3070 LAWOF CRIMES & CRIMINOLOGY [Sec.

390)

Section 390

ROBBERY & DACoITY

This chapter rests on 13 Sections (Thirtecn). Sections have becn divided as per their
gravity, over-act, accomplishment and the development, so penalties are prescribed in accordance
with that.

Robbery Dacoity
Sections Sections
1. Definition.. 390 1. Definition... ****°************'*** 391

2. Simple Robbery. ....392 **** 2. Simple Dacoity... .395 .

3. Attempt to commit Robbery. ...393 3. Dacoity with Murder.. 396

4. Robbery with hurt.. ....394 4. Dacoity with grievous hurt... ..397
*****

5. Robbery with grievous hurt or death.. 397| 5. Dacoity with armed with deadly wcapon.....3998
6. Robbery armed with deadly weapon... ....398 6. Preparation. 399
7. Joining dacoits.... 400
.402
8. Assemblingfor dacoity.
Thirteenth Section 401 prescribes "punishment for belonging to gang of thieves".

The two offences i.e. robbery and dacoity are parts of the same offence of theft and extortion with
olence, which is one description of robbery and dacoity.
Robbery
or
Theft Extortion
Atempt to Cause At the time & in the presence of victim
Causes (Voluntarily for that Putting/Causes
oluntarily for that
endpurpose) i) Fearof instant death
endpurpose) or
) Death
i) Death i) Iustant hurt
or
or
or
ii) Hurt i) Hurt
iüi) Wrongful restraint
or
or
To that person
ii) Wrongful Confinemet
angful Confinement or
or
or
To some other pers on
iv) Fear of instant death,
ar of instant death, or by so puting/causing fear
in
deliver
or
induces that person to
instant hut him
instant hurt extorted) to
or up the property (thing near
The offender should be suficiently
Or
instant wrongful restraint
wrongful restraint to the
to the victim- Explanation
Before commiting the theft Sec. 390.
or
In the process of commiting the theft
or
In carrying away thhe stolen property
or
Anempting to carry anar that nradert
 Sec. 3901
ROBBERY& DACOTY
3071
Robbery.-In all robbery there is cither theft or extortion.
When theft is robbery.-Theftis
"robbery'" if, in order to the
the theft, or in committing the theft, or in carrying away or commiting of
attempting to carry
away property obtained by the theft, the offender, for that cnd, voluntarily causes
or attempts to cause to
any person dcath or hurt or wrongful restraint, or fear of
instant death or of instant hurt, or of instant wrongful restraint.
When extortion is robbery.--Extortion is "robbery" if the offender, at the
time of committing the extortion, is in the presence of the person put in fear, and
commits the extortion by putting that person in fear of instant death, or instant
hurt, or of instant wrongful restraint to that person or to some other person, and,
by so putting in fear, induces the person so put in fear then and there to deliver up
the thing extorted.
Explanation.-The offender is said to be present if he is suficiently near
to pul the other person in fear of instant death, of instamt hurt, or of instant
wrongful restraint.

Tllustrations
(a) A holds Z down, and fraudulently takes Zs money and jewels from Zs
clothes, without Zs consent. Here A has committed thefi, and, in order to
the committing of that thefi, has voluntarily caused wrongful restraint to

Z. A has therefore commited robbery

(b)A meets Z on the high roads, a pistol, and demands Zs purse. Z, in
shows
Here A has extorted the purse from 2,
consequence, surrenders his purse.
and being at the time of committing
by putting him in fear of instant hurt,
the extortion in his presence. A has therefore committed robbery
and Zs child on the high road. A takes the child, and threatens
)A meets Z
it down aprecipice, unless Z delivers his purse. 2, in consequence,
1ofling extorted the purse from Z, by causing
Z to
delivers his purse. Here A has
has therefore
hurt 1o the child who is present there. A
be infear of instant
commilled robbery on 2.
saying-"Your child is in the hands of my
oblains
(a)A from by
property 2
us ten thousand rupees."
send
will be put to death unless you
gang, and but it is not robbery,
unless Z is
as such;
This is extortion, and punishable
his child
the instant dealh of
put in fear of
 LAWOF CRIMES &CRIMINOLOGY Soc. 30)
SYNOPSS

Comments 20. Person

21. Wrongful Restraint
Ingredients
When theft is robbery 22. Sentence

Restraint 23. Trial

24. For that End
Robbery- Nature
England Act 25. Misappropriation
Single Transaction 26. Essential and evidence
Reasons 27. Poisoning in order to facilitate
Good Cases 28. Resistance
29. Voluntarily causes
Force or Threat
Robbers, Nature & Type 30. Hurt and Property
31. Robbery & Extortion
Armed Robbery
32. When extortion is robbery
inatching
Common Intention 33. Hijacking
34. Presumption
harge 35. Murder and Robbery
dentification 36. Search and recovery
dentification Parade
37. Modus Operandi-Investigation
No Parade 38. Bail and Navy
Act.
in T.I. Parade
) Delay Before Court
i) Identification
alue
ark Night

ments is also a
hence a crime against property,
and and
the theft offences, offence robbery of
which is one of characterizes the
bery, taken from the
The factor which peculiarly is unlawfully
ainstthe person.
theft offences
is that the property him in fear. Robbery
other him or putting
hes it from threatening
the i m m e d i a t e presence of another byto the victim is great.
because the risk of injury could be
considered a property
offence
iS and thus Such force might,
the taking of
property force.
it means
of property by
bery,although m e a n s the
taking
because it death.
violent crime even
a in personal
injury or threat of force.
docs result use or
imes
a person by the
are
taken from
possessions
obbery,
dients

agraph
bery i s

a) cither theft, or
b) extortion.
 Sec. 390] INGREDIENTS 3073

Second paragraph
Theft is robbery if the following ingredicnts are satisficd:-
or attempts to causc to any person,
(a) The offender voluntarily causes
) death, or
ii) hurt, or
or
(11) Wrongful restraint;
instant hurt or instant wrongful restraint.
(iv) fear of instant death,
The act mentioned in (a) above
is done
(b)
of the theft, or
i) in order to the commission
(ii) in committing the theft, or
obtained by the theft.
in carrying away or attempting to carry away any property
(11)
Third paragraph
circumstances:
Extortion is robbery in the following
of the person put in
the time of committing extortion the offender is in the presence
(a) At
fear.
in fear ofinstant, death, hurt,or
The offender commits
extortion by putting that person
(b)
wrongful restraint.

() to that person, or
(ii) to some other person. offender induces the person
so put in fear
then
in fear, the
such person
(c) By so putting extorted.
the thing
and there to deliver (U/s. 390 IPC).
requirements for
the offence of robbery
three cause to any
So there caused or attempted to
are
have voluntarily instant hurt or of
the offender' must instant death or
() Firstly, restraint or fear of
death or wrongful
person
instant wrongful restraint. theft or
order to the committing of
theft or in committing
that it must be in obtainedtheft.
by
(i) Secondly, or attempting
to carry/away
property
causc any person
in carrying away cause or attempt to
must voluntarily
fhat the offender
(i) Thirdly,
for that end.
etc. include
offence of Robbery
Elements of the
Thus the

1. An unlawful
taking,
property;
2. Of personal of another,
or presence
3. From the person
putting in fear, and
By thrcat
or
4. o w n e r of
the property
the benefit of the
taker.
intent to deprive
5. With use or
property to
the
With the
intent to put the and unauthorized taking of the
6. unlawful
constitutes an dual clements
crime of robbery consent. The
crime involves the
Essentially
thc without his
will and his
ofanother against
property rtion and assault.
 3074
LAWOFCRIMES& CRIMINOILOXGY Sec 1

bcforc or at thc time of' don

A person is guilty of robbery if he steals and immediatcly
force on any person or puts or sccks to put any pcrson in fear
So, and n order to do so, he uscs
of robbery, or of an assault with
of being then and there subjcctcd to force. A person guilty
who has no proprictary right or
intent to rob. is liable for robbery2 This may include person
a

interest in the property stolen.

