Bombay High Court Modifies Conviction in Robbery Case: Offence of Robbery Under Section 390 IPC Not Made Out as No Grievous Hurt Caused or Attempted. The court held that for theft to become robbery, the offender must cause or attempt to cause death or grievous hurt, and mere tying up does not suffice.

High Court: Bombay High Court Bench: BOMBAY In Favour of Accused
  • 6
Judgement Image
Font size:
Print

Case Note & Summary

The appellant, Dudhnath @ Ajay Baburam Harijan, was convicted by the 1st Ad-hoc Assistant Sessions Judge, Bombay, for offences under Sections 394, 450, and 342 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) and sentenced to eight years rigorous imprisonment and fine. The prosecution case was that on 15 November 2006, the appellant and another accused entered the flat of the complainant, Manibai Idnani, by pushing the door when it was half-open, tied her up, and stole cash and ornaments worth Rs.2,50,000. The appellant challenged the conviction and sentence. The court examined the definitions of robbery under Section 390 IPC and house-trespass under Section 445 IPC. It held that for theft to become robbery, the offender must cause or attempt to cause death, hurt, or wrongful restraint. In this case, the accused tied the victim but did not cause or attempt to cause death or grievous hurt. Therefore, the offence of robbery under Section 390 IPC was not made out, and the conviction under Section 394 IPC (robbery with attempt to cause death or grievous hurt) was unsustainable. Similarly, for house-trespass to become house-breaking under Section 445 IPC, there must be breaking of the house. The accused entered by pushing the door when it was half-open, which did not constitute breaking. Hence, the conviction under Section 450 IPC was also unsustainable. However, the appellant did not challenge the conviction for theft and wrongful restraint. The court set aside the convictions under Sections 394 and 450 IPC, convicted the appellant under Section 342 IPC (wrongful restraint) and Section 392 IPC (theft after preparation for causing hurt), and reduced the sentence to the period already undergone (about 5 years), maintaining the fine.

Headnote

A) Criminal Law - Robbery - Section 390 IPC - Definition of Robbery - Theft becomes robbery if in the course of theft, the offender causes or attempts to cause death, hurt, or wrongful restraint. In the present case, the accused tied up the victim but did not cause or attempt to cause death or grievous hurt. Therefore, the offence of robbery under Section 390 IPC is not made out, and conviction under Section 394 IPC (robbery with attempt to cause death or grievous hurt) is unsustainable. (Paras 5-6)

B) Criminal Law - House-trespass - Section 450 IPC - House-trespass in order to commit offence - The accused entered the flat by pushing the door when it was half-open. There was no breaking of the house as required for house-breaking under Section 445 IPC. The entry was by pushing the door, which does not constitute house-breaking. Therefore, the offence under Section 450 IPC is not made out. (Paras 5-6)

C) Criminal Law - Sentencing - Sections 394, 450, 342 IPC - Modification of Sentence - The appellant was convicted under Sections 394, 450, and 342 IPC and sentenced to eight years rigorous imprisonment. Since the convictions under Sections 394 and 450 are set aside, the appellant is convicted only under Section 342 IPC (wrongful restraint) and Section 392 IPC (theft after preparation for causing hurt). The sentence is reduced to the period already undergone (about 5 years) and fine is maintained. (Paras 6-7)

Subscribe to unlock Headnote Subscribe Now

Issue of Consideration

Whether the conviction under Sections 394 and 450 of the Indian Penal Code is sustainable when the prosecution case does not disclose that the accused caused or attempted to cause death or grievous hurt during the robbery, and whether the sentence is excessive.

Subscribe to unlock Issue of Consideration Subscribe Now

Final Decision

The appeal is partly allowed. The convictions under Sections 394 and 450 IPC are set aside. The appellant is convicted under Section 342 IPC and Section 392 IPC. The sentence is reduced to the period already undergone (about 5 years). The fine imposed by the trial court is maintained.

