ROBBERY

As per Section 390 of Indian Penal code

Theft is "robbery" if, in order to the committing of the theft, or in committing the theft, or in
carving away or attempting to carry away property obtained by the theft, the offender, for that
end, voluntarily cause or attempts to cause to any person death or hurt or wrongful restraint,
or fear of instant death or of instant hurt, or of instant wrongful restraint.
Extortion is "robbery" if the offender, at the time of committing the extortion, is in the
presence of the person put in fear, and commits the extortion by putting that person in fear of
instant death, of instant hurt, or of instant wrongful restraint to that person or to some other
person, and, by so putting in fear, induces the person so put in fear then and there to deliver
up the thing extorted.
Robbery is a form of theft that is accomplished by the use or threat of violence.
Legal definition
In modern English and American law the crime of robbery is generally defined by statute.
The definitions used are primarily of two kinds: those that are closely derived from the older
English common law, and those that have adopted modifications of the type recommended by
the American Law Institute's Model Penal Code. The California statute is typical of the
common law approach. Borrowing language almost word for word from Edward East's text
of 1803, it defines robbery as "the felonious taking of personal property in the possession of
another, from his person or immediate presence, and against his will, accomplished by means
of force or fear" (1999). Other statutes of this kind go into greater detail, while a few states,
such as Virginia, leave the definition almost wholly to the common law.
Under the older definitions, robbery requires proof of larceny, the principal common law
form of theft, plus two additional factors:
(1) That the taking by means of force or fear; and
(2) That the theft be from the person of the victim or from his immediate presence.

Punishment For Different Kinds Of RobberySection 392, punishment for robbery- lays down Whoever commits robbery shall be punished
with regrous imprisionment for a term which may extend to ten years and shall also be liable
to fine and if the robbery be committed on the highway between unset and sunrise the
imprisonment may be extended to fourteen years.
Section 393, attempt to commit robbery- whoever attempts to commit robbery shall be
punished with rigorous imprisonment for a term which may extend to ten years and shall be
also be liable to fine and f the robbery be committed on the highway between sunset and
sunrise the imprisonment may ne extended to fourteen years.
An intention to rob coupled with some overt act short of robbery in furtherance of the intent
is of paramount importance for convicting a person under section. Attempts for offences
under the Indian penal code are punishable under section 511 where no express provision is
made for punishment of such attempts. This section expressly provides for punishment for
attempts to commit robbery. Section 511 would not apply to it. Robbery stands on a different
footing from dacoity in this respect as an attempt at dacoity is punishable as decoity.
Section 394 voluntarily causes hurt in committing robbery- this section says if any person in
committing in attempting to commit robbery voluntarily causes hurt such person and other
person jointly concerned in committing or attempting to commit such robbery shall be
punished with [imprisonment for life] or with rigorous imprisonment for a term which may
extend to ten years and shall also liable to fine.
There may be dacoity without hurt being caused but in the case of an offence under this
section sort is one of the essential elements if no hurt is caused no offence would be made
out.
The History Of Robbery
First listed as a plea of the Crown by Henry II in the twelfth century, robbery was one of the
early crimes under English law to be made punishable by the state rather than through
compensation of the injured party or through private vengeance. While not well defined at
this time, robbery probably required a taking by actual force from the person of the victim,
and was punishable by death or mutilation. It soon became a capital felony, however, and

remained so in Englandat least in theoryuntil the great reforms of the 1830s, when the
list of capital crimes was sharply reduced. The last execution in England for simple robbery
took place in 1836.
Although Roman law and other ancient codes recognized a crime similar to robbery, the older
Anglo-Saxon law did not always include the concept. At one point the distinction between
thefts done in the open (manifest) and thefts carried out in secret was more important. Unlike
modern law, which emphasizes the potential for violence in robbery, this distinction appears
to have been based on the greater certainty of proof available when the thief is caught redhanded.
In the United States, robbery was from colonial days a felony punishable by death. As late as
the early 1960s, ten states made some forms of robbery punishable by death. The punishment
was far from theoretical, as twenty-four persons were executed for robbery offenses between
1930 and 1962. Current constitutional doctrine would prohibit the execution of an offender
convicted of robbery only. However, when his accomplice kills someone in the course of their
crime, a robbery offender, under at least some circumstances, can be sentenced to death on a
felony murder theory, even if he did not himself intend the killing.
Robbery as a separate category embodying theft by violence is contained in the codes of
many countries and cultures, both ancient and modern. This method of categorization is not
universal, however, and some important legal systems have done without it. Thus, although
German and Soviet law have long treated robbery as a separate crime, French law does not.
Theft with violence is considered an aggravated form of theft but not a separate crime.

