Difference between theft, extortion, robbery, and dacoity

 

Define and explain Theft. How is Theft different from Extortion? Under what circumstances Theft becomes Robbery? Can a man commit theft of his own property? Differentiate between Robbery and Dacoity.

Introduction:

Theft, Extortion, Robbery and Dacoity are offences in criminal law affecting the property of a person, defined in Sections 378 to 402 of the Indian Penal Code. On a prima facie basis they seem to be very much similar to each other, but on a closer look it may be found that there are slight differences which distinguish one from another.

Extortion is the offence carried out by overpowering the will of the owner, while theft is the offence which is committed without the consent of the owner. The offence of extortion occupies a middle place between theft and robbery. Robbery is a special and aggravated from of either theft orextortion and means felonious taking from the person of another or in his presence against his wall, by violence or putting him in fear, and it becomes dacoity when it iscommitted by five or more person co-jointly

 

Relevant Provision:
sSection 378 and 379 for theft

Section 383 and 379 for Extortion
Section 390 and 392 for Robbery.
Section 391 and 395 for Dacoity

Theft
In general, theft is committed when a person's property is taken without his consent by someone.

 For example, A enters the house of B and takes B's watch without B seeing and puts it in his pocket with an intention to take it for himself

. Section 378 of IPC defines theft as follows - 

Whoever, intending to take dishonestly any movable property out of the possession of any person without that person's consent, moves that property in order to such taking, is said to commit theft.

Ingredients Of Theft:
In order to constitute theft, following factors are essential.
(i) Dishonest intention to take property
(ii) Property must be moveable
(iii) That should be in possession of other person
(iv) There must be removal or moving of that property
(v) Without consent of the owner

Case Law 

·         2000 MLD 651
It was held that person found guilty of offence of theft u/s 397 can not Simultaneously be convicted u/s 411 of P.P.C

·         It was also held in the case of Ram Ratan Alias Ratan Ahir & Anr. vs The State Of Bihar And Anr[4] that, for the crime of theft, a mala fide intention is a must. Without a mala fideintention, a person cannot be convicted under Section 378.

·         Pyarelal Bhargava v. State

 a &ovt. employee too a file from the &ovt. office, presented it to 3, and brou&ht it bac to the office after two days. It was held that permanent tain& of the property is not re4uired, even a temporary movement of the property with dishonest intention is enou&hand thus this was theft.

Theft of one's own property
As per the definition of theft given in section 378, it is not the ownership but the possession of the property that is important. A person may be a legal owner of a property but if that property is in possession, legally valid or invalid, of another, it is possible for the owner to commit theft of his own property. This is explained in illustration j of section 378 - A gives his watch to B for repairs. B repairs the watch but A does not pay the repairing charges, because of which B does not return the watch as a security. A forcibly takes his watch from B. Here, A is guilty of theft of his own watch.
Further, in illustration k, A pawns his watch to B. He takes it out of B's possession, having not payed to B what he borrowed by pawning it, without B's consent. Thus, he commits theft of his own property in as much as he takes it dishonestly.
In Rama's Case 1956, a person's cattle was attached by the court and entrusted with another. He took  the cattle out of the trustee's possession without recourse of the court. He was held guilty of theft.

Extortion U/sec 383:
In Extortion, a person takes the property of another by threat without any legal justification.

Section 383 defines extortion as follows - 
Whoever intentionally puts any person in fear of any injury to that person, or to any other, and thereby dishonestly induces the person so put in fear to deliver to any person any property or valuable security or anything signed or sealed, which may be converted into a valuable security, commits extortion.
essential ingredients

1.   Intentionally puts any person in fear of injury 

2.   Dishonestly induces a person so put in fear to deliver to any person any property

 

 example,  

·         A threatens to publish a defamatory libel about B unless B gives him money. A has committed extortion.

·         A threatens B that he will keep B's child in wrongful confinement, unless B will sign and deliver to A a promissory note binding B to pay certain moneys to A. B signs and delivers such noted. A has committed extortion.

In Romesh Chandra Arora's case 1960, the accused took a photograph of a naked boy and a girl by compelling them to take off their clothes and extorted money from them by threatening to publish the photograph. He was held guilty of extortion.

In R S Nayak vs A R Antuley and another AIR 1986, it was held that for extortion, fear or threat must be used. In this case, chief minister A R Antuley asked the sugar cooperatives, whose cases were pending before the govt. for consideration, to donate money and promised to look into their cases. It was held that there was no fear of injury or threat and so it was not extortion.

·         THEFT- 1.   CONSENT – In Theft the accused takes the property without any consent.   2.   FORCE       – No force is used in Theft.   3.   PROPERTY- Theft can be committed only of a movable property.   4.   FACTOR OF FEAR-  No fear factor arises.   5.   DELIVERY- No delivery by the victim is made in a Theft.

·         EXTORTION- CONSENT – In Extortion the consent is obtained by the accused wrongfully.   FORCE       – Force is used initiating a fear of injury.   PROPERTY- In an extortion, property can be movable, immovable and even document.   FACTOR OF FEAR – Fear does exist in extortion.       DELIVERY- There is a delivery by the victim (Complainant

 

Conclusion:
that the offence of theft and extortion are offence against property. Extortion is the offence which occupies a middle place between theft and robbery as the element of force is present in this offence, which is missing in the offence of theft.

Robbery:-

Section 390 says, “In all robbery, there is either theft or extortion” and goes on to define when theft is robbery and when extortion is robbery.

Thus, a theft becomes a robbery when the following two additional conditions are satisfied:-

when someone voluntarily causes or attempts to cause,
(i) death , hurt , or wrongful restraint , or
(ii) fear of instant death , instant hurt , or instant wrongful restraint

 the above act is done
a. in order to the committing of theft ,or
b. committing theft , or
c. carrying away or attempting to carry away property obtained by theft.

An extortion becomes a robbery when the following three additional conditions are satisfied:-

1.  when a person commits extortion by putting another person in fear of instant death, hurt, or wrongful restraint, and

2.  such a person induces the person put in such fear to deliver the property then and there and

3.  the offender is in the presence of the person put in such fear at the time of extortion.

·      In Shikandar vs State 1984, the accused attacked his victim by knife many times and succeeded in acquiring the ear rings and key from her salwar. He was held guilty of robbery

Thus, robbery is the aggravated form of theft or extortion. It is different from theft and extortion as there is the element of instant harm is involved in robbery, which is not an ingredient of simple theft or extortion.

Dacoity:-

The essential ingredients of Dacoity are:

(i) five or more persons must act in association;

(ii) such act must be robbery or attempt to commit robbery; and

(iii) the five persons must consists of those who themselves commit or attempt to commit robbery or those who are present and aid the principal actors in the commission or attempt of such robbery.¹²

The essential ingredient that differentiates dacoity from the above the number of persons involved in association. In fact, however, dacoity may be called ‘robbery with five or more persons’.

·         In Ram Chand's case 1932, it was held that the resistance of the victim is not necessary. The victims, seeing a large number of offenders, did not resist and no force or threat was used but the offenders were still held guilty of dacoity.

·         In Ghamandi's case 1970, it was held that less than five persons can also be convicted of dacoity if it is proved as a fact that there were more than 5 people who committed the offence by only less than five were identified. 

Difference between Theft, Extortion, Robbery and Dacoity:-

Therefore, we may distinguish between theft, extortion, robbery and extortion on the basis of their definitions provided in the Indian Penal Code.

In case of theft, movable property is taken away without owner’s consent; in case of extortion, consent of the person is obtained wrongfully by coercion; in case of robbery, the offender takes property without consent, robbery being the aggravated form of theft or extortion and in the case of dacoity also, there is no consent or it is obtained wrongfully.

Theft may occur only of movable property whereas, extortion may occur of movable or immovable property, and in the case of both robbery and dacoity, it may be committed with respect to immovable property, where it is in the form of extortion and not otherwise. There is no element of force or compulsion, in case of theft; force or compulsion exist in extortion, the person being put in fear of injury to himself or to any other persons.

There is no delivery of property by the victim, in theft; whereas there is delivery in extortion; in case of robbery and dacoity, there is no delivery if theft occurs during the course of robbery or dacoity.

Punishment for theft is imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to three years, or with fine or with both (Section 379). Punishment for extortion is imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to three years, or with fine, or with both (Section 384). Punishment for robbery is rigorous imprisonment 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 sunset and sunrise it may be extended to fourteen years (Section 392). Punishment for dacoity imprisonment for life, or with rigorous imprisonment for a term which may extend to ten years, and shall also be liable to fine (Section 395).

heft	Extortion	Robbery	Dacoity
Movable property is taken away without owners consent in theft	Consent of the person is obtained wrongfully by coercion	The offender takes property without consent, robbery being the aggravated form of theft or extortion	There is no consent or it is obtained wrongly
Theft is of movable property only	It may be movable or immovable property	Robbery may be committed in respect of immovable property where it is in the form of extortion, but not otherwise	Dacoity may be committed in respect of immovable property where it is in the form of extortion but not otherwise
It can be committed by one person	It can be committed by one or more	It can be committed by one or more persons	To commit the offence of dacoity, there must be at- least five persons or more
There is no element of force or compulsion	Force or compulsion exists in extortion, the person being put in fear of injury to himself or to any other persons	Force may or may not be used	Force may or may not be used
Element of fear is absent	Element of fear is present	Element of fear exists if robbery is a form of extor­tion, otherwise not	Element of force exists in dacoity

 

Thee is no delivery of property by the victim	There is delivery of property	There is no delivery of property in robbery if theft is committed in the course of robbery	There is no delivery of property in dacoity if theft is committed in the course of dacoity
Punished with imprison­ment of either description for a term which may extend to three years, or with fine or with both (Section 379)	Punished with imprison­ment of either description for a term which may extend to three years, or with fine, or with both (Section 384)	Punished with rigorous imprisonment 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 sun­set and sunrise it may be extended to fourteen years (Section 392)	Punished with imprisonment for life, or with rigoro us imprisonment for a term which may extend to ten years, and shall also be liable to fine (Section 395)