply differently in theft, robbery, and dacoity cases?

The principle of "mens rea" applies differently across these offenses:

21. What is the legal stance on "snatching" under Indian theft and robbery laws?

"Snatching," such as grabbing a purse or mobile phone, often falls into a grey area between theft and robbery. If it involves sudden force that takes the victim by surprise, it's usually classified as robbery. However, if it's a swift action without direct confrontation, it might be treated as an aggravated form of theft, depending on the circumstances.

22. Can theft occur if the owner voluntarily gives their property to someone?

No, theft cannot occur if the owner voluntarily gives their property. The key element of theft is taking property without the owner's consent. If the owner willingly hands over the property, it may be a case of cheating or breach of trust, but not theft.

23. Is it possible to commit theft of electricity under the IPC?

Yes, it is possible to commit theft of electricity. The IPC recognizes electricity as movable property, and unauthorized use or diversion of electricity is considered theft. This includes tampering with meters or illegally connecting to power lines.

24. What is the concept of "dishonest intention" in theft cases?

"Dishonest intention" is a crucial element in theft cases. It refers to the accused's intent to take property without the owner's consent and to deprive the owner permanently of that property. Without proving dishonest intention, a theft charge cannot be sustained.

25. What is the legal stance on "joyriding" under Indian theft laws?

"Joyriding," or temporarily taking someone's vehicle without permission and returning it, is still considered theft under Indian law. The intention to deprive the owner permanently is not necessary; temporary deprivation is sufficient to constitute theft.

26. Is it theft if someone takes property believing it to be their own?

No, it is not theft if someone genuinely believes the property to be their own. Theft requires dishonest intention, which is absent if the person has an honest, albeit mistaken, belief of ownership. This situation is often referred to as "claim of right" and can be a valid defense against theft charges.

27. How does the value of stolen property affect the punishment for theft?

The value of stolen property can affect the severity of punishment for theft. While the IPC doesn't explicitly categorize theft based on value, courts often consider it when determining sentences. Higher value thefts generally attract more severe punishments within the prescribed limits.

28. How does the IPC address theft of lost property?

Theft of lost property is addressed under Section 403 of the IPC. If a person finds lost property and dishonestly misappropriates or converts it to their own use, knowing that it belongs to someone else, it constitutes criminal misappropriation of property. This is different from theft but carries similar punishments.

29. How does the IPC address situations where force is used to commit theft, but the victim is unaware of the force (e.g., pickpocketing)?

In situations where force is used to commit theft but the victim is unaware (like in skilled pickpocketing), the offense is typically charged as theft rather than robbery. The key element of robbery - causing fear of immediate harm - is absent. However, such cases might be treated as aggravated forms of theft, carrying higher punishments due to the skill and planning involved.

30. Can a person be charged with theft for taking property they believe has been abandoned?

Taking property believed to be abandoned can be complex legally. If the person genuinely believes the property is abandoned and has no owner, they may lack the dishonest intention required for theft. However, they must have reasonable grounds for this belief. If the property clearly belongs to someone (e.g., in a private yard), claiming it was thought to be abandoned may not be a valid defense.

31. What is the legal position on "theft by deception" under Indian law?

"Theft by deception" is not a specific offense under the IPC but is generally covered under the broader offense of cheating (Section 420). If someone obtains property by deceiving the owner, it's treated as cheating rather than theft. The key difference is that in cheating, the victim voluntarily parts with the property due to deception, whereas in theft, the property is taken without consent.

32. What is the legal position on "pickpocketing" under Indian theft laws?

Pickpocketing is considered a form of theft under Indian law. It typically falls under the category of "theft in dwelling house" or "theft by clerk or servant" if done in a crowded place, which are aggravated forms of theft carrying higher punishments due to the skill and planning involved.

33. What is the legal position on "theft by finding" under Indian law?

"Theft by finding" occurs when someone finds lost property and keeps it without attempting to return it to the rightful owner. Under Indian law, this is not technically theft but can be charged as criminal misappropriation of property under Section 403 of the IPC. The finder has a duty to take reasonable steps to locate the owner before appropriating the property.

34. How does the IPC address situations where an employee gradually steals small amounts over time?

When an employee gradually steals small amounts over time, it's often classified as "criminal breach of trust by clerk or servant" under Section 408 of the IPC, rather than simple theft. This offense carries a more severe punishment due to the abuse of trust involved. Each act of misappropriation can be considered a separate offense, or it may be treated as a continuing offense.