Law Points

  • Section 390 IPC defines robbery as theft or extortion accompanied by causing or attempting to cause death
  • hurt
  • or wrongful restraint. For house-trespass to become house-breaking under Section 445 IPC
  • there must be breaking of the house. Section 450 IPC punishes house-trespass in order to commit an offence punishable with imprisonment for life. Section 394 IPC punishes robbery with attempt to cause death or grievous hurt.
Subscribe to unlock Law Points Subscribe Now

Case Details

2011 LawText (BOM) (10) 54

Criminal Appeal No. 595 of 2008 in Sessions Case No. 193 of 2007

2011-10-18

J. H. Bhatia

Mr. Aniket Vagal for the Appellant, Smt. G. P. Mulekar, APP for the Respondent State

Dudhnath @ Ajay Baburam Harijan

The State of Maharashtra

Subscribe to unlock Case Details (Citation, Judge, Date & more) Subscribe Now

Nature of Litigation

Criminal appeal against conviction and sentence for offences under Sections 394, 450, and 342 IPC.

Remedy Sought

Appellant sought to challenge conviction under Sections 394 and 450 IPC and sought reduction of sentence.

Filing Reason

Appellant was convicted by the trial court and sentenced to eight years rigorous imprisonment.

Previous Decisions

Trial court convicted appellant and another accused under Sections 394, 450, and 342 r/w. Section 34 IPC and sentenced them to eight years rigorous imprisonment and fine.

Issues

Whether the conviction under Section 394 IPC is sustainable when no grievous hurt was caused or attempted. Whether the conviction under Section 450 IPC is sustainable when there was no house-breaking. Whether the sentence of eight years rigorous imprisonment is excessive.

Submissions/Arguments

Appellant's counsel argued that the prosecution story does not disclose any grievous hurt or attempt to cause death, so Section 394 IPC is not attracted. Appellant's counsel argued that there was no house-breaking as the door was pushed open, so Section 450 IPC is not attracted. Appellant's counsel argued that the sentence is excessive.

Ratio Decidendi

For theft to become robbery under Section 390 IPC, the offender must cause or attempt to cause death, hurt, or wrongful restraint. Mere tying up without causing or attempting to cause death or grievous hurt does not constitute robbery. For house-trespass to become house-breaking under Section 445 IPC, there must be breaking of the house; pushing an open door does not constitute breaking.

Judgment Excerpts

The learned Counsel for the appellant made a statement that he would not challenge the conviction of the accused for the offence of robbery, house-trespass and wrongful restraint, but, according to him, on the basis of the prosecution story, the conviction under Sections 394 and 450 of the Indian Penal Code cannot stand and the sentence awarded by the trial Court is also excessive. In the present case, the accused persons tied the victim but did not cause or attempt to cause death or grievous hurt. Therefore, the offence of robbery under Section 390 IPC is not made out. The entry was by pushing the door when it was half-open. There was no breaking of the house. Therefore, the offence under Section 450 IPC is not made out.

Procedural History

The appellant was convicted by the 1st Ad-hoc Assistant Sessions Judge, Bombay, on 14.09.2007 in Sessions Case No.193 of 2007. He filed Criminal Appeal No.595 of 2008 before the Bombay High Court. The appeal was heard and decided on 18.10.2011.

Acts & Sections

  • Indian Penal Code, 1860 (IPC): 342, 390, 392, 394, 445, 450, 34
Subscribe to unlock full Legal Analysis Subscribe Now
Related Judgement
Supreme Court Supreme Court Holds Section 13(2)(a) of Consumer Protection Act, 1986 is Directory — District Forum Can Extend Time for Filing Reply Beyond 45 Days in Exceptional Circumstances. The 30-day period for filing reply commences from receipt of notice by...
Related Judgement
High Court Bombay High Court Modifies Conviction in Robbery Case: Offence of Robbery Under Section 390 IPC Not Made Out as No Grievous Hurt Caused or Attempted. The court held that for theft to become robbery, the offender must cause or attempt to cause death o...