Back
2008(1) Supreme 508
Supreme Court of india
Dr. Arijit Pasayat & P. Sathasivam, JJ.
Venu @ Venugopal and Ors. — Petitioners
versus
State of Karnataka — Respondent
Appeal (crl.) 221 of 2008
Decided on : 30-01-2008
(2004 (1) SCC 475) relied upon.
Facts of the Case:-
1.Accused persons A2 to A5 were prosecuted herein in the instant case for intercepting prosecution witnesses 2 and 3, and for robbing gold ornaments and cash of Rs. 400/- by threatening with Knife. Trial Court convicted accused person u\s 395 IPC. On Appeal, High Court held that offence committed was covered u/s 392 IPC.
2.Present Appeal has been filed against said order of High Court.
Findings of the Court :
The Court held that Section 390 defines robbery which is theft or extortion when caused with violence of death, hurt or wrongful restraint. When there is no theft committed, then as a natural corollary there cannot be robbery. Robbery is only an aggravated form of offence of theft or extortion. Aggravation is in use of violence of death, hurt or restraint. Violence must be in course of theft and not subsequently. It is not necessary that violence actually should be committed but even attempt to commit it is enough. The words “for that end” in Section 390 clearly mean that the hurt caused must be with the object of facilitating committing of the theft or must be caused while the offender is committing theft or is carrying away or is attempting to carry away property obtained theft. Provision itself provides when highway robbery is committed, deterrent punishment is called for. Instantly, evidence of victim, her husband, factum of recovery of vehicle used clearly established commission of offence by the appellants. Offence was committed on a public road. No dispute that it was not a highway. No dispute that offence was committed during sunset and sunrise that is, at about 9.00 pm. Hence Appeal held liable to be dismissed.
Result : Appeal dismissed.
Certainly. Based on the provided legal document, here are the key points:
Robbery is an aggravated form of theft or extortion, characterized by the use of violence, threat, or wrongful restraint during the commission of theft or extortion (!) (!) (!) .
If no theft is committed, then the act cannot be classified as robbery, as robbery inherently involves theft or extortion with associated violence or threat (!) (!) .
The violence or threat must occur in the course of committing theft or extortion, not afterward. Even an attempt to cause such violence or threat during the act can suffice for classification as robbery (!) (!) .
The use of violence, such as causing hurt or wrongful restraint, must be directly related to facilitating the theft or extortion, and not a subsequent act (!) (!) .
The severity of punishment for robbery, especially on highways and during specific times (sunset or sunrise), is higher, reflecting the gravity of such offences (!) (!) .
Evidence such as identification of the accused, recovery of stolen property, and the circumstances of the offence (e.g., location, time) are crucial to establishing guilt (!) (!) (!) .
The law emphasizes that even an attempt to cause violence during the act of theft or extortion is sufficient to qualify the act as robbery, highlighting the importance of the intent and context of violence (!) (!) .
The social impact and seriousness of offences involving violence, especially in public or highway settings, warrant stringent punishment and consideration of deterrent effects in sentencing (!) .
The absence of evidence showing actual use of weapons or violence does not necessarily negate the offence if the circumstances suggest a threat or attempt to use violence during the commission of theft or extortion (!) .
The legal framework distinguishes between theft, extortion, and robbery, with specific provisions and definitions that guide the classification and punishment of each offence (!) (!) .
Please let me know if you need further elaboration or assistance.
judgment
1.Leave granted.
2.Challenge in this appeal is to the order of a learned Single Judge of the Karnataka High Court holding the appellants guilty of offence punishable under Section 392 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (in short the ‘IPC’) and sentencing each of 10 years imprisonment.
3.Prosecution version in a nutshell is as follows:
On 24.6.2001 at 9.00 p.m. on Mulbagal-Punganoor road PWs 2 and 3 were going on a Bajaj Scooter. When they were near ‘Kirumani Mitta’ of ‘Buddadoru village”, accused persons 2 to 5 intercepted PWs 2 and 3, and robbed the gold chain, golden ear drops, thali and cash of Rs.400/- by threatening with knife. The accused tied the legs and hands of PW-2 and PW-3 and threatened them not to escape and get out from the place for about ten minutes after their departure. The victims went to Punganoor Police Station and later on lodged First Information Report with Nangali Police (Kolar Dist.) on 25.6.2001. The Traffic Police while checking found A-2, A-3 and A-4 were going on the scooter (M.O.6) they had robbed from PW-2, the deadly weapons like knives, pistol, iron rod, etc. were hidden in the scooter. On interrogation, the accused persons admitted the commission of offence in question. A-5 and A-8 were arrested on the information given by A-2 to A-4. At the instance of A-2, the gold jewellery (M.Os.2 and 3) are recovered from PW-6-Pawn broker. The Bajaj Scooter (M.O.6) was seized from A-2, A-3 and A-4. PW-13 with whom the ear-studs and the chain were pledged by A-2, testified to the said fact. PWs 2 and 3 identified A-2 to A-5 as the persons who robbed them. Prosecution claimed that the identification of accused persons by PWs 2 and 3 coupled with the recovery of jewellery at the instance of A-2 and seizure of scooter from A-2, A-3 and A-4 clinchingly established the guilt of A-2 to A-5.
The investigating agency submitted charge sheet for alleged commission of offence punishable under Section 395 of IPC. The case was split up against A-1, A-6 and A-7 as they were absconding.
Learned Additional Sessions Judge, Kolar referred to the evidence of PWs 1 and 2, the recovery of the scooter, the recovery of stolen articles and identification thereon to conclude that accused persons are guilty and accordingly A-2 to A-5 were convicted for offence punishable under Section 395 IPC. Accused 7 and 8 were acquitted as the evidence was not sufficient to find them guilty. Considering the gravity of the offence, custodial sentence of 10 years imprisonment and a fine of Rs.5,000/- each was imposed. In appeal, the High Court found that the offence committed was covered under Section 392 IPC, but considering the gravity of the offence upheld the sentence.
4.In support of the appeal, learned counsel for the appellants submitted that the evidence of PWs 2 and 3 does not show that any knife was used for robbery. On the contrary, evidence of victim clearly shows that she raised hue and cry when accused persons tried to snatch the stolen articles from her. It was also submitted that the appellants have suffered custody of more than nearly 8 years and the sentence deserves to be reduced to the period already undergone.
5.Learned counsel for the respondent-State on the other hand submitted that there is no minimum sentence prescribed and the maximum sentence is 10 years. It is submitted that the robbery was committed on the highway at about 9.00 p.m. That being so, the sentence can be upto 14 years. Considering the gravity of the offence and the large scale highway robberies, no leniency should be shown.
6.Section 392 IPC provides for punishment for robbery. The essential ingredients are as follows:
1.Accused committed theft;
2.Accused voluntarily caused or attempted to cause.
(i)death, hurt or wrongful restraint.
(ii)Fear of instant death, hurt or wrongful restraint.
3.He did either act for the end.
(i)to commit theft.
(ii)While committing theft.
(iii)In carrying away or in the attempt to carry away property obtained by theft.
7.It is to
SupremeToday
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