Elements Of Robbery
The taking, with the intent to steal, of;
The personal property of another;
From his or her person or in their presence;
Against his or her will;
By violence, intimidation or the threat of force.

Robbery is an aggravated form of either theft or extortion. The opening words of Section 390,
IPC, show that there cannot be any robbery, if there is no theft or extortion. Both in theft and
extortion, dishonesty is an essential ingredient. So, if there is no element of dishonesty in an
act, there can be no offence of theft or extortion and consequently there cannot be an offence
of robbery. Similarly, removal of movable property from the possession of another is a
necessary element to constitute an offence of theft. If this element is absent, then there is no
theft and consequently, there will be no robbery either. Thus in order to verify whether a
particular act would amount to a robbery or not, one has to first establish that the offence has
ingredients of theft or extortion, since robbery s nothing but an aggravated form of theft and
extortion. Theft or extortion or attempt to commit any one of the two is an inevitable
ingredient of robbery. Causing Death, Hurt or Wrongful Restraint or Fear Thereof
One of the essential ingredients to constitute the offence of robbery is that the offender should
have caused to any person death, hurt or wrongful restraint, or the fear of instant death or
instant hurt or instant wrongful restraint. Only when such element exist, the offence of theft
would be robbery and not otherwise.
Section 390 will apply only if the death, hurt or wrongful restraint or fear thereof is caused
for the purpose of achieving the end object of commission of theft or carrying away the stolen
property. The words for that end are thus very crucial, which distinguish a case of theft
accompanied with assault which is covered by Sections 379 and 323 from that of robbery.
Thus, if the death, hurt or wrongful restraint has not been caused for the end of achieving the
object of theft or carrying away the stolen property, then it will not amount to an offence of
robbery under Section 390, IPC.
Possession of Stolen Property
Possession of stolen property has always been considered as sufficient presumptive evidence
to prove the commission of theft and robbery.

Types Of Robbery
There are many types of robbery. In all cases, an individual takes possession or ownership of
a piece of property to which he or she is not entitled. In crimes of false pretense, perpetrators
obtain ownership rights through an act of deception that pertains to facts about the past or
present. The transfer of title for that property is obtained through fraudulent acts.
In crimes of larceny, the perpetrator takes possession of property for which he or she does not
have possession rights. For example, the owner of a boat may take it to a marina to have it
fixed. Once the work has been completed, the owner retrieves the boat without paying the
bill. The owner is guilty of larceny because he or she does not have possession rights until the
bill is paid for the work that has already been completed on the boat.
Robbery also includes the perpetrators taking possession of property for which they do not
have possession rights. However, robbery often includes force. Aggravated robbery and
armed robbery are similar in nature because the perpetrator utilizes force or the threat of force
in order to gain victim compliance. Armed robbery includes possession of a deadly weapon
or the perceived possession of a deadly weapon, even if one is not present. Generally, bank
robberies, which are Federal crimes, involve armed robbery.
Burglary is different from robbery because burglary does not generally include contact
between the robber and the victim. Burglary is an inchoate offense, which means that the
crime is committed in order to prepare for completion of another crime. There are many
offenses that can proceed burglary, and the crime does not have to include theft. Even if the
burglar never commits the intended, additional offense, they can still be charged with
burglary.
Piracy is another type of theft in which the victim rarely comes face to face with the
perpetrator. Piracy is a crime in which theft is committed by violating copyright laws.
Copyright infringement is a serious criminal offense, but it is rarely prosecuted due to the
nature of the crime.
Piracy is a serious problem that is widespread in the entertainment industry. Illegal copies of
artistic creations are circulated on a mass level and easily obtained by any member of the

