Extortion is robbery | [Suraj threatens Niraj that he would not allow him to pass through the certain public road if he (Niraj) does not give his motorbike to him…. Can Suraj be convicted for ‘robbery’? If not, for any other offence?

Question: Extortion is robbery | Suraj threatens Niraj that he would not allow him to pass through the certain public road if he (Niraj) does not give his motorbike to him. Consequently, Niraj gives his motorbike to Suraj. Suraj is prosecuted for ‘robbery’.

The arguments of prosecution during the trial was that Suraj threatened him to deliver his motorcycle (bike) and in fact, also obtained the same. Can Suraj be convicted for ‘robbery’? If not, for any other offence? Give reasons and also mention relevant provisions in this regard.

Find the answer to the mains question only on Legal Bites. Extortion is robbery | [Suraj threatens Niraj that he would not allow him to pass through the certain public road if he (Niraj) does not give his motorbike to him…. Can Suraj be convicted for ‘robbery’? If not, for any other offence? Give reasons and also mention relevant provisions in this regard.]

Answer

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. 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 elements exist, the offence of theft would-be robbery and not otherwise.

As clarified by the court in the case of Venu @ Venugopal v. State of Karnataka (2008) 3 SCC 94, the words ‘for that end’ are thus very crucial, which distinguish a case of theft accompanied with assault, which is covered by ss 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 s 390, IPC.

The words ‘for that end’ mean that the hurt caused must be with the object of facilitating the 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 by theft.

Extortion is robbery, if, the extortionist at the time of committing the extortion, is in the immediate presence of the victim and puts the victim in fear of instant death, of instant hurt or of instant wrongful restraint.

If out of this fear induced in the victim by the extortionist, he is able to obtain delivery of the thing extorted, then the offence of extortion is committed.

Therefore, in the present case, when Suraj threatens Niraj that he would not allow him to pass through the certain public road if he (Niraj) does not give his motorbike to him and consequently, Niraj gives his motorbike to Suraj, he has caused Niraj of wrongful restraint as to move in a particular direction i.e. certain public road in which he has a right to move forward. Therefore, Suraj can be said to have committed the offence of robbery as per section 390 of the code and hence is punishable under section 392.

---

Important Mains/Long Questions and Answers for Judiciary, APO & University Exams

1. IPC Mains Questions Series Part I: Important Questions
2. IPC Mains Questions Series Part II: Important Questions
3. IPC Mains Questions Series Part III: Important Questions
4. IPC Mains Questions Series Part IV: Important Questions
5. IPC Mains Questions Series Part V: Important Questions
6. IPC Mains Questions Series Part VI: Important Questions
7. IPC Mains Questions Series Part VII: Important Questions
8. IPC Mains Questions Series Part VIII: Important Questions
9. IPC Mains Questions Series Part IX: Important Questions
10. IPC Mains Questions Series Part X: Important Questions