to anyforce uscd
be some evidencc that some injury was causcd
or somc
So, there must
of the victims. Where the threat was subsequent to
the act of carrying away of paddy no
or show of force was
found to have
offence vas held to have been made out.4 Where no force
been uscd in committing theft o offencc under this section can
be said to have been committed.
in the words "for that and which
Howeve, the crucial test is contained in the section, is
a case of theft accompanied with assault covered by
the provisions of Sections
distinguishes
379 and 323, of IPC, from that of a case ofrobbery.
The definition of 'robbery' in S. 390, I.P.C. requires that either death or hurt or wrongful

confinement is caused or the victims put in fear of instant death, instant

hurt or instant wrongtful
because the articles were removed
confinement. In the absence of these findings and merely
were armed with lathis,
does not by itsclf
trom the persons of the victims when the appellants
is not a correct law as mere show
of force and to cause
make out a case of robbery. This
the ambit of the definition of robbery.
instant wrongful restraint falls within
or from his presence.
"From his presence" to mean
The taking must be from the person
his observation, and (d) within his inspection.
(a) within his reach; (b) within his control; (c) within is a sufficient
to induce the owner to part with his property
Any amount of force necessary violence and the fear must be "of
such a nature as in reason
force. Threats must be of physical and to put
induce a person to part
with his property against his will,
and common experience will through the
suspension of the power of exercising his
him, as it were, under the temporary

influence of the terror impressed".

example, for
other than threats of physical violence,
as
obtaincd by threats
If property is Extortion.
with a crime, the
offence is not Robbery but
by threats to charge person
a
victims must be
in front of their
of the robbers with lathis in hand
The very presence to obtain possession
restraint. That force used mercly
to a wrongful "force" for
deemed in law to amount resistance is insufficient
o v e r c o m e conscious
or
ofthe property and not to prevent

The purpose of robbery. where a thief removes wallet from the

a
not committed Here
However, robbery is probably arm has to be moved in the process.
slecping
of a man, cven though the victim's conscious and should not be
resistance
ocket prevent or been
is not uscd to
overcome

hephysical powcr show of force is found to have

subsection. Where no force or
have ben
as force undcr the cannot be said to
reated of robbery
in thec committing of theft,
ctc., the offence
ased
ommitted.
R. vs. IHale, (1978) 68 Cr. App. Rep. 415.
2
R. Vs. Shendley (1970) Crim. LR 49 C.A. LR 678.
1959 Orissa 171; See also AIR 1955 All 128: (1961) 2 Guj.
4 AR
AlR 1266 Qrisw
 WHENTHEFT IS ROBBERY 3075
Sec. 390]
3. When theft is robbery
1. The property in question is movable property.
2. That the same was in possession of person.
a

3. That the accuscd movcd it without

thc conscnt of the said person
of his posscssion.
4. That he moved it to takc it out
in committing thcft or in carrying away or
5. That hc did so in order to commit thcft or

to carry away the stolen articles.

attenmpting
to death or hurt or wrongful restraint to
6. That the accuscd caused or attempted cause

any person.
7. That the accused did so voluntarily.
loss to the person who had possession of it, and
8. That he intended to commit wrongful
Wrongful gain to himsclf.
this theft, or
robbery, if in order to the committing of the theft, or committing
in
Theft" is
obtained by the theft, the offender, for
in carrying away or attempting to carry away property
hurt. The evidence in the present case
was
the end, voluntarily causes or attempts to cause
watch by accused
Kumar had been relieved of his
quite sufficient to show that after Avinash him at
alarm and appellant Harish Chandra slapped
Ram Autar, he (Avina_h Kumar) raised an
that the train was about to stop at Tanakpur
Railway Station and
that time. This shows as
Chandra
to the stolen watch, appellant Harish
accused Ram Autar was trying carry away
was caused to
so. The hurt which
and Avinash Kumar in order to enable him to do
slapped of Section 390, I.P.Code. So hurt
caused to the
Avinash Kumar clearly fell within the purview stolen goods
robber to facilitate him to run away with the
victim by the companion of a
falls within the ambit ofrobbery

4. Restraint
of a person against his will.
Restraint implies abridgment of the liberty
cannot while in that
is deprived of his willpower by sleep or otherwise he
Where he
condition be subject to any restraint.
5. Robbery- Nature crime
the person, a

not just a property

crime but is also a crime against
force is a critical element defining
Robbery is thus in
violence. The use or threat of
that might result in personal fearful. In that
would make a reasonable person
must be such that it
robbery, as the force if an offender grabs
is sometimes thin. For example,
between theft and robbery
sense, the line
of property.
a purse, or other piece force uscd or
classified according to the degrce of
be further
The crime of robbery may serious crime than robbery,
consider armed robbery a more
state might
threatened; thus, a and so on.
more serious
crime than simple robbery,
aggravated robbery
a
threats must
clements off robbery to be established, the
order for the
It is clear that in
LJ 1168.
1976 SCC (Cr) 300: 1976 Cr
AIR 1976 SC 1430:
9. Harish Chandra
vs. State of U.P, AIR 1928 Lah 445.
109 Ind Cas 682: 29 Cr. LJ 602
10. 29 PLR 90:
 3076 LAWOF CRIMES & CRIMINOLOGY Sec 390
not sutficicnt if the thrcats occur afer
precede or taking of property; t IS
accompany the the
anotlhcr crnc may result (for example, the crimc ofintimidat.
property has becn taken. although tion
under section 503 & 506 of the code).
be uscd
To constitute robbery the forc must

(1) in such a way as to causc njury,

or

(2) to sever an article attached to its possessor;

or

or overcome conscious resistance.

(3) to prevent
held to be within the policy of the
In each of thesc cases the force can reasonably be
should not be enough.
section. Gentle force used to snatch an article by stealth or surprise

6. England Act
Section8 of the Theft Act 1968 provides that
and immediately before or at the time of
0)A person is guilty of robbery if he steals, or secks to put any
and in order to do so, he uses force on any person or puts
doing so,
then and there subjected to force.
person in fear of being
shall on conviction on
of robbery, or of an assault with intent rob,
to
(2) A person guilty
indictment be liable to imprisonment for life."

Single Transaction
or robbery
the accused argued that the elements of armed robbery
In People vs. Stewart, two to three
used preceded the actual taking of property by
force they
d not been met, as the store about 1.00 P.M. and sought out
Mr.
accused entered the Winters had
urs. In this case, accused carried guns; the other
down in the back room. Two of the
nters, who was lying was placed to each
side ofhis head, and
not to get up; a gun
Mr. Winters was told removed a jar from the bag,
aper bag. with the paper bag
threatened. The accused struck a match,
and
was cursed and some pieces of metal,
from the jar and his
a portion of
the white liquid acid that would be used to disfigure
cw contained
metal burned, told the victim that thejar do anything, whereupon he was
told to
he Mr. Winters said
he would the
did not cooperate. when they called, to bring
if he P.M. that day and,
for the accused by 4.00 about fifteen minutes in the
$1,000 recady accused left, after
spending proceeded
to a spccificd
location. The
the threats, and together they
cy Winters then told
his wife about accused came back,
asked
situation. Mr. one of the
e about 3.00 P.M., then left
from his two stores. At accused and Mr. Winters
ather $1,000 had. The
and was told he money was tumcd
Winters if he had the money,
where the envelope of or threat
of
and went to the specified location, because no force
t o r e togcther
accused argued
that
could not be tound
accused. On appeal, the delivered, they
c oherat this second mecting when the money was have committed
offence of
place the accused
Ctook hC C o u t and held that
disaerecd
 and threats of
SINGLETRANSACTION 3077
future of dcadly force, and
use
long, given the imminent nature the taking of Winters'
of the moncy, was not so
a
single unintcrrupted and inscparablethrcats, as to
preclude thesc evcnts from
robbery. Morcover, Winters could haveincident of terror to satisfy a convictionconstituting
for armed
to his head at 1.30
P.M. was still in his
rcasonably belicved that the gun Stewart had held
wcapon any point is a robbery,
at possession at the later time. Thoc
usc of a
a single occurrence or incident, so long as it can reasonably be said to bedangerous
a part of
may constitute armed robbery
We find that defendants were
r o b b e r " 11 proved guilty beyond a reasonable doubt of
armed
(ltalic amd underline has bcen
provided by the author.)
About seven hours thereafter
accuscd committing theft- Theft had
murder and offence fell not under S. no connection with
392 but under Section 380.12
Where the accused had abandoned the
stolen
pursued, used violence against the pursuers it cannotproperty and was running
away and,
be said that the violence was used being
end of committing theft or of for the
carrying away the stolen property.
This is a case where murder and
and the same transaction robbery are proved to have been integral parts of one
and, therefore, the presumption arising under Illus. (a) to S.
Evidence Act is that not only the 114,
appellant committed the murder of the deceased but also
committed robbery of her gold ornaments which form
part of the same transaction. The
prosecution has led sufficient evidence to connect the appellant with the commission of the
crime. The sudden disappearance of the
appellant from the house of PW-3 on the morning of
March 22, 1979 when it was discovered that the deceased had been
strangulated to death and
relieved of her gold ornaments, coupled with the circumstance that he was
absconding for a
period of over one ycar till he was apprehended by PW-26 at village Hosahally on March 29,
1980, taken with the circumstance that hc madc the statement Ex P-35 immediately upon his
arrest leading to the discovery of the stolen articles, must necessarily raise the inference that
the appellant alone and no one else was guilty of having committed the murder of the deceased
and robbery of her gold ornaments. The appellant had no satisfactory cxplanation to offer for
his possession of the stolcn property. On the contrary, he denied that the stolen property was
recovered from him. The false denial by itself is an incriminating circumstanco.4
Where murder and robbery are committed in the course of the same transaction by the
same person, the offence would fall under Section 392 and not under Section 404. The matter
would be different if a thing is stolen from a dead body apart from the transaction in which

death occurred.15

accused murdered the deccased. There after,

slight provocation the
Being enraged by a
circumstances it was held that the
he broke open thc boxes and stole the articles. In these

