THEFT

INTRODUCTION:

Taking another person's movable property without that person's consent and intending to deceive them is
known as theft. The Indian Penal Code (IPC) defines theft as follows under Section 378, 1

"Theft is defined as the dishonest taking of any movable property out of the possession of another person
without that person's consent and the moving of such property in order to carry out such taking."

To put it more simply, stealing is the willful taking of another person's movable property without that
person's agreement. The term "movable property" refers to everything, excluding immobile property like
land and buildings. The legal aphorism "actus non facit reum nisi mens sit rea" refers to the idea that a
person is not guilty of theft unless their mind is also guilty. Accordingly, an act must have been committed
with the guilty mentality or criminal purpose for it to be classified as a crime. The accused must have
acted with the dishonest intent to take another person's property without that person's consent for the act
to be legally classified as theft. For instance, A would dishonestly take a tree out of B's possession
without getting his consent if he were to chop it down and remove it from B's property. In this case, as
soon as A cuts the tree in order too.

INGREDIENTS ELEMENTS:

1. The accused plans to take movable property. They must want to either obtain unjust gain for
themselves or another person, or they must want to permanently deprive the property's owner of it. If this
dishonest motive is lacking, the conduct might not be regarded as theft in accordance with the law. It is a
crucial component of theft under the IPC.

2. The transportable property is owned by someone else; the accused cannot lawfully take or possess the
property. This implies that stealing something cannot be done by the accused if they are the owner of it.
The establishment of property ownership can be accomplished by proving the owner's legal ownership or
command of the asset.
3. The accused does not possess the property owner's consent to take possession of it. This is a crucial
factor in proving the accused's dishonest intent, as one cannot be prosecuted for theft if they take someone
else's property with their permission. As a result, in order for the accused to be charged with theft under the
IPC, they must not have had any legal justification, authorization, or approval before taking the item.

The act may not have been theft if the accused had the owner's permission or approval to take the
property, in which case they might not have been prosecuted.

1 THE INDIAN PENAL CODE, 1860, S. 378

1. The accused person aims to steal the property by moving it.

2. It is crucial to understand that, aside from land and buildings, all categories of property that are mobile
are included in the phrase "movable property." This covers both immaterial things like intellectual
property and tangible things like cash, jewellery, and cars.

Think about this case, for instance. The Indian Penal Code (IPC) classifies Aman's taking a cell phone out
of Harshit's pocket without his permission as theft. Because it involves Aman's dishonest intent to take
Harshit's movable property without Harshit's agreement, taking the phone without permission is
considered theft. Section 378 of the IPC allows for the prosecution of Aman for stealing, with a maximum
term of three years in prison, a fine, or both. The value of the stolen property and other factors related to
the offence, however, may affect the punishment under 3792.

BURDEN OF PROOF: In order to establish theft, the prosecution must demonstrate that the accused
took the property dishonestly, without the owner's consent, and with the goal of depriving the owner of it
indefinitely. Under the IPC, the offender can face theft charges if all of these requirements are satisfied. It
is also necessary for the prosecution to demonstrate that the accused had knowledge or a reasonable
suspicion that the property did not belong to them.

PUNISHMENT OF THEFT: Theft is punishable by fines, up to three years in jail, or both,

depending on the circumstances of the offence, as per Section 378 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC).
Stricter penalties may apply if specific conditions are met, such as when the property is taken as a
valuable security or a document of national importance, or if the theft is carried out by a clerk or servant
of the victim. Theft is punishable by up to three years in prison, a fine, or both under Section 379 of the
IPC. More severe penalties for stealing under aggravating conditions are found in other subsequent
sections. For instance, larceny committed in a structure, tent, or boat used as a house is punishable under
Section 380 of the Indian Penal Code. Increasing the protection of belongings in residential buildings is
the goal of this clause. This is punishable by up to seven years in jail and a fine.

AGGRAVATED FORMS OF THEFT:

1. Theft

Section 390 of the IPC states that every robbery involves theft. To put it another way, robbery is a more
severe type of theft. Taking movable goods out of someone's legitimate possession without that person's
agreement is the definition of theft. Robbery typically occurs when someone steals something and either
tries to harm someone or just instills fear in them that they will die quickly or be wrongfully restrained.