general public. Although pirated copies are often cheaper than original works, the artist
receives no payment from those copies.
False Pretenses
Crimes of false pretense involve an individual that obtains ownership rights to property by
taking place in an act of fraud. Crimes of false pretense often involve an act of deception that
directly results in an individual giving up the ownership rights to a piece of property as a
direct result of that act of deception. In other words, the crime only qualifies as a crime of
false pretense if the transfer of ownership is a direct result of an act of deception by the
person that has obtained ownership of that property.
In order to be prosecuted for a crime of false pretense, an individual must be aware that they
are making the false statement. For example, a person cannot be charged if they realistically
believed what they told the rightful owner, even if it was false. The perpetrator must have
been aware that they were taking part in a deception that would result in the loss of property
of the rightful owner.
The deception that resulted in the transfer of property must have been passed on as A past
fact, or a fact that pertains to the present. In other words, a person cannot be charged with
committing a crime of false pretense based on promises they make about the future. The
perpetrator must have taken part in deception about an actual and existing fact.
Any promise made about the future is not based in fact because nobody can know for sure
what will happen in the future. In contrast to robbery, this crime involves the actual transfer
of ownership, rather than simple possession. In addition, the property must have some
pecuniary significance. The property must have some monetary value, no matter how small.
The perpetrator must also have intent to defraud the victim. In other words, the perpetrator
must have had the motive of gaining the rights to a piece of property by taking part in
deception that would affect the rightful owner of that property.
If however, the rightful owner had suspicions about that specific deception, no crime has
been committed because they were not actually deceived. A person that has doubt and
transfers the property anyway has not been deceived, and therefore, the actions necessary to
complete a crime of false pretense have not been met.

Crimes of false pretense have changed names as laws change, but the basic premise remains
the same. In the Theft Acts of 1968 and 1978, the United Kingdom's government sought to
better define crimes of theft. Crimes of false pretense have also been known as crimes of
deception, or crimes of fraud. Whatever they are known as, the results are the same. A
perpetrator deceives the rightful owner of a valuable piece of property into giving up those
property rights.
Larceny
Larceny is a crime in which the perpetrator gains possession of a piece of property, but not
ownership rights. The larcenist takes possession of the property without permission from the
owner, or with permission of the owner but for purposes contrary to that permission.
The perpetrator may have asked to borrow a piece of jewelry for some specific event and
instead sold that piece of jewelry even though they did not have ownership of that jewelry.
The perpetrator did have permission to possess the jewelry, but only for a certain period of
time. They were also expected to return the jewelry.
A person is also guilty of larceny if they take part in asportation of property. Asportation is
the movement of property that a person does not have possession rights to. For example, a
person may own a vehicle that has been impounded because a ticket has not been paid. The
owner does not have possession rights of that vehicle. If that individual were to go to the
impound lot and move the car, they are guilty of asportation.
Another principle involved in larceny is that the perpetrator takes possession of a piece of
property to which another individual has possession rights. In other words, a person is not
guilty of larceny if they take possession of a piece of property that has been abandoned or
discarded.
However, an individual that takes possession of a piece of property that may have been lost
could be guilty of larceny if they do not make reasonable efforts to reunite that property with
the person that has possession rights. The perpetrator must also intend to permanently deprive
a person of possession of the piece of property. For example, a person that finds a piece of
jewelry and picks it up to bring home is not yet guilty of larceny. That individual may be
bringing that piece of property home in order to make an attempt to find the owner.