11. People vs. Stewart, 369 N.E. 2d 131.

1665.
12. 1953 Him. Pra. 105 (110): 1953 Cri. LJ
675: 1955 AlI. LJ 455.
13 1971 BLJR 259: (1970) 2 Mad LJ
AlR 1983 SC 446: 1983 SCC (Cr) 447: (1983) 2 SCC 330: 1983 Cr. LJ 846:
14. Earabhadrappa vs. State of Karnataka,
Cr. LR (SC) 268.
(1983) 2 SCR 552: 1983 App. R. (SC) 232: 1983
Cr. A . 10CO AADII 10<A IDD
 murder could not be said to havc any connection with the thcft and hencc the offcncc committed
by the accused fell under Section 380 and not S. 392.16

8. Reasons
Most of the carcer robbers did not carn much moncy from their crimes. That "robbery
victimization is far from a random event." The evidence suggests "that individuals with the

highest probability of non-commercial robbery victimization are those whose lifestyles increase
their exposure to risk, not only by placing them in proximity to likely offenders, but also by

increasing their attractiveness as targets to potential robbers".

Individuals who engage in organized robbery and gang theft are usually long-term criminals
who move from petty offences to auto theft, burglary, and robbery. Their repcated experiences
as young adults with police, courts, and reformatories add to their sophistication in criminality
and to criminal self-conceptions. They live on the fringes of organized society, and they view
the "heavy rackets as a way to "get rich quick", to become socially mobile, or to start a
new

career.

9. Good Cases
his money,
If one person threatens incapacitates the victim while his accomplice takes
or
two are not accomplices. Suppose that
both culprits are guilty of robbery. It is otherwise if the
one person incapacitates another (not
for the purpose of theft), and a third person, acting
condition and takes the opportunity of stealing from
independently, finds the victim in a helpless of robbery, because neither
him without using force. Neither of the two wrongdoers guilty
is
as the statute requires.
has used force or a threat for the purpose of theft,
must prove a theft. If need not be aa
To secure a conviction of robbery, the prosecution
whom the force is used.8
theft from the same person as the one against
as soon as the appropriation
Given the use of force or a threat, robbery is usually complete
takes place. If the accused is standing by the goods, having
frightened off the owner with the
intention of taking possession of the goods, he
has appropriated them, and so is guilty of robbery.
even if it does not give the
thief sole control,
The momentary acquisition of possession,
If the victim has his goods wrested from him by force, he has been
can be an appropriation. and recover what
he best his assailant in the ensuring fight
robbed, notwithstanding that may
was taken.19
money that he had lost
in an
In one California casc, the accused had
used force to recover

intent to steal was lacking in the case, and offered

llegal gambling game. The court ruled that
the following comment
that the winner gains
Ttis the law in this state that certain games of chance....are illegal;
title to the property at stake nor any right to possession thereof,
and that the participants
no where such is the state of the
h
standing in a court of law or equity. In jurisdictions
6 1953 Him. Pra.
105 (110): 1953 Cri. LJ 1665.
 Sec. 390]
GOOD CASES
3079
law theveight authority appcars to favour thc view that the
of
rccaption
of money lost at
illegal gamcs is not robbery altlhough the act may bc by forcc or fear
unlawful assault or trespass. punishablc as an
The courts rccognize that in such a
casc, whatever othcr clemcnt of crimc
present, there cannot cxist an intcnt to steal or takc may be
which is an esscntial clement of the crimc of feloniously thc propcrty of
another,
robbcry."20
In another Califormia casc, two men asked
a hotcl clerk to
show thcm a room. After
entering the room, the men scized the clerk, gagged and bound him to onc of the
returned to the hotel desk, where thcy removed the
contents of the cash
bedposts, and
were later register.
apprchended and convicted of robbery, but they appealed the case on the The men
that the money had been taken neither grounds
from the clerk's person nor even in
he was in another his preseucc, since
part of the building when the property was taken.
the trial court's decision, The appcllate court affirmed
however, suggesting that proximity and consciousness
presence, and furthermore may create a
At least as carly
the time when the clerk was
as
induced to leave the hotel office for the
purpose of "showing the room to defendant and his
commenced, it was an overt act connected with the companion
the crime of robbery was
time the clerk was commission of the offence, at which
"immediately" present. The trick or device by which the physical
presence of the clerk was detached from the property under his
should not avail defendant in his claim that the protection and control
property was not taken from the "immediately
presence of the victim."21
The victim could have at least
given some description of the persons who robber him. At
any rate, he could have given some description of the present appellant who was supposed to
be sitting next to him and who thurst his hand in his
pocket and removed Rs. 100. The total
absence of any such description which would have provided a to evaluate the yardstick
identification of the present appellant at a later date by victim Satyanarayana, would render his
later identification weak.22
It is somewhat strange that the accused Laxmi Raj Shetty who was merely a clerk in the
Bank should have gone and stayed in Hotel Chola Sheraton, a five-star hotel, on the night in
question unless it was for purposes of safety as he was carrying the huge amount of about Rs
14 lakhs in the suitcase and the skybag. There is evidence to show that the accused filled up the
application form for reservation of the first class ticket Ex P-37 and signed the same as "KLR
Shetty" giving the name and address as Shivaram Shetty, Kodial Bail, Bangalore, i.e., of his
father. The stay of accused at Hotel Chola Sheraton at Madras on night of the 20th, the whole
ofthe 21st till his departure on the 22nd morning under the assuned name of Mohanraj, and act
of leaving Madras on the 22nd morning by train in a first class compartment under the name of
his father Shivaram Shetty. giving a wrong address of Kodial Bail, Bangalore which is not there,
are facts which spcak for themsclves.23

Even though the motive for the occurrence was to securc the land of Kishori, the
20. People vs. Rosen, 11 Cal 2d 147 (1938) (California-U.S.A.).
21. People vs. Lavendcr, 31 P. 2d 439 (1934) (California-U.S.A.).
1983 Sc 367: 1983 SCc (Cr) 139: 1983 Cr LJ 689,
22 Mohd. Abdul Hafcez vs. State of A.P, AIR
State of Tamil Nadu, AIR 1988 SC 1274: 1988 SCC (Cr) 633: 1988 Cr LJ 1783.
23 Laxmi Raj Shetty vs.
 3080
LAWOF CRIMES & CRIMINOLOGY
respondents would have removed her jewels in order to avert
make it appear that it was a casc of murder for suspision
on on
on themselvex
thcmse.
gain,24
Theinjuries found on the person of the witncss and the fact that cash
traces of robbery at the scene of the
occurrence would establish that the
was
missing and the
taken place and the same is not in robbery infact had
dispute.23
Section 398, I.P. Code gets attracted if at the time of
dacoity, the offender is armed with a deadly weapon which willattempting
to commit robbery or

than seven years. When no robbery or

attract animprisonment not less
dacoity has been committed as such in the sense that no
property was removed from the house of the complainants and nothing said to be belonging to
the complainants was recovered, it would be difficult to hold that there was
any attempt in
regard to the commission of robbery or dacoity.
Scattering of articles in the house may cause a scene as if ransacked, but that does not
prove the charge. Thus, conviction under Section 398, I.P.Code is not sustainable, the same is
set aside 26