35. What is the legal stance on "theft of services" under Indian law?

"Theft of services," such as using services without payment (e.g., leaving a restaurant without paying), is not explicitly defined in the IPC. However, such acts are often prosecuted under other sections like cheating (Section 420) or criminal breach of trust. In some cases, they might be interpreted as theft if the service can be quantified as property.

36. How does the concept of "constructive possession" apply in theft cases?

"Constructive possession" in theft cases refers to a situation where a person has control over property without physical possession. For example, a store manager has constructive possession of all items in the store. If someone with constructive possession misappropriates the property, it's usually charged as criminal breach of trust rather than theft, as they already had lawful control over the property.

37. How does the IPC address theft of agricultural produce or crops still attached to the ground?

Theft of agricultural produce or crops still attached to the ground falls under a special category. While generally, things attached to the earth are considered immovable property, the IPC makes an exception for agricultural produce. Under Section 378, if someone severs any agricultural produce from the land with the intention of taking it dishonestly, it constitutes theft.

38. How does the IPC define "movable property" in the context of theft?

The IPC defines "movable property" broadly in the context of theft. It includes any corporeal (physical) property that can be moved, as well as certain intangible properties like electricity. Even items attached to the earth, if severed, become movable property and can be subject to theft.

39. Can a person be charged with theft for taking property they co-own?

Generally, a person cannot be charged with theft for taking property they co-own. However, if the taking deprives other co-owners of their rights or violates an agreement about the property's use, it could potentially lead to other civil or criminal charges, such as criminal misappropriation or breach of trust.

40. What is the significance of "wrongful gain" and "wrongful loss" in theft cases?

"Wrongful gain" and "wrongful loss" are key concepts in theft cases. "Wrongful gain" is profit by unlawful means, while "wrongful loss" is the loss caused by unlawful means. These concepts help establish the dishonest intention required for theft. The prosecution must prove that the accused intended either wrongful gain for themselves or wrongful loss to the owner.

41. What is the significance of "dishonestly" in the definition of theft under the IPC?

The term "dishonestly" in the definition of theft is crucial as it establishes the mental state (mens rea) required for the offense. It means that the accused must have acted with the intention of causing wrongful gain to themselves or wrongful loss to the owner. Without this dishonest intention, the act may not constitute theft.

42. What is the legal position on "extortion" and how does it relate to robbery?

Extortion is a separate offense under the IPC but shares similarities with robbery. Both involve obtaining property through coercion, but extortion typically involves a threat of future harm rather than immediate violence. Extortion can be committed without physical presence, unlike robbery which requires direct confrontation.

43. Can a person be charged with robbery if they use threats of non-physical harm, such as revealing embarrassing information?

While robbery typically involves threats of physical harm, threats of non-physical harm like revealing embarrassing information generally fall under extortion rather than robbery. However, if such threats are used in immediate conjunction with taking property and cause the victim to part with the property out of fear, it could potentially be classified as robbery, depending on the specific circumstances and judicial interpretation.

44. Can a person be charged with robbery if they use threat of force but don't actually harm anyone?

Yes, a person can be charged with robbery even if they only threaten to use force without actually causing harm. The threat of force or violence is sufficient to elevate the crime from theft to robbery, as it induces fear in the victim.

45. Can a person be guilty of robbery if they use force after completing the act of theft?

Yes, a person can be guilty of robbery if they use force immediately after completing the act of theft. This is known as "robbery by retention" where force is used to retain stolen property or to facilitate escape. The force used must be in continuation of the theft for it to qualify as robbery.

46. Can a person be charged with robbery if they use force to escape after a failed theft attempt?

Yes, a person can be charged with robbery if they use force to escape after a failed theft attempt. The use of force or threat to facilitate escape immediately after attempting to commit theft is sufficient to elevate the crime to robbery, even if the theft itself was unsuccessful.

47. What is the key difference between theft and robbery under the Indian Penal Code?

The main difference lies in the use of force. Theft involves taking someone's property without their consent, while robbery includes the use of force, threat, or fear to commit theft. Robbery is considered a more serious offense due to the element of violence or intimidation.

48. Can a person be charged with both theft and robbery for the same incident?

No, a person cannot be charged with both theft and robbery for the same incident. Robbery includes the act of theft along with the use of force or threat. If the elements of robbery are present, the offense will be charged as robbery, which is the more serious crime.

49. What is the significance of "entrustment" in distinguishing between theft and criminal breach of trust?

"Entrustment" is key in distinguishing theft from criminal breach of trust. In theft, the initial taking of property is unlawful. In criminal breach of trust, the accused is lawfully entrusted with property or control over it, and the misappropriation happens after this lawful entrustment. This distinction is important as it affects the nature of the charge and potential punishments.