THEFT, ROBBERY, DACOITY

Facts: The respondent, Sudhir Mehra, partner of a partnership firm, entered into a hire purchase agreement with the appellants whereunder a motor vehicle was handed over to the respondent. The total consideration agreed to be paid by the respondent was Rs. 3,02,884/- and the respondent made an initial payment of Rs. 69,308/- and the balance amount was to be paid in 36 monthly installments of Rs. 8,400/- each starting from 3.6.1994. According to the respondent, he had been paying the installments regularly. The respondent filed a criminal complaint before the Judicial Magistrate, Amritsar alleging that the motor vehicle in question had developed some trouble and it was entrusted to a motor mechanic for carrying out repairs and that in the night of 16.9.1996 the appellants forcibly took away the vehicle from the motor mechanic. Pursuant to the complaint, the Magistrate took cognizance of the offences. It was alleged by the appellants that respondent had committed default in paying the installments and that an amount of Rs. 1,34,887/- was outstanding against the respondent and therefore the appellants were constrained to terminate the hire purchase agreement and that the respondent surrendered the motor vehicle to the appellants. The High Court declined to quash the proceedings and held that the allegations in the complaint were capable of making out offences punishable especially under Section 379 IPC. Aggrieved by the same, the appellants have filed the instant appeal.

Held: In view of the stringent terms incorporated in the agreement, if the hirer himself has committed default by not paying the installments and the appellants have taken repossession of the vehicle, the respondent cannot have any grievance. The respondent cannot be permitted to say that the owner of the vehicle has committed theft of the vehicle or criminal breach of trust or cheating or criminal conspiracy as alleged in the complaint. When the agreement specifically says that the owner has got a right to re-possess the vehicle, there cannot be any basis for alleging that the appellants have committed criminal breach of trust or cheating. The owner repossessing the vehicle delivered to the hirer under the hire purchase agreement will not amount to theft as the vital element of 'dishonest intention' is lacking. The element of 'dishonest intention' which is an essential element to constitute the offence of theft cannot be attributed to a person exercising his right under an agreement entered into between the parties as he may not have an intention of causing wrongful gain or to cause wrongful loss to the hirer. The hire-purchase agreement in law is an executory contract of sale and confers no right in rem on hirer until the conditions for transfer of the property to him have been fulfilled. Therefore, the repossession of goods as per the term of the agreement may not amount to any criminal offence. The agreement specifically gave authority to the appellants to re-possess the vehicle and their agents have been given the right to enter any property or building wherein the motor vehicle was likely to be kept.

Facts: On June 5, 1978 the petitioners formed an unlawful assembly along with some unknown others and trespassed into the land of the complainant, armed with various weapons. They then started removing the til crops which were cultivated by the complainant. On getting this information the complainant went to the land and protested when the accused persons threatened him saying that in case he attempted to enter into the land in future, he will be done to death. His further allegation is that the accused persons were frequently giving out that they would set fire to the house of the complainant and do other mischief. In his initial deposition the complainant stated that when he protested, the accused persons abused him in filthy language and chased him with lathis. Some of his witnesses, deposed to the effect that when the complainant protested, the accused abused him and threatened to kill him.

Held: For transformation of an offence of theft to one under robbery it has to satisfy the requirement of Section 390 of the I.P.C. "Theft" is "robbery" under the said section 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. When "robbery" is committed by five or more persons, it answers to the definition of "dacoity" under Section 391 of the I.P.C. The essence of the offence of robbery therefore is that the offender for the end of committing theft, or carrying away or attempting to carry away the looted property, 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. The use of violence will not, therefore, ipso facto convert the offence of theft into robbery unless the violence is committed for one of the ends specified in that section. Judging the facts of the instant case in the light of Section 390 of I.P.C. I do not find any allegation whatsoever to show prima facie that the threat was meted out by the petitioners for any of the ends mentioned in the Section 390 of the I.P.C. Application allowed.

Facts: It is alleged that on 7-8-1964 at about 4 of 5 O Clock seven persons including the five appellants, armed with guns and lathis, arrived in the 'Bazar' of village Bamanwas and looted a few shops. After the commission of dacoity they left the village along with booty. A good number of villagers collected and immediately chased the offenders and over-took them at about a distance of four furlongs to one mile. The alleged dacoits finding them pursued by the villagers took their positions and there was an encounter between the dacoits and the villagers. There was exchange of fire between them. During the encounter the alleged dacoits and some of the villagers received injuries. One Bodia, a villager, died on the spot. Ultimately, the villagers overpowered the dacoits and captured four out of the seven offenders viz., the three appellants Laliya, Jeewan and Jagannath and one Prabhu, with some of the looted property. The Sessions Judge after review of the entire evidence observed in the first instance that "again there is nothing to suggest that these three accused (Laliya, Jeewan and Jagannath) were captured and beaten by the villagers on a mistaken identity. The dacoity took place in broad day light between 4 and 5 p.m. In the month of August. The villagers chased the dacoits as soon as they left the bazar and overpowered them at a short distance from the village in broad day light. In these circumstances, it cannot be said that the villagers captured them on a mistaken identity". Then referring to the encounter between the alleged dacoits and the capture of the three dacoits, he recorded the conclusion "All these circumstances lead to irresistible conclusion that a dacoity was committed on 7-8-1964 by seven persons armed with deadly weapons, that Laliya, Jeewan and Jagannath were amongst the dacoits and that the murder of Bodia was committed in the course of the dacoity, when the dacoits were in flight with the looted property." Henc, the present appeal.

Held: "A dacoity, begins as soon as there is an attempt, to commit robbery. A shot fired in order to keep off the rescue party, and allow the theft to be committed, is an act committed in committing dacoity." Placing reliance on this principal and the facts and evidences produced, in my opinion, the recovery of the property from the possession of Gheesa and Chothia has not been established beyond all doubt and they are entitled to benefit of doubt. The appeal is partially accepted. Convictions and substantive sentences of Laliya, Jeewan and Jagannath are maintained. I do not feel inclined to maintain sentences of fine. Convictions and sentences of Gheesa and Chothia are set aside.