That person must take the item home and make no attempt to find the individual that has
possession rights before they could be guilty of larceny. That fact can sometimes be difficult
to prove. Perhaps, if that individual were to wear that piece of jewelry, it could be assumed
that they intended to permanently deprive someone of that property.
There are many types of larceny but all involve some of the same elements and all involve an
individual taking possession of a piece of property of which they do not have the possession
rights. There are some individuals that take possession by acts of stealth.
A pickpocket commits larceny by stealth because the crime is often undetected until much
later. In other words, larceny by stealth involves a perpetrator that is not witnessed during the
commission of the crime. Although people may have actually seen the pickpocket, they
probably did not realize that the crime took place.
Theft by an employee or servant can also include stealth, but it does not have to. Theft by
employees is rather common. Office supplies are frequently taken home by employees with a
purpose that does not involve work. Even employees that use their work phone to make long
distance calls that are not in reference to their job are guilty of petty larceny. Employees that
steal items such as printers would be guilty of grand larceny.
For example, a trucker that has been hired to transfer toys from a warehouse to a toy store
does not have the right to remove even a single toy from that delivery. If the trucker were to
remove anything from that shipment, that would be considered theft by bailee.
Theft by a finder involves a person finding a piece of property for which they know they do
not have possession rights. If that person can reasonably believe that the property has been
abandoned, then no crime has been committed. If, however, that person believes that the
property has been lost or misplaced, they must make a reasonable effort to reunite the
property with the person that has possession rights in order to avoid larceny charges.
One of the most common forms of larceny is larceny by trick. In that type of larceny, the
perpetrator is granted possession rights, but takes possession for a purpose contrary to that for
which permission was granted. For example, a person that borrows a car for a doctors
appointment, but instead uses it to rob a bank, would be guilty of theft by deception, among
other charges.

 Armed Robbery
Armed robbery is generally the charge against a perpetrator that utilizes a weapon during the
commission of a robbery. Robbery is the taking of property through the use of force, or threat
of force. Armed robbers use a weapon to gain victim compliance.
In fact, armed robberies do not even have to present a weapon to face the most serious of
robbery charges. For example, a robber that pretended that a hand in his pocket held a gun
would be charged with armed robbery. In order to be charged with armed robbery, the victims
must simply believe that the robber had a deadly weapon and acted accordingly.
Prosecution for armed robbery will vary according to each jurisdiction. Bank robberies that
include the use of a weapon will be prosecuted by the Federal Government. In fact, any bank
robbery is considered a Federal crime because the Government insures banks, and therefore,
bank robbery is a Federal crime.
Banks and other institutions have taken many precautions to prevent robbery. Many buildings
now have double doors that can trap a robber while they try to escape. In addition, many
buildings now have twenty-four hour surveillance so that no one can enter undetected. There
are also silent alarms in many buildings which employees can hit without alerting the
criminal.
Homes and businesses should take similar precautions to avoid becoming the victim of an
armed robber. While homes may not have metal detectors, they can add security such as
alarm systems. Any structure should also be clear of easy hiding spots for robbers such as
shrubs and darkened areas.
Statistics indicate that most armed bank robberies occur in the early morning hours,
especially on Fridays, whereas armed robberies of businesses tend to happen in the late
evening hours. Those statistics will vary according to the security and other precautions of
businesses attempting to prevent such crimes. Armed robbers, like other criminals, look for
an easy target.

 Aggravated Robbery
Robbery is very similar to other crimes, but it has some defining characteristics. The crime of
robbery involves a perpetrator taking property from the person that has possession rights to
the property while using force or threatening the use of force.
The robber generally comes face to face with their victim, unlike a burglar. In many
jurisdictions, there is no distinction between armed robbery and aggravated robbery.When
there is a distinction made, it is generally that aggravated robbery includes the threat of force
in the absence of a deadly weapon being presented or threatened.
In either case, aggravated robbery generally has sentencing guidelines similar to armed
robbery, depending on other intervening factors of the crime. Aggravated robbery can also
include a felony murder charge. If a victim dies as a result of the commission of any felony
crime, the charge will be felony murder. Generally, charges of that nature include a sentence
of life in prison.
Aggravated robbery can also result in kidnapping to aid the perpetrator in escaping from law
enforcement or any one that is in pursuit. If the victim is transported across State lines, the
charges will be prosecuted in Federal court.
Aggravated robbery is a violent felony and can often occur in addition to other violent
crimes. Unfortunately, the mind set of many of the perpetrators is that once they have begun
the crime, there is no turning back. Therefore, they are likely to do anything that will help
them escape, including killing innocent bystanders or law enforcement that are in pursuit.
Burglary
Burglary involves the illegal entry of a structure with the intent of committing another crime.
The other crimes include a number of possible intents. For example, a burglar may enter a
structure with the intention of kidnapping a victim and holding them for ransom. While the
crime of burglary can include violent offenses, the other crime is usually theft. The possibility
of varying intents is the reason that burglary is considered an inchoate offense.

