Crimes against property are included in the Indian Penal Code of 1860, along with offenses against people, the State, marriage, as well as public order. Chapter 17 of the Indian Penal Code contains these clauses. These offenses include theft, robbery, extortion, dacoity, and other more severe forms of these crimes. According to the IPC, theft is the most common and fundamental offense against property.
ipc 379 Section: About
- The dishonest act of removing moveable goods from the possession of any individual without that person’s agreement is described as theft in Section 378 of the IPC.
- Section 378 of the Indian Penal Code has five explanations that explain why an act qualifies as theft, which is used to establish the offence within Section 379 ipc.
- Section 379-a ipc:
- Anyone found guilty of stealing faces a minimum sentence of seven years in prison, with the possibility of up to ten years, as well as a fine of up to 25 thousand rupees.
- Anyone found guilty of snatching and causing harm or wrongful restraint out of fear of harm in order to facilitate their escape may be sentenced to severe prison time for a maximum of three years.
- Section 379-b ipc:
- Anyone who engages in or attempts to engage in theft, having prepared to cause death, harm, restraint, fear of death, harm, or restraint to any person, or who orders the retention of property taken through theft, will be punished with severe imprisonment for a term that will not be less than seven years but may go up to ten years, as well as a fine that may reach 25 thousand rupees.
Essential ingredients of section 379 ipc
A dishonest intent to takeover property
- The offender must have dishonest intent in order to commit theft. When someone has a dishonest aim, they usually want to profit from injustice while causing the victim to endure unjustified damages.
- The dishonest intention to take property is one of the essential components of the crime of stealing. The intention of an act is one of the most important determining criteria in assessing whether or not it qualifies as theft. The intention to steal must exist at the time the property is moved.
The object in question needs to be moveable
- Always mobile as opposed to immovable is required for the stolen stuff. Thus, it is impossible for someone to steal property, structures, or other things. Anything attached to the earth that is immobile is not covered by theft.
- Under 378 ipc section, they may become mobile properties once they are separated from the earth. For instance, trees are immovable property, yet chopping them down and taking them away is robbery.
Removing the property from possession without authorization
- Although he need not be the owner, the prosecutor must be in possession of the contested property. Furthermore, the offender must knowingly take the goods away from the prosecutor. Therefore, it is insufficient for a criminal to only claim ownership of a piece of property, they also need to take possession of it.
- Secondly, he needs to seize the property despite the prosecutor’s permission. This permission may be given explicitly or subtly.
It is necessary to move the property
- To finish the heist and take ownership of the item, the criminal must relocate the goods. Stated differently, merely possessing it physically is insufficient; he must actually be able to move it under his direction.
- Moving the property is the same as removing the obstacle preventing it from moving. To drive a truck out of a garage, for instance, just requires unlocking the doors. This is also considered theft.
379 ipc punishment
- Section 379 ipc stipulates that theft carries a maximum sentence of three years in imprisonment, a monetary fine, or both. The following clauses have more severe penalties for theft under exaggerated circumstances.
Is ipc 379 is bailable or not?
- The ipc 379 section is considered to be a non-bailable, cognizable, and non-compoundable offense that can be tried at any magistrate court.
379 ipc Case Laws
- In the case of the State of Himachal Pradesh v Prem Singh, the accused hacked down the trees, and the forest is owned by the government. The accused was found to be guilty of theft and subject to Section 379 penalties, according to the court’s ruling.
- In the case of the State of Maharashtra v Vishwanath, five accused were implicated in the transfer of possession of seven tires and seven tubes from a railroad shed. The case demonstrated that movable property can be transferred without the owner’s consent, for an extended length of time, and without the item needing to be in the accused’s custody. A temporary movement will suffice to satisfy Section 378’s requirements.
Indian criminal law considers theft to be a crime, punishable by Section 379 of the IPC. It is crucial that each of the components or requirements of theft be satisfied for it to be considered theft.