10. Force or Threat

not make distinctions
Force involves the exercise of some physical strength. The Act does
that (having regard
of degree, so theft becomes robbery where it is accomplished by anything
to the policy of the Act) can realistically
be called force. This altered the previous law, which
no further indication of the degree
of
required the use of "violence. Whilst the Act itself gives
physical attack.
in
more than an accidental putting
The putting fear,
in presumably requires something
on the
must be to the person. The thrcat must be to use force
fear. The force threatened
"then and there".
present occasion when
without threats for example, by exhibiting a gun
People may be put in fear
express
committed where the accused
robbery was held to be
In a Canadian case, view that
a demand is made. till".27 The court took the
note telling her to "empty your
had passed a bank cashier had a weapon with him,
a
accused
had been made suggesting that the
though no gestures the victim and so putting
violence. Crowding round
even
nevertheless an implied threat of
there was
sufficient.28
him in fear would also be threatened
than force has been used or
slight
where no m o r e defendant and
A prosccution for robbery Thus, in Dawson the
be unmeritorious, is robbery.
while he w a s thus
(a push o r slight blow) may victim. One of the attackers "nudged" him, and
surrounded their was sufficient
two others was whether there
the question
unbalanced another stole
his wallet. On appeal
that there was.
to the jury, and the court held
CVidence of force to go and
to obtain posscssion of the property
that force used merely
lt may be strongly argued
(Cm18g: 1989 Cr LJ 1785.
 Sec.390] FORCE OR TUREAT
not to prevcnt or overcome conscious resistancc is insufficicnt "forcc" for the purprosc of
it is not within the mtention of the law.
robberv. sincc
The use of force or the putting in fear is not sufficicnt to constitutc robbery if its purposc

is to enable the
accuscd to get away or to prevcnt the owncr from rocovering his propcrty. The
deoree of violencc nccd not be cxCCSsive nor necd the injury be serious to constitute robbery
to makc him lose his balancc may be sufficicnt to constitutc robbery A
Jostling a person so as 31
threat of force may sufficc.
continuing
form of shouting for hclp; if the thicf puts his hand over the
Resistance may take the 32
it is sufticient force for robbery,
victim's mouth to stop this,
Hurt caused to the victim by the companion
of a robber to facilitatc him to run away with
the stolen goods falls within the ambit of robbery
this theft, or
robbery, if in order to the committing of the theft, or in committing
Theft" is
obtained by the theft, the offender, for
in carrying away or attempting to carry away property
causes or hurt. The evidence in the present casc was
attempts to cause
the end, voluntarily
been relieved of his watch by accused
quite sufficient to show that after Avinash Kumar had Harish Chandra slapped him at
Ram Autar, he (Avinash Kumar) raised an alarm and appellant and
at Tanakpur Railway Station
that time. This shows that as the train was about to stop
accused Ram Autar was trying to carry away the
stolen watch, appellant Harish Chandra
hurt which was caused to Avinash
slapped Avinash Kumar in order to enable him to do so. The
Kumar clearly fell within the purview of S. 390, I.P.C.33
article
The difficult intermcdiate is where force is used to wrench an unattached
case
If
snatches a woman's handbag from her grasp.
from an unsuspecting victim, as where a thief
if she is caught completely unawares the
she sets up conscious resistance it should be robbery; is
case looks more like ordinary
theft.3" However, a push in the back before the handbag

grasped would clearly constitute force.35

knocks P senseless in a flight and then decides
Force must be used 'in order to' steal. If D
to make offwith P's watch which
has fallen from his pocket it would not be robbery. Conversely
uses or threatens force to
retain it or
ifD steals property without using force but subsequently D was
D and E entered P's house and while
in effecting an escape it would not be robbery. declined
downstairs typing up P. The Court of Appeal
upstairs stealing a jewellery box, E was box
to quash their convictions for robbery though
D might have appropriated the jewellery
before the force was used.»
Clouden
That a push or nudge causing the victim to
lose his balance would suffice and in
from P's hands
further. D wrenched a shopping bag
(1987) Crim. LR 56, CA, the court went
the court said that under S. 8 the old
and ran off with it. Affirming D's conviction for robbery,
1 C&P 304.
30. R. vs. (1620) 1 Hale PC 534; R. vs. Gnosil (1824)
Harman
Crim. LR 644.
31. R. vs. Donaghy and Marshall (1981)
32. Hale (1978) 68 Cr. App. R. 415.
300: (1976) 2 SCC 795: 1976 Cr. LJ 1168:
AJR 1976 SC 1430: 1976 SCC (Cr)
33. Harish Chandra vs. State of U.P,
LR (SC) 176: 1976 UJ (SC) 371.
1976 Cr. App. R. (SC) 174: 1976 Cr.
Picard (1976) 39 C.C.C. (2d) 57 (Can.).
34
(1980) 71 Cr. App. R. 104.
35 Corcoran vs. Anderton

36. Hale (1987) 68 Cr. App. Rep. 415, CA.

 3082 LAWOF CRIMES & CRIMINOLOKGY
ISec. 390
distinction had gone. The scction requircd only that force bc uscd on a pcrson in order to
stcal37

Where both the thicf and the person who helps him to cscapc arc concerned in thc
act of
thefi and one of them lifts the property and the other uscs violcncc
against thc victim in ordcr to
hclp the fellow-thief to escapc. such helper also will be guilty under S. 390.38
The force used must be "on
any person", not on property. Similarly robbery by putting in
fcar implies a fear of force
applied to the person. A threat to damage property as a means of
extortion can constitute blackmail, but not
robbery. But force or the threat of it towards property
may carry an implicd threat to the
person, and that would be sufficient
A threat to use force on a
third person addressed to the
is insufficient if no is
person in charge of the property
attempt made to put the third person in fear. The
element of intention, and is not
satisfied where force used for the requirement imports an
has the incidental and
unintended consequence of purpose of committing theft
if force is used for some haming causing fear to another. Similarly,
or
illegal purpose other than theft (such as rape) and the victim offers
money to buy off the assailant, and the
assailant accepts it, he is not guilty of
It is essential in order to robbery.
constitute a theft a robbery, that the offender
to any person
death, hurt or wrongful restraint or the fear of instant death should
have caused
instant wrongful restraint. Where such
elements exist the theft would be
or
instant hurt or
The
robbery, not otherwise.
fact that the offender was armed is
mere
not sufficient to constitute
robbery Where the owner oi a house is scared away by fear
40 the theft a
of instant hurt and the
then committed the theft, the offence
would be offender
robbery.41
The force must be used or the
threat made "immediately before or at the
theft. If the victim is knocked down on time of the
threatened after the time of the theft
pursuit or recapture), there may be both theft and an offence (say, to prevent
against person, but not robbery.
the
If the effcct of the force is still
tied up), the fact that the theft does not preventing the victim from making resistance (as if he is
take place for some time will
A similar rule
applies to threats of
obviously be immaterial.
force. As has already been said, it is
makes threats, knowing the effect of those robbery if a person
threats to be continuing, and he takes
his victim who is still
recovering before the cffects of property from
those threats.
The death, hurt
wrongful restraint or the fear thereof must have been caused for the
purpose of achieving the cnd or object of theft, or of
carrying away the stolen property.42
An assault not made for
purpose of achieving the object of theft or carrying
stolcn property would not make the away the
theft, a robbery43
37. Dawson and James (1976) 64 Cr.
38. 1976 SC App. R. 170, CA.
1430 (1432): 1976 Cri. LJ 1168.
39. 1935 NUC
(Him. Pra.) 4302 1983 Cri. LJ
439 (493) AIR 1961 Pat 362
:
(NOC) 238 (Orissa): 1979 Raj. Cri. C. 381 (382): ILR (1972) 1 Ker
40.
1959 (364): 1961
Orissa 171 (173): 1959 Cri. (2) Cri. LJ 364 (DB) : AIRI955 Al 128 (128) 1955 Cri. LJ 336.
41 1924 AlI. 701 LJ 1203.
(701): 26 Cri. LJ 145.
C i . LJ 1158 (1159) (Cal): ILR (1972) L Ker
Cals27 (528): 1955 Cri. LJ 1346 (DB) : A 489 (494): 1956 BLJR 473: 1956 Pat LR 108(109): AIKIR
19544 D 1953 Sau 85(86): 1953 Cri. LJ 909
P'at 1S7 649)(Pat.):
(159):
1956 BLJR 473: 1956
1954 Cri. LJ
(DB).
Pat. LR 108 (109) : AIR 1955 NUC
215 (DB): 1930 (Punj.) 3440 . raIR
Mad WN 1142 (1144).
 ROBBERS, NATURE&TYPE 3083
Sec. 390]
The words "for that cnd" arc thus crucial words which distinguish a casc of theft
accompanicd with assault covercd by Ss. 379 and 323, from that of robbcry."
the movablc dispossc3sed
Ifhurt etc. is caused to overcome the resistancc in carrying away 45
or in attempting to carry away the same then also thc offence will be robbcry
The words for that end" do not mercly that the assault or hurt must be causcd "in the
or "in the same transaction" as thc
theft.46
Same circumstanccs
11. Robbers, Nature & Type
Robbers use force or violence to take posscssion of their victim's property. The unarmed
robber must use force; the armcd robber may. Naturally their techniques differ. Thc robber
who feigns possession ofa dangcrous weapon utilizes the same techniques as an armed robber.
Robbery is divided into two main classifications: unarmed and armed. The armed robbery
classification is subdivided by the type of weapon used. In both classifications, the general
description, scene of operation, and use of vehicle, are additional identifying facts.
The investigator uses six major items in describing the technique of a person, or mob,
practising robbery. These are

