SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
judgment-img

1961 Supreme(Guj) 37

R.B.MEHTA, V.B.RAJU
HIMATSING SHIVSING – Appellant
Versus
STATE – Respondent


Advocates Appeared: B.R.SOMPURA, KUSUM M.SHAH

V. B. RAJU, J.

( 1 ) IT is next contended that even assuming that an offence of theft had been committed it does not amount to robbery because the injuries to Narsing and Karansing were inflicted after the completion of theft and not for the purpose of facilitating the commission of the theft. Reliance is placed on Bishambhar Nath v. Emperor A. I. R. 1941 Oudh 476

( 2 ) THEFT amounts to `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. Before theft can amount to `robbery the offender must have voluntarily caused or attempted 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. The second necessary ingredient is that this must be 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 third necessary ingredient i








Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

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

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon telegram-icon
whatsapp-icon Back to top