An inchoate offense in one that is committed with the purpose of committing another crime.
Burglary, as an element of other crimes, can precede murder, assault, sexual assault,
kidnapping, and murder. In fact, burglary can result in numerous other offenses.
Theft is not an element required for a crime to be classified as burglary. Burglary is simply
the entering Of a structure, in the absence of permission to enter said structure. Burglary can
even be charged against an individual that has permission to enter a structure, but does so
with a purpose contrary to that for which permission was granted.
The charges against a burglar will vary depending on many factors. The laws that govern
burglary will vary according to jurisdiction and differ slightly in each State. The differences
often become evident when examining the sentencing guidelines within each jurisdiction.
In some states, nighttime burglary receives a much harsher punishment than a similar crime
during the day. In addition, the crime that proceeds the burglary will greatly effect the
sentence of the perpetrator. Burglars generally receive a less harsh punishment than robbers.
The difference between the crimes can be great.
First, robbers come face to face with their victims and use the threat of force, or actual force,
in order to get victims to comply with their demands, whereas burglars generally do not come
face to face with their victims, depending on the nature of their proceeding crime. Obviously
a burglar that intends to assault, murder, or kidnap a victim will likely receive a much harsher
punishment than a robber. But the distinction between the two crimes can blur at sentencing
because they are both felonies and both crimes can end up being equally violent.

Requirements For Robbery

Use Of Force Or Fear
Taking From Person Or Presence
Aggravated Robbery
Use Of Force Or Fear:- The central requirement of robbery is that the taking be by means of
either force or fear. One common type of robbery involving force is mugging, in which the
robber grabs the victim around the neck from the rear and forcibly removes his wallet or

other valuables. Other common kinds of force involve striking a victim with the fists, a gun,
or a blunt object.
Like any other category of crime, robbery presents a number of situations in which it is
difficult to determine whether or not there is in fact a robbery. In these boundary situations, if
there is no robbery there is generally some other crime rather than no crime at all. If the
victim's purse is snatched, for example, it is often difficult to determine whether the force
necessary for robbery has been used. If the purse is snatched quickly so that the victim offers
no resistance, the common law and many American states find that there has been no robbery
and that the crime is instead larceny from the person. If the victim struggles to hold on to the
purse, however, so that the thief must jerk it loose, the common law and virtually all the
American states find that a robbery has been committed.
Historically, these lines were drawn at a time when robbery was a capital crime and common
law judges were reluctant to paint with too broad a brush, and the distinctions consequently
emphasize formal logic more than the actual or potential harm. The elderly women who are
often the victims of purse-snatchings tend to be badly shaken by the experience even if
"force" is not used, but this has not as yet caused any widespread change in the distinctions
made.
Picking a victim's pocket is generally not considered robbery because there is no use of fear
and because robbery requires more force than that necessary simply to remove the property.
However, if the thief jostles the victim in the taking, or if the victim notices the attempt and
resists, the crime is robbery.
Fear or intimidation is an alternative to the use of force. The most common situation is the
holdup, in which the robber threatens to shoot if valuables are not turned over. The threat may
be implied rather than stated verbally, but it generally must be to do immediate rather than
future harm. The threat may concern the property holder, members of his family, or another
person who is present, and must generally concern death or bodily injury of some kind rather
than an injury to reputation. Other threatsto prosecute the victim, to do future harm, or to
expose the victim's sordid past if he fails to paymay constitute blackmail or extortion but
are not robbery.