(1) Description
(2) Confederates, if any
(3) Scene of opcration
4) Vehicle used
(5) Plus rape or other crime
(6) Weapon
a) Gun (displayed or fcigncd)
b) Knife
c)Bludgeon
d) Fists and fect (mugging)
The fact that the victim or victims can readily identify a robber is a distinct aid. So also is
his readily identifiable technique. A robber who has a gun is not going to usehis fists or tcct.
Then, the fact that most robbers operate frequently is a help. While information from a single
crime may not result in arrest and apprehen_ion, information from a previous or subsequent
crime may provide the necessary data.
Unarmed Robbery This is forceful taking by over coming a victim's resistance. The
a
robber attacks his victim with fists and fect, a type of assault temed "mugging
At one time mugging was strictly a big city crime. Today it has spread out. Not too many
towns are complctcly frec of the mugger, whether he is termed a hoodlunm, a hold-up man, a

thug, or a footpad.
Ycars ago mugging was a solo job. Onc man approachcd the victim from behind, wrapped
a muscular am around his ncck, put on the pressure, and at the same time placed his kn in
44. 1953 BLJR 465.
45. 1982 Cri. LJ 714 (717) : 1982 Kel. LT 20.
46. 1941 Oudh 476 (478):42 Cri. LJ 530 AlR 1918 Mad 821 (823, 824): 18 Cri. LJ 346.
 the victinm's back, throwing him off balancc and at his mercy. Usually it was a fast job, a quick
frisk of the pockcts of the victim and then cscape. Physical injurics dicd not amount to much
a stiff neck and a sore back possibly.
Today mugging is one of the more brutal crimes. The assault is made by a group of from
two In all cascs the victim is left seriously injurcd, and somctimcs a mugging will
to four. almost
result in a homicide.
Do not confusc the mugger with
persons who assault children or womcn for purposes
other than, or in addition to, robbery. The mugger is motivatcd
only by the profit motive. Grown
men are his preferred
victims, usually
drunks or thosc who frequent neighbourhoods where
prostitutes or sex deviates are found.
In some
instances e group of muggers will incllude a female. Their
seeker". The victims are the "pleasure-
will strike up a
woman
then lead the victim into a conversation, make certain business
arrangements, and
nearby building. At some point between the doorway and what is
supposed to be her room, the attack will take place. A variation of this
type of victim is for one of the gang to act as a technique the same
on
"pump".
These cases are difficult ones to
investigate because the victims are witnesses.
Drunkenness, darkness, and the surprise of the attack prevent close observationpoor of the attacker.
The pleasure-seeker
usually denies speaking to a girl or even enteringa
building.
12. Armed Robbery
Armed robbery may be committed
The armed robber is classified
against individuals, stores, or other places of business.
according to the type of victim he chooses and by his scene of
operations.
13. Snatching
Where the
charge framed against the accused is for murder and
which has be decidcd is whether the evidence is
to robbery, the only question
it merely establish offences less
sufficient to support such a
charge or does
grave in nature and if the circumstantial evidence adduced at
a trial establishes such
offences, he can be convicted of those offences even
not be mention of these
offences having been committed in though there may
furtherance of a common intention.4
14. Common Intention

Mercly standing in a crowd is not evidence of

committing or
oreven aid1ng in commission of robbery.48 attempting to commit robbery
15. Charge
In a
charge and
finding under Section 398, substantive Section 393 as
Ppicentary Section 398 should be mentioned. The well as the
faOWever,
th
be covered
by Section 537 Cu omission to specify the Section would,
DC
Sec. 390] IDENTIFICATION 30%5

two accuscd armed with das, convictions were altered to Scction 393
found that the said were

from Section 398, and the scntences reduced 49

mentions thc fact that the
Where the chargce framed under Scction 392, 1.PC. clcarly
thc c a s c is govcrncd
accused had committed robbery at midnight in the housc of the complainant,
bc convictcd under Scction 457 rcad with Scction
by Sections 236 and 237 and the accuscd can
of those offenccs was framcd.
380, 1.P.C. even though no spccific charge in respect
additional charge under Scction 394 or 397 may
grievous hurt is causcd in a robbery, an
If
be added.51

16. Identification
rests on the evidencc of identification
In every case of robbery or dacoity where conviction
consideration is whether there was sufficient light
alone one of the most important factors for
the witnesses. The second point to be
for the features of an unknown person being well seen by
have had no opportunity of seeing
remembered is that the persons who identify the accused
him after the commission of the offence.52
in Court although it was
Where a complainant lost a chain which was not produced
court had
recovered was not identified. The trial
correctly identified. Gold watch however, benefit of doubt.33
convicted of the accused but in appeal the appellant was given
of a long period,
(a) It cannot be laid down as a proposition of law that after the lapse
dacoits they had seen in the course ofa
witnesses would, in no case, be able to identify the
cautious
the Courts will have to be extremely
dacoity committed during the night. However,
when such evidence is before them.
The dacoity operation was swift.
(b) It was a dark night and there was no sufficient light.
their house during the course ofthe investigation
(c) That the accused had been brought to
about two to two and a half months after the
Indeed, according to these witnesses, this was
dacoity.
and necessary
when it found
explained by the Investigating Officer why
was
(d) It was not
committed.
where the dacoity had been
by him to bring the accused to the house
have been brought to the house
Therefore, strong suspicion arose that the accused may to the complaint
before the test identification parade was arranged and, thus, affording justification witnesses
had already been shown to the
made by the accused before the Magistrate that they
test identification parade
and, therefore, there was no point in their participating the
in

identification is not satisfactory. So the evidence

In these circumstances, the evidence of
With regard identification was left out of consideration.4
to
statements or in oral evidence gave any description
None of the witncsses in their carlier
49. (1911) 12 Cri. LJ 468 (468, 469) (Rang).
50 1954 P. 403; 1927 Oudh 196; 1938 C 51;
1945 P. 376.
S1. (1902) 1 LBR 232.
52. AIR 1955 NUC (All) 5287.
$3. 1986 (2) Crimes 128 (Del.).
Balakrishan, AIR 1972 SC 3: (1972) 4 SCC 659: 1972 Cr. LJ 1: 1972 UJ (SC) 103.
S4 Delhi Administration vs.
 3086 LAWOF CRIMES & CRIMINOLOGY Sec. 390

of the dacoits whom they have alleged to have identificd in the dacoity nor did the witnesscs
give any ident:fication marks, viz, stature ofthe accuscd or whether they were fat or thin or of
a fair colour or of a black colour. In absence of any such description, it will be impossible to
convict any accused on the basis ofa single identification, in which case the rcasonablc possibility
of mistake in identification cannot be excluded.
The identification was made at the test identification parade about 3 months after the
dacoity and in view of such a long lapse of time it is not possible for any human being to
remember the features of the accused and he is, therefore, very likely to commit mistakes. In
these circumstances, unless the evidence is absolutely clear, it would be unsafe to convict an
accused for such a serious offence of the testimony of a single witness.*