2. Dacoity

2 THE INDIAN PENAL CODE, 1860, S. 378

Robbery is a sort of stealing that can go out of hand, and dacoity is the worse kind of both. A robbery that
involves five or more individuals and a common goal is referred to as a dacoity.

3. Extortion

Extortion is the illegal practice of gaining anything by the use of force or threats, to put it literally. The
definition of extortion according to Section 383 of the Indian Penal Code is as follows: "extortion is
committed by anyone who intentionally causes fear of harm to another person or to themselves, and then
dishonestly coerces that person into delivering any property, valuable security, or anything signed or
sealed that may be converted into a valuable security to another person."

ILLUSTRATION:

1. Should Z refuse to donate money to A, A may publish a slanderous remark against Z. Z is thus made to
fear giving him money by A. That means that A has extorted.

2. Should Z refuse to sign and provide the necessary bonds to the clubmen, X may dispatch clubmen to
threaten Z. X extorts someone here.

3. If X tells Z that unless Z signs and delivers the promissory note to X, he or she can never release Z's
child from unjust captivity. Z must give X a specific amount of money, according to this note. X is being
extorted here.

CONDITIONS WHEN THEFT CAN NOT BE COMMITTED AS PER IPC:

The term "incorporeal property" refers to intangible property, which is likewise included in Sections 478 3
and 4794 of the Indian Penal Code (Section 478 is missing). These kinds of properties are immobile;
while they can be replicated, theft requires the moving or taking of goods.

While it is punishable by the Electricity Act of 1910, electricity theft is not considered theft under the IPC.

if you were conscious when someone knocked you out and stole your organ. This violates the
Transplantation of Human Organ Act of 1994 rather than being stolen.

Property that is not in anyone's custody is exempt from theft under the terms of res nullius.

CASE LAWS:

Pyare Lal Bhargava Vs State Of Rajasthan On 22 October, 19625:

3
THE INDIAN PENAL CODE, 1860, S.478
4
THE INDIAN PENAL CODE, 1860, S. 479
5
Pyare Lal Bhargava Vs State Of Rajasthan On 22 October, 1962 1963 AIR
1094
According to the ruling in this case, temporarily removing an item with the intention of returning it after
collecting payment is theft. This means that temporarily depriving someone else of their property and
causing them to suffer unjustified loss is also considered theft.

The State of Rajasthan v. K. N. Mehra, Feb. 11, 19576

In this instance, it was decided that having knowledge of the impending wrongdoing is sufficient to
demonstrate dishonest purpose.

Punjab State v. Avtar Singh August 24, 19647

The court decided that, for the purposes of the IPC, energy theft is not theft in this case.

State v. Bisakhi, 1971

The court ruled in this case that the simple act of moving is sufficient to constitute theft, regardless of real
gain or loss.

Uttam vs. Bhagwati 2013(3) Jlj 149 MP8

The court determined that a legitimate claim to land that is being contested in civil litigation does not
constitute theft in this particular circumstance.

CONCLUSION: Understanding this specific section of theft in detail is crucial as it aids in

comprehending numerous other offences such as extortion, robbery, dacoity, and so on. To clearly
distinguish between all of these infractions, one must be aware of their minuscule differences, which are
relatively similar to one other.

Theft as defined by the IPC and theft in general are two very different things. Ownership doesn't even
matter in cases of theft. For theft, possession is sufficient. If the initial move is dishonest, then it is a theft
offence from the start. Stealing requires dishonest intent in order to be committed. Theft only applies to
tangible property. Consent is another component of the theft offence. Express or inferred consent are both
acceptable.

6
The State of Rajasthan v. K. N. Mehra, Feb. 11, 1957 AIR 369
7
Punjab State v. Avtar Singh August 24, 1965 AIR 666
8
Uttam vs. Bhagwati 2013(3) Jlj 149 MP Case no. 3185/2012