Most American states do not require that the victim actually be afraid. If the victim is not
frightened, it is enough that he be aware of the impending harm. Even a slight threat is
enough to constitute robbery, however, if it causes the victim to part with money or valuables.
It is sometimes said that robbery is a crime that combines both larceny and assault, but this is
not strictly true. Some threats that are not sufficient to constitute an assault are sufficient for
the crime to be robbery.
Another definitional problem involves thefts from persons who are unconscious because of
their own acts of drinking or drug-taking. If money is simply removed from the person of
such a victim, the crime is not robbery because there is no force or fear. If force is used to
move the victim in order to find his money or to gratuitously inflict harm, however, as is
often done in skid-row drunk rolls, the definition of robbery under most statutes would
appear to be met, despite the lack of awareness on the part of the victim. If the victim is either
drugged or knocked unconscious by the thief in order to secure the victim's property, it is
clear that the crime is robbery.
Taking From Person Or Presence:- The second common law requirement for robbery is
that the taking be from the person or the immediate presence of the victim. Property is
considered taken from the victim's person if it is taken from his hand or clothing or from a
place where it was discarded while the victim was in flight from the robber. The victim's
"presence" is considered to be his area of immediate control. Property is not generally found
to be taken from the victim's person or presence if it is located some distance away.
Consequently, if a victim held by a gunman directs by telephone that property in a remote
warehouse be delivered to the gunman's confederate, the crime, under the traditional rule, is
not robbery. Taking the real issue to be the use of force or fear, however, the Model Penal
Code, the Theft Act, 1968, c. 60 (Great Britain), and a number of states have dropped the
requirement that property be taken from the person or presence of the victim. This solves
some problems but leaves open the question as to how close in time and place the use of force
or fear must be to the taking for the crime to be robbery.
Larceny problems. Because larceny is a component of robbery, all the problems that exist in
defining larceny are also problems in defining robbery. The common law rules that prevent
the taking of real property or services from being larceny, for example, may also prevent the
forcible taking of these things from being robbery. Similarly, since a taking that results from

an erroneous but honest claim of ownership is not a theft because there is no intent to deprive
the rightful owner, such a taking with force is not a robbery in most states because there is no
theft.
If the older, more technical rules concerning larceny have been replaced with a single, more
comprehensive concept of theft, there may be other problems. The wrongful failure to return
borrowed property, for example, was not larceny under the older law but is included in many
modern definitions. This raises the question as to whether a borrower who has wrongfully
refused to return property commits a robbery if he threatens to beat up the owner for trying to
recover his property. Similar questions may arise when the property was initially obtained by
fraud or trickery and when force is used or threatened to keep the victim from regaining the
property.
Unlike burglary but like other common law thefts, robbery requires that property actually be
taken by the offender. If force or fear is employed but property not taken, there may be an
assault or an attempted robbery, but at common law and in most states there is no robbery.
The Model Penal Code and the statutes of some states have recognized that the harm to the
person is the same whether the theft is completed or not, and have defined the crime to
include the incomplete theft as well as the completed one.
Aggravated Robbery Many statutes provide stiffer penalties for particularly threatening
robberies. Some factors that aggravate robbery in this way are use of a dangerous weapon,
infliction of serious bodily harm, intent to kill, the presence of accomplices, or the choice of
an especially vulnerable target such as a person on a train or bus, or an elderly person. In
many of the newer criminal codes some of these same factors now serve as aggravating
factors for crimes in general, as well as specific aggravating factors for robbery. This overlap
sometimes raises the question as to whether the presence of an aggravating factor such as the
use of a gun should result in one additional penalty or twoas aggravation under the robbery
statute only, or under both the robbery statute and the general law.
Robbery is generally viewed as a crime against the person threatened. Consequently, if there
is more than one victim, many states allow multiple charges to be filed and multiple
sentences to be imposed.
When Theft Is Robbery

Theft is robbery if, in order to the committing of the theft, or in committing the theft, or in
carrying away or attempting to carry away property obtained by the theft, the offender, for
that end, voluntarily causes or attempts to cause to any person death or hurt or wrongful
restraint, or fear of instant death or of instant hurt, or of instant wrongful restraint.
When Extortion Is Robbery
Extortion is robbery if the offender, at the time of committing the extortion, is in the
presence of the person put in fear, and commits the extortion by putting that person in fear of
instant death, or of instant hurt, or of instant wrongful restraint to that person, or to some
other person, and, by so putting in fear, induces the person so put in fear then and there to
deliver up the thing extorted.
Explanation:
The offender is said to be present if he is sufficiently near to put the other person in fear of
instant death, or of instant hurt, or of instant Wrongful restraint.
Illustrations:
(a) A holds Z down, and fraudulently takes Zs money and jewels from Zs clothes, without
Zs consent. Here A has committed theft, and, in order to the committing of that theft, has
voluntarily caused wrongful restraint to Z. A has therefore committed robbery.
(b) A meets Z on the high road, shows a pistol, and demands Zs purse. Z, in consequence,
surrenders his purse. Here A has extorted the purse from Z by putting him in fear of instant
hurt, and being at the time of committing the extortion in his presence. A has therefore
committed robbery.
(c) A meets Z and Zs child on the high road. A takes the child, and threatens to fling it down
a precipice, unless Z delivers his purse. Z, in consequence, delivers his purse. Here A has
extorted the purse from Z, by causing Z to be in fear of instant hurt to the child who is there
present. A has therefore committed robbery on Z.