lt is true that the currency notes have not been claimed by Bhure Khan as his money but
till these notes are established to be the subject-matter of the dacoity which occurred at
Chakradhar Singh's place, the appellant is not called upon to explain its possession.56
The victim Satyanarayana could have at least given some description of the persons who
robbed him. At any rate, he could have given some description of the present appellant who
was supposed to be sitting next to him and who thrust his hand in his pocket and removed Rs.
100. The total absence of any such description which would have provided a yardstick to
evaluate the identification of the present appellant at the later date by victim Satyanarayana
would render his latter identification weak.3"
It really depends upon the frame of the mind in which the participants were at the time of
the incident and if it is borne in mind that the object of the attack was not to loot the property but
to wreak vengeance by killing Bindra Singh, it is not inconceivable that Gokaran and his
companions might have thought of indulging in the crimes in a bravado fashion to strike terror in
the inmates of the house and the villagers. The evidence shows that Gokaran unquestionably
behaved like a dare-devil when with a gun in his hands he uttered the words Call the Police
and lock me up" and by further saying that cach member of the family would be butchered.
The mere fact that none out of the 22 named persons had covered his face in order to conceal
his presence cannot, therefore, cast any doubt on the prosccution case that they had been seen
by witnesses participating in the occurrence.
none of the
(a) The High Court had acquitted the accused on one of the ground that
named dacoits, though fully known, had concealed their presence by convering their
faces at
the time of occurrence.
accused and
(b) The Hon'ble Supreme Court negatived this circumstance in favour of the
set aside thc acquittal.58
The dacoity was committed at night in the Bikaner Mail in electric lit compartment. Although
5 1981 Cr. LJ 1014: 1981 Cr. App. R. (SC)
Wakil Singh vs. State of Bihar, AIR 1981 SC 1392: 1981 SCC (Cr.) 634:
301:1981 C. LR (SC) 319.
Sec. 390] IDENTIFICATION 3087
Shri Ram, Narain Singh and
three of the witnesses,i.e., PW-9, PW-10 and PW-11, namcly,
and cach onc of dacoits, the fourth witncss
Quim Uddin are not able to identify thc appcllant
identificd all the accused. In his examination-
PW-4, Allah Baksh, has no doubt recogniscd and
1981 he no doubt statcd that miscreants who shot
in-chicf on the first day, i.c., Septcmber 15, under his chin, but on the ncxt day, during
Phool Khan, i.e., Ramcsh put the nozzcl of the pistol
witness was further questioncd. The accuscd
the continuance of the examination-in-chief the
were all in pardah and on their
faces being uncovered, this witness identified the appellant Shiv
chin. His testimony in the Court identifying the
Charan as the man (who) put the nozcl under his
identification at the parade held by Shri Ashok Vasishst.
appellant is corroborated by his testimony
went around, took his time and identified all the
The evidence shows that Allah Baksh, PW-4,
five accused to be the dacoits.
under Ss. 395 and 396 rightly rests on the identification
The conviction of the appellant
made by PW-4, Allah Baksh.59
of the test identification
Where a dacoity occurred in the darkness of the night, the evidence
the eye-witnesses, on their own
would call for a careful scrutiny. In a case of this kind where
their identification of the accused
admission, did not know the appellants before the occurrence,
person for the first time in the
dock after a long lapse of time would have been improper.
arrested are accused in connection
Once the Investigating Officer suspects that persons
test identification at the earliest. It is imperative
with a particular dacoity, they should be put up for
identification without
Officer to put such suspects at test
duty on the part of the Investigating
to the test identification.
any delay. That gives sanctity
were put on
In this test identification was held after three months. The appellants
(a) case
connection with the present case, the
within 24 hours of their arrest in
test identification
witnesses cannot be rejected merely on the ground that it was not
identification made by the
three months.
possible for them to identify after lapse of a period of
Police Station on 15.11.1983 but they
The accused were arrested by SHO of another
(b) identification was done on the same day
on 13.1.1984 and the test
were arrested in this case
the time of the incident
be that the dacoits asked the persons present in the Bank at
It may who had identified them,
towards them but it cannot be assumed that the persons,
not to look not have
that the features of the dacoits would
had not seen them or had secn them so cursorily witnesses,
statements of the prosecution
in their minds. As is apparent from the
registered room opened. The
Bank for couple of minutes. They got the strong
dacoits remained in the was working as
Accountant
were with PW-23 V.K. Marwaha who
keys of the strong room would itself
room

Head Cashier. The opening of the strong

and V.D. Sethi wo was wroking as
the cash and
Some time must have been consumed while picking up
had taken some time. Bank were not known to
room. It appears that
the functionaries of the
parcels from the strong
Cr. LR (SC) 547: 1987
1: 1987 Cr. LJ 695: 1986
Haryana, AIR 1987 SC1:1987 SCC (Cr.)
59 Shiv Charan vs. State of SC 813.
1987 Cr. LR 271: JT (1986)
(SC)
App. R (SC) 1: 1985 SC 345: 1988
Cr. and Raj Nath vs. State of U.P., AIR
State of U.P; Chhabi Nath vs. State of U.P.
Hari Nath vs. 848: JT (1988) 5 SC 316:
60. 1988 Cr. LR (SC) 55: (1988) 1 SCR
SCC 14: 1988 Cr. LJ 422:
SCC (Cr.) 14: (1988) 1
667.
(1987) 3 Crimes AIR 1994 SC 739: 1994 Cr. LJ
922: (1984) 1 UJ (SC) 87: JT (1993) Supp. SC
61. BrijMohan vs. State of Rajasthan,
775: (1994) 1 Crimes 288.
203: 1994 Cr. LR (SC)
Sec. 3901 IDENTIFICATION 3087

three of the witnesses, i.e., PW-9, PW-10 and PW-11, namely, Shri Ram, Narain Singh and

Quim Uddin are able to identify the appellant and cach one of dacoits, thc fourth witness
not
PW-4. Allah Baksh, has no doubt recognised and identified all the accused. In his examination-
stated that miscreants who shot
in-chiefon the first day, i.e., September 15, 1981 he no doubt
Phool Khan, i.e., Ramesh put the nozzel of the pistol under his chin, but on the ncxt day, during
the continuance of the examination-in-chief the witness further questioned. The accused
was

were all in pardah and on their faces being uncovered,

this witness identified the appellant Shiv
the
Charan as the man (vho) put the nozel under his chin. His testimony in the Court identifying
appellant is corroborated by his testimony identification at the parade held by Shri Ashok Vasishst.
The evidence shows that Allah Baksh, PW-4, went around, took his time and identified
all the
five accused to be the dacoits
The conviction of the appellant under Ss. 395 and 396 rightly rests on the identification
made by PW-4, Allah Baksh 59
Where a dacoity occurred in the darkness of the night, the evidence of the test identification

scrutiny. In a case of this kind where the eye-witnesses, on their

own
would call for a careful
of the accused
admission, did not know the appellants before the occurrence, their identification
person for the first time in the dock
after a long lapse of time would have been improper.50

persons arrested accused in connection

Once the Investigating Officer suspects that are
with a particular dacoity, they should be put up for test identification at the earliest., It is imperative
such suspects at test identification without
duty on the part of the Investigating Officer to put
to the test identification.
any delay. That gives sanctity
after three months. The appellants were put on
(a) In this case test identification was held the
test identification within 24 hours of their arrest in connection with the present case,
on the ground that it was not
identification made by the witnesses cannot be rejected merely
months.
possible for them to identify after lapse of a period of three
arrested by SHO of another Police Station on
15.11.1983 but they
(b) The accused were done the same day51
were arrested in this case on 13.1.1984 and the test identification was on

in the Bank at the time of the incident

It may be that the dacoits asked the persons present identified them,
not to look towards them but it cannot
be assumed that the persons, who had
have
that the features of the dacoits would not
had not seen them or had secn them so cursorily witnesses,
from the statements of the prosecution
registered in their minds. As is apparent The
minutes. They got the strong room opcned.
dacoits remained in the Bank for couple of Accountant
Marwaha who was working as
of the strong room were with PW-23 V.K.
keys of the strong room would itself
and V.D. Sethi wo was as Head Cashier. The opening
wroking
consumed while picking up the cash
and
had taken some time. Some time must have been
were not known to
that the functionaries of the Bank
It appears
parcels from the strong room.

