Case Note & Summary
The Supreme Court considered a criminal appeal filed under Section 19 of the Terrorist and Disruptive Activities (Prevention) Act, 1987 against the judgment dated June 12, 1993 of the Additional Judge, Designated Court, Amritsar. The appellant had been convicted under Sections 387 and 392 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 and Section 3 of TADA. The prosecution case was that the complainant, Nirmal Singh, a silver ornament businessman, received a letter in June 1990 from the appellant demanding Rs.2 lakhs for purchase of weapons for terrorists and threatening dire consequences. When Nirmal Singh went to the appellant's depot, he found a man with a revolver who threatened him, and a bargain was struck for Rs.70,000. Nirmal Singh paid Rs.50,000 within the stipulated time, accompanied by Manohar Singh, and undertook to pay the balance of Rs.20,000 later. The appellant threatened to kill him if he reported to police. On August 1, 1990, Inspector Gurmit Chand registered a case after receiving information; the appellant was arrested the next day and, pursuant to his disclosure statement, Rs.20,000 in two bundles was recovered from his depot. The trial court convicted the appellant. In appeal, the Supreme Court examined the evidence. The complainant Nirmal Singh (PW3) fully supported the prosecution and withstood cross-examination. His wife Kuldip Kaur (PW1) turned hostile but partly corroborated that her husband was disturbed and had disclosed receiving a demand letter, and later stated that the appellant had come to their house and that her husband told her he had paid ransom. Manohar Singh (PW2), a signatory to the recovery memo, also turned hostile, but the oral testimony of two police inspectors and the contemporaneous documents regarding disclosure and recovery supported the recovery. The Court noted that the currency notes lacked identification marks, so recovery alone could not conclusively prove the connection, but the disclosure statement and recovery substantially corroborated the complainant's testimony. The defence claimed false implication due to a quarrel after the appellant intervened in a family dispute, but the Court found from the uncontroverted evidence of Kuldip Kaur that the appellant had shifted residence and therefore had no opportunity to witness or intervene in any domestic quarrel. Consequently, the defence story was untrue. The Court held that the trial judge was justified in concluding that the prosecution proved its case. However, the Court found a legal error in convicting the appellant under both Section 387 and Section 392 IPC. Section 390 IPC provides that in all robberies there is either theft or extortion, and therefore a person cannot be convicted both for extortion and robbery, as robbery is a special aggravated form of extortion. Further, in the present case, Nirmal Singh was not induced to pay the money on the day he was put in fear of instant death but a few days later, so the essential ingredient of robbery that the offender induces the person so put in fear 'then and there' to deliver the thing extorted was not satisfied. Accordingly, the Supreme Court set aside the conviction and sentence under Section 392 IPC, while upholding the convictions and sentences under Section 387 IPC and Section 3 of TADA. The appeal was disposed of.
Headnote
A) Criminal Law - Extortion and Terrorist Activities - Conviction under Section 387 IPC and Section 3 TADA upheld - Indian Penal Code, 1860, Section 387; Terrorist and Disruptive Activities (Prevention) Act, 1987, Section 3 - The trial court convicted the appellant for extortion by threat and terrorist activity based on victim testimony, partial corroboration by a hostile witness, and recovery of part of extorted money pursuant to disclosure statement - The Supreme Court found the victim's evidence credible and corroborated by recovery despite absence of identification marks - Held that conviction under Section 387 IPC and Section 3 TADA was justified (Paras 6-8, 10). B) Criminal Law - Robbery - Essential ingredient of 'then and there' delivery - Indian Penal Code, 1860, Sections 390, 392 - The appellant was convicted under Section 392 IPC but the victim paid the extorted money a few days after being put in fear, not immediately at the time of threat - The Supreme Court held that robbery requires the offender to induce the person so put in fear 'then and there' to deliver up the thing extorted - Since that element was absent, conviction under Section 392 IPC was set aside (Para 9). C) Criminal Law - Extortion and Robbery - Conviction for both not permissible - Indian Penal Code, 1860, Section 390 - Section 390 IPC states in all robberies there is either theft or extortion, making robbery a special aggravated form - Therefore a person cannot be convicted both for extortion and robbery - The Supreme Court held the trial court erred in convicting the appellant under both Section 387 and Section 392 IPC, and set aside the robbery conviction (Paras 9-10).
Issue of Consideration
Whether the appellant was rightly convicted under Sections 387 and 392 IPC and Section 3 of TADA; whether the conviction for robbery under Section 392 IPC is sustainable when the victim delivered money days after being threatened; whether concurrent conviction for extortion and robbery is permissible under Section 390 IPC.
Final Decision
Supreme Court upheld conviction and sentence under Sections 387 IPC and 3 TADA, set aside conviction and sentence under Section 392 IPC, and disposed of the appeal accordingly.
Law Points
- Extortion under Section 387 IPC
- Robbery under Section 390 IPC requires inducement 'then and there'
- In all robberies there is either theft or extortion
- Person cannot be convicted both for extortion and robbery
- Hostile witness testimony may be used for corroboration
- Disclosure statement and recovery corroborate victim testimony
- Conviction under Section 3 TADA upheld
