Gursharan Singh vs State Of Punjab - 1996 Supreme(SC) 1427

Q: Key Points

Yes. The Supreme Court held that robbery under Section 392 IPC is a special aggravated form of extortion, as Section 390 IPC provides that all robberies involve either theft or extortion, making separate convictions under both Section 387 IPC (extortion) and Section 392 IPC impermissible. (!) It set aside the conviction under Section 392 IPC while upholding the conviction under Section 387 IPC, reasoning that the complainant was not induced to deliver the money "then and there" at the time of being put in fear (an essential ingredient of robbery under Section 390 IPC), such that dual convictions were unjustified. (!) [judgement_act_referred]

Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation

1996 Supreme(SC) 1427

M.K.MUKHERJEE, S.P.KURDUKAR
Gursharan Singh – Appellant
Versus
State Of Punjab – Respondent

Judgement Key Points

Yes.

The Supreme Court held that robbery under Section 392 IPC is a special aggravated form of extortion, as Section 390 IPC provides that all robberies involve either theft or extortion, making separate convictions under both Section 387 IPC (extortion) and Section 392 IPC impermissible. (!)

It set aside the conviction under Section 392 IPC while upholding the conviction under Section 387 IPC, reasoning that the complainant was not induced to deliver the money "then and there" at the time of being put in fear (an essential ingredient of robbery under Section 390 IPC), such that dual convictions were unjustified. (!) [judgement_act_referred]

JUDGMENT

M.K. Mukherjee, J.-By his judgment and order dated June 12, 1993 the Additional Judge, Designated Court, Amritsar convicted and sentenced the appellant under Sections 387 and 392 IPC and Section 3 of the Terrorist and Disruptive Activities (Prevention) Act, 1987 ( TADA for short). Aggrieved thereby the appellant has preferred this appeal under Section 19 of TADA.

The case of the prosecution is as under:

2(a). Nirmal Singh carries on business in silver ornaments and lives with his wife Kuldip Kaur in Gali No. 1, Tej Nagar, Amritsar. Formerly the appellant was a resident to the same locality and was known to Nirmal Singh. In or about the month of June, 1990 Nirmal Singh received a letter from the appellant demanding a sum of Rs. 2 lacs for purchase of weapons for the terrorists and threatening that in case the money was not paid he (Nirmal Singh) would have to face dire consequences. Nirmal Singh talked with his wife over the demand and went to meet the appellant who had by then shifted to Gali Baghwali and was running a wheat bran depot. The appellant took away the letter from him and told that he would meet the members of the group at whose instance he

Click Here to Read the rest of this document

1996 Supreme(SC) 1427

M.K.MUKHERJEE, S.P.KURDUKARGursharan Singh – AppellantVersusState Of Punjab – Respondent

M.K.MUKHERJEE, S.P.KURDUKAR
Gursharan Singh – Appellant
Versus
State Of Punjab – Respondent