1987 SC 1:1987 SCC (Cr.) 1:

1987 Cr. LJ 69S: 1986 Cr. LR (SC) 547: 1987
59 Shiv Charan vs. State of Haryana, AIR
271: JT (1986) SC 813.
Cr. App. R (SC) 1: 1987 Cr. LR (SC) Nath vs. State of U.P., AIR 1985 SC 345: 1988
Chhabi Nath vs. State of U.P. and Raj
Hari Nath vs. State of U.P;
60 14: 1988 Cr. LJ 422: 1988 Cr. LR (Sc)
55: (1988) 1 SCR 848: JT (1988) 5 SC 316:
SCC (Cr.) 14: (1988) 1 SCC
(1987) 3 Crimes 667.
AlR 1994 SC 739: 1994 Cr. LJ 922: (1984) 1 UJ (SC) 87: JT (1993) Supp. SC
61 Brii Mohan vs. State of Rajasthan,
775: (1994) 1 Crimes 288.
203: 1994 Cr. LR (SC)
3088 LAWOF CRIMES &CRIMINOLOGY (Scc. 3)
the dacoits. They had to ask as to who was the
Manager, Cashicr and Accountant of the Bank
Some time must have clapscd beforce the dacoits werc able to
identify them. Besides they must
have taken time in collecting the cash from the cash cabins of the Bank. The fact that
Subhash
Chand, Peon, was able to inform the police while the dacoity was taking place and the policc
Was able to reach before the
dacoity was over, shows that it must have taken somc time for the
appellants and their associates to collect the booty. It seems to us that the time during which
they remained in the Bank was sufficient for the witnesses, who had indentified them, to
register their physical features in their minds 62
17. Identification Parade
FIR. clearly showed that the victim did
not know the names of the persons who robbed
him. n such a situation
ordinarily after the accused were arrested the test identification parade
should have been held. It was admitted that no such
identification parade was held. It was only
when the victim came to
give evidence in the Court and the four accused were sitting in the
Court that he identified them as the miscreants. There was a
lapse of more than four months
during which period it was not possible to believe that victim had no occasion to see the
Such identification in the circumstances of the case would accused.
the accused.53
hardly furnish any evidence against
At the time of arrest of the accused, he should be
informed that his identification was to
take place and as such he should cover his face
and take all the necessary precautions to
conceal his identity. A care should be taken by I.O. that he is not
witnesses at the time of accused's arrest, who are to
accompanied by any of the
join the identification parade later. A note
to this effeet, be
incorporated in thec case diary and daily diary. It would be very much expedient,
if the accuscd, if he is literate, is made to
sign the in the
report Daily Diary to this effect.4
It is always safe to write the daily
dairy, case diary, in the remand request and even on jail
warrant that identification of accused is to take
place precautions taken to inform the accused
about this fact. The fact of his having taken
noted.65
precautions to conceal face etc. should also be
This Full Bench case was approved by Supreme Court in Ramanathan 1978 S.C. 1204
saying mercly because the prosecution had not led any evidence to prove that appellant was
kept "baparda", the evidence of identification parade otherwise satisfactory should not be
rejected.
Eftorts should be måde to
produce the accuscd if arrested of non-bailable offence at the
carliestpossible time after arrest to be taken before the Magistrate who may be requested to
give note regarding
a
covering of face and a further note that accused had been wamed to
KCep his face muffled as his identification is to take
place. The request for remand should also
contain this note. The remand of the accused, thus, should be taken and the accused sent to
Judicial lock up. The
accused after arrest should never be taken to
62 spot or the place where
G3. Subhash ChanderSubhash @ Yaspal @ Amarjeet,
26 26, 19N3 ce
Vs. State 2000(1) Crimes 330 (Delni).
1983 UI
(SC) of Andhra Pradesh, 1983 Cri. LJ 689 at p. 690: AIR 1983 SC 367: 1983 Cr. LR (SC)
Cthe remark of 14S: 1983 Cri.
Jagal Narain App R (SC) 25.
Tripura 19. Jagat Narain J.C.
J.C. in
in 1954
1954 c.
Cr LLL1e10
I
(an
Sec. 3901 IDENTIFICATION PARADE

there is possibility of showing him to witnesscs

Application for remand and order passed thcrcon by Magistratc did not show factum of
accused being present in Court with muffled facc. The plca of accuscd latcr in Court that he
was shown to witnesses by Police was acccpted.
ln case 1986 CI. LJ 1404, the Police Officer had not mentioncd in writing that accused
Was covering his face. The oral examination of Police Officer was still belicvcd 56

lt is therefore all the more necessary that prosecution should affirmativcly provc that
there was no possibility of the accused being shown to any body.
In this, accused was arrested on 23.10.44 and sent to jail on 4.11 44. There was no
evidence to show as to where the accused was kept during the period and no explanation as to
why he was not sent to jail after arrest, is was held that it was always the duty of prosccution
to show

(a) The accused was warned from time of arrest to kecp his face muffled.
(b) That he was kept at places where special precautions were taken to kecp him
away from public gaze.
(c) To explain why accused was not sent to jail after arrest, if identification was
necessary.
Held further that in the absence of such proof and explanation, the accused should not be
convicted.

Identification parade, then, must be got arranged in jail and in the presence ofthe Magistrate.
The witncsses who had seen the accused at the time of occurrence, should all join the parade
in order to pick up the accused betore a Magistrate. In case, no parade is held and the I.O. does
not take any steps for this purpose, a valuable piece of evidence is lost and the testimony of
witnesses in picking up the accused in court at the time of giving evidence will not carry any
weight. The conduct of 1.0. will also not be above board as his investigation will be faulty and
defective in material respect, if he fails to arrange for a parade.
Every I.0. should realise that it is an important aspect of law that identification evidence
only can become the basis of conviction provided all the formalities are observed. As to what
these formalitics are, see Mohan Singh vs. State Supra, where it is held, "If the evidence of
identification is satisfactory and lcaves no doubt that witnesses who claim to have identified the
accused must have done so, there is no reason why conviction should not be recorded merely
identification evidence
upon the strength ofthat evidence". In a casc which depends entircly upon
of an accused person in a parade held for the purposc, the prosccution must prove by evidence
that the parade was held;
(a) Without any unneccssary delay.
(b) That the witnesses who picked out the accuscd in the parade as a culprit had
no opportunity of seeing him at any time after the incident and before the
parade.
66. Lotan Yadav, 1985 Cr. LJ 484.
 3090 LAWOFCRIMES&CRIMINOOGY
(c) That the parade was held by thc Magistratc with all the duc formalties
In the abscnce of identification procccdings, the mcre ipsc dixit of
P.W's. in the court s
the accused was onc of the
dacoits, could not be belicvcd, Birey Singh (1953 LJ (Cr 1817h
of no importance Parakinkar (1955 Cr. LJ 1292). Otherwise the mcre fact that a person was heimg
n
In
the
dockas an accused, is likcly to influence the mind of a witncss and make him think

person in the dock is the person he had seen committing the crime and thus reducc theevidentiar
thatth
value of the identification cvidence given in the court7
The identification parade should be held as soon as possible after the arrest of the accused
in jail. It should be conducted without delay. If there is in holding identification parade
delay
before a magistrate within a reasonable time after the arrest of the accused, it should always be
explained. Such factors can be:
(a) The accused had been keeping their faces muffled all along while coming out of
jail for appearing in a court and while going back to jail. The police officer or the
P.P. should request the court to make a note to this effect.
(b) Or that the remand or adjournment was taken without bringing the accused to
court, out of jail and that the magistrate was requested to give remand in jail

(c) That the witnesses were not available for a certain period. Such delay should be
clearly explained so that the conduct of I.O. is not seen with suspicious eyes, for
causing delay in the holding of this parade.58
To prove the case of robbery against the two appellants, the prosecution relied principally
and SI Omn
upon the evidence of complainant Krishan Lal (PW-5), H.C. Ramphal (PW-6) 400
case regarding the snatching of Rs.
Parkash (PW-7). Krishan Lal detailed the prosecution
him in instant fear of death by two miscrants
and he identified
and the car from him after putting
the appellants as those miscreants.
relieved of
the
corroborated fact
by that immediately after he was
His evidence amply identification of the
with the Police recounting the entire incident. His
was with
the car he lodged a report in the morning hours he
cannot also be assailed for
the two miscreants
as to mark their features.
appellants
11.00 and, therefore, he had sufficicnt time
the test
them from 6.30 a.m. till
a.m.
the appellant refused to be placed in
also mention that
While on tis point we may The other corroboration
for by the Investigating Oficer.
identification parade,
which w a s prayed identification of the two appellants
of robbery as also the 9
the factum seized the car within
of his evidence, as regards evidence of PWs-6 and 7 who
is furnished by the recovered the sum of
as the miscreants, thereof,
as the occupants to PW-5
hours of the incident
with the two appellants Singh, who according
the revolver from Harjinder in the
Rs. 400 from
Mohinder Singh and on his neck and had fired shot
the revolver
shaven m a n who had placed
clean
was69the to
air he is supposed
within the radius of two miles,
resident of where the personsS
Villages if the accused is a in urban a r e a s
be k n tO the villagers, but this principle
is not applicable

7. Shiam Lal vs. Rex 1953 Au 131

Sec. 390] NO PARADE 3091

living adjacent do not know each other. In the present casc, the accused werc living in the rural
area, so it is not safe to rely on their identification 70
) No Parade
The cvidencc ofthe Magistrate (PW-1) shows that he held the parade on March 1, 1966
at which scveral witnesses identified the appellant, accusced Lal Singh and accuscd Bhagwan
Singh. Some questions were asked to him in cross-cxamination rcgarding the identification of
Bhagwan Singh and Lal Singh, but none was asked regarding the appellant's identification.
That must mean that thc appcllant had no grievance to make regarding the manner in which the
parade had been held.71

ldentification test parade is not substantive evidence and it can only be used as corroborative
of the statement in Court.2
Non-holding of parade is not fatal where corroborative and conclusive evidence is present.73

(i) Delay in T.I. Parade

Value of identification depends on the precautions taken by the Police, while holding the
parade against identifying witness having opportunity to see the accused.74
Test identification parades must be held at the earliest possible opportunity. Having several
identification parades give rise to suspicions about the bona fide of the prosecution. Non-
inclusion of the appellant in the first identification parade also adds to the doubt. Such evidence
of identification is liable to be rejected.
Witnesses identified the accused in the test identification parade held on September 29,
1966 nearly six months after the occurrence. There is no reason why the test parade was
delayed so long when the accused had surrendered on June 17, 1996. Therefore, their
identification in the test identification parade is not of much significance.
Identification parades have been in common use for a very long time, for the object of
placing a suspect in a line up with other persons for identification is to find out whether he is the
is not
perpetrator of the crime. This is all the more necessary where the name of the offender
mentioned by those who claim to be eye-witnesses of the incident but they claim that although
they did not know him earlier. They could recall his features in sufficient details and would be
able to identify him if and when they happened to see him. It saves the suspect or the accused
from the sudden risk of being identified in the dock by the witnesses during the course of the

70. Ali Bahadur vs. State, 1998(1) Crimes (All) 557: Ashrafi and Ram Dhani vs. State, 1960 ALJ 95 (DB); Sheoraj vs.

State, AlR 1964 All. 290 (FB).