(d) A obtains property from Z by saying Your child is in the hands of my gang, and will be
put to death unless you send us ten thousand rupees. This is extortion, and punishable as
such: but it is not robbery, unless Z is put in fear of the instant death of his child.

Causes Of Robbery
Robbery is the stealing of money or property from someone with the use of force.
Robberies are fairly common crimes, and there are several causes of robbery which differ
from one crime to another. Here are some of the most common causes of robbery.The present
recession and unemployment problems which have plagued everyone might have instilled a
sense of desperation in an otherwise previously hard working and employed person. This
might be a motive to commit a robbery in order to feed oneself or look after ones family
through tough times.
Another category of robbers are those who are just lazy, and are habitual thieves, looking to
make quick money without any effort. These people are repeat offenders and they usually
drift around committing burglaries and other types of theft as well.
Drug addicts are usually potential thieves to support their drug habit if they do not hold down
a job or have other ways to earn money in order to pay for their habit. The desperation for the
next fix is very severe and usually clouds ones judgment and leads to robbery.
Sometimes there crimes are committed by those who have some form of mental deficiency or
lack morals etc. and these kinds of offenders sometimes undertake burglaries just for the
violence involved in the crime, where the money is not an important factor. Sometimes peer
pressure among teens also leads to robberies, with robbers historically being looked up to in
society. Another common type of offender is one from the lower economic bracket of society
who is just looking to better his or her lifestyle.

CASES: Sikander Kumar vs. State [1998 (3) Crimes 69 Delhi HC]
The prosecution was that the two appellants pointed a knife at the complainant and took Rs.
50/- and drove away the auto of the complainant. Next day the accused were arrested in
Nakabandi in presence of complainant. One independent witness turned hostile.
The trial Court imposed punishment against Sikander Kumar and other accused. On appeal,
the Delhi High Court set aside the conviction, opining that entire prosecution story was
inherently improbable and unbelievable. It would be unsafe to place total reliance on
testimony of complainant to base conviction as one independent witness turned hostile.

Attempt to commit robbery:

Sec. 393 says that whoever attempts to commit robbery shall be punished with rigorous
imprisonment for a term which may extend to seven years and shall also be liable to fine. The
offence under this Section is cognizable, non-bailable, non-compoundable, and triable by
Magistrate of the first class.

Voluntarily causing hurt in committing robbery:

According to Sec. 394, if the offender while committing robbery voluntarily causes hurt to
the complainant, such offender shall be punished with imprisonment with life or with
rigorous imprisonment for a term which may extend to ten years and also fine. The offence
under this Section is cognizable, non-bailable, non-compoundable, and triable by Magistrate
of the first class.

Omprakash vs. State (1978 CrLJ 797 All.)

In this case, the accused committed a high-way robbery. They looted the passengers of the
bus. The trial Court imposed punishment for life. On appeal High Court upheld it.

Narayan Prasad vs. State of M.P. (AIR 2006 SC 204)

Brief Facts: The accused did robbery and also killed the wife of the complainant. The
complainant identified the accused in the Identification Parade. The accused showed the
stolen property.

Recovery effected at the instance of accused not claimed by them, except one N who claimed
that those were purchased by him under receipt. One of the PWs hostiled. The accused were
convicted by the trial Court and it was confirmed by the High Court.

Om Praksh v. state of utttarpradesh AIR 1956 ALL 163.

It has decided what are the criteria which take a case in an offence of robbery? In this case
persons had charged for dacoity, two of them were acquitted, the court said that for the
dacoity there must be 5 persons.

CONCLUSION