71. Chander Singh vs. State ofU.P, AIR 1973 SC 1200: 1973 ScC (Cr.) 133: (1973) 3 SCC 55: 1973 Cr. LJ 926: 1973

UJ (SC) 254.
828: (1973) 2 SCC 406: 1973 Cr. LJ 1176:
72. SantokhSingh vs. Izhar Hussain, AIR 1973 SC 2190: 1973 SCC (Cr)
1973 Cr. App. R (SC) 316: 1973 Cr. LR (SC) 473: (1974) 1 SCR 78.
SCC (Cr.) 545: (1975) 4 SCC 580: 1975 Cr. LJ 1553:
73 Harbhajan Singh vs. State of J&K, AIR 1975 SC 1814: 1975
1975 Cr. App. R (SC) 298: 1975 Cr. LR (SC) 465: 1975 UJ (SC) 585.
74 Sheikh Hasib vs. State of Bihar, (1972) 4 SCC 773: 1971 Cr. App. R (SC) 410.
75. Sheikh Hasib vs. State of Bihar, (1972)
4 SCC 773: 1971 Cr. App. R (SC) 410.
Rajendra Prasad vs. State of Bihar, AlR 1977 SC 1059: 1977 SCC (Cr)308:(1977) 2 SCC 205: 1977 Cr. LI 613:
76
1977 Cr. App. R. (SC) 123: 1977 Cr. LR (SC) 164: (1977) 3 SCR 68: 1977 UJ (SC) 276.
 3092 LAWOFCRIMES&CRIMINOLOGY Sec. 30

trial. The line up of the suspect in a test identification parade is, thcrcforc, a workable way of
testing the memory and veracity of witnesscs in such cascs and has workcd wcll in actual
practice
The appellant kncw about that evidencc from the date the parade was held and if he
wanted to demolish it, it was for him to do so by cffcctive cross-cxamination of the witnesses
and or by examining his own witnesses in rebuttal. As the appcllant has not succecded in doing
so, it is futile to contend that the Court should reject this important piece of evidencc. The
dentification parade was held within 2 days of the arrest of the accused and all formalities
were completed. Nole: Appeal was dismissed.77
The test dcntification parade was not held after undue delay. The interval ofabout 42 and
44
hours betwcen the occurrence and the holding of the test identification could not, by any
reckoning be said to be
long period of time having the cffect of blurring much lessetfacing
a

the mental images of accused 2 and 8 registered in their memory by the witnesses at the time
of incident.

The evidence of test identification was reliable and furnished sufficient corroboration of
the eye-witnesses PW-4 and PW-6 with regard to the identity of the appellant as the person
who had inflicted the fatal stab wound on the deceased.78

Shiv Shankar was not put up for test identification parade promptly. The identification
parade has been held three wecks after his arrest and no explanation has been offered for the
delay in holding the test identification parade. There is, therefore, room for doubt as to whether
the delay in holding the identification parade was in order to enable the identifying witnesses to
see him in the Police lock-up or the Jail premises and make a note of his foatures.
On the night between the 3rd and 4th November, 1973, at about 1.30 a.m. there wass a
dacoity in the house of Gangaram Yadav in Khuthana village in Jaunpur District. Eight to ten
persons were alleged to have participated in its commission. A lantern was lit in the Baithak. At
the site of the pump house on a side of the house, a 100 Watt electric bulb was burning. The
FIR (Ex. 1) was lodged at the Station House at Jalapur at 3.45 p.m. that day. The identity ofthe
culprits was not disclosed, but some general physiognomic features which could be of universal
application were mcntioned.
ln such cases, it is needless to say, the test identification at an identification parade to test
the power of recollection of the witnesses assumed added significance. The evidence of test
identification, apart altogether from the other safeguards appropriate to a fair test identification,
depends on the promptitude in point of time with which the suspected persons are put up for
test identification. If there is unexplaincd and unreasonable delay in putingup the accused
persons for a test idcntification, the delay by itself detracts from the credibility of the test.

accuscd were put up for test identification in an identification paradeonly on 5.3.1974

he
nearly four months after their arrest.
77.
113 an vs. State of Tamil Nadu, AIR 1978 SC 1204: 1978 SCC (Cr.) 341: (1978) 3 SCC 86: 1978 Cr. L
78 1978 Cr. App. R. (SC) 226: 1978 Cr. LR (SC) 318: (1978) 3 SCR 694.
19.
Sublhashand S State of Maharashtra, 1980 sCC (Cr.) 538: (1980) 3 SCC 91: 1980 Cr. LR (SC) 205.
.991.
9911987
1987 Cr I S Stateof U.P., AIR 1987 SC 1222: 1987 SCC (Cr.) 573: (1987) 3 SCC 331: 1987
Cr. LR (SC) 368:
(1987) 2 SCR 962.
Sec. 3901 DELAY IN TI. PARADE 3093
There is a serious lapsc on the part of the prosccution in putting up thc suspccted culprits
for a test identification after a lapse of four months after their arrcst. Thcrc is no cxplanation at
all for the delay. There might conccivably be occasions when therc could bc justification, or

acceptable explanation, for the dclay.

The benefit of this regrettablc and wholly unexplained lack of promptitude in holding thc
test identification, we arc constraincd to say ensures to the appcllants. The cvidence of test
identification lacks the requisite clement of reassurance to support the conviction. A reasonable
doubt arises.
Appeal were allowed. The conviction and sentence of non-appealing accused were also
set aside as the result of these appeals are interdependent and inextricably integrated.80
The procecdings of the identification parade was conducted by the Sub-Divisional
Magistrate in the Jail premises on May 21, 1975. It has becn mentioned in the proceedings that
the following marks on the body of the
appellant were covered with pieces of paper:
(1) Mole on right check
(2) Mole near the right temple
(3) Both ears
(4) Cut mark near right ear
(5) Mole on left cheek
(6) Peacock engraved on right forearm
(7) Mole and pock mark on right nostril.
Ten under-trials were mixed with the
appellant for the purpose of identification. Similar
paper-covering was done to them. All the eleven were made to close their
eyes.
The manner in which the identification
parade was conducted is not satisfactory. That
paper make-up on the faces of the participants, to such an
has rendered the identification
parade wholly unrcliable. It was more of a drama than an extent,
safe to convict the identification parade. It would not be
appcllant on the basis of the identification evidence.81
Alarge number of chits were placed on the face of the
marks of idcntification and the appellant in order to cover the
parade was held after three months. Magistrate who hcld the
identification parade was not cross-examined at all in
was held or in regard to the manner in which thoe parade
regard to the number of chits which were placed on the facc of
the appellant.
The evidence of the
Magistrate not
challenged in the Appellate Court that the having was held
been challenged during the
trial, cannot be
true that in the instant
case there was a
parade in an irregular
manner. Now it is
delay of about three months in
parade but here again, no questions wcre asked to holding the identification
the delay occurred. Note : the Investigating Officer as to why and how
Appeal was dismissed 82
80 Hari Nath vs. Statc of U.P.;
Chhabi Nath vs. State of U.P. and
SCC (Cr.) 14: (1988) 1 SCC 14:
1988 Cr. LJ 422: 1988 Cr.
Raj Nath vs. State of U.P., AIR 1988
LR SC 345: 1988
(1987) 3 Crimes 667. (SC) 55: (1988) 1 SCR 848: JT
81 Chaman vs. State of Utar (1988) 5 SC 316:
Pradesh, AIR 1992 SC 601: 1992 Cr. LJ
82 Bharat Singh vs. State of U.P., AlR 1972
SC 3478: 1973 SCC
524
1973 Cr. ILR (SC) 317. (Cr.) 574: (1973) 3 SCC 896:
1972 Cr. LJ 1704: