Understanding IPC Section 356 Assault or Criminal Force with Intent to Commit Theft

Detailed Article: IPC Section 356 – Assault or Criminal Force in an Attempt to Steal

The Indian Penal Code (IPC), a comprehensive legal code that governs criminal law in India, is structured to deal with a variety of crimes ranging from theft to murder. IPC Section 356 addresses a specific form of theft—where criminal force or assault is used to commit robbery. Theft alone is illegal, but when coupled with violence or intimidation, the crime becomes more serious, attracting stricter punishments.

What is IPC Section 356?

Section 356 of the IPC criminalizes the act of using assault or criminal force with the intention to commit theft. The provision is crucial in deterring not just theft, but violent forms of theft, where offenders rely on force or intimidation to overpower the victim.

Legal Definition: “Whoever assaults or uses criminal force to any person, in attempting to commit theft on any property, is punishable under this section.”

Key Elements of IPC Section 356:

For the crime to fall under IPC 356, the following elements must be established:

1. Assault or Use of Criminal Force: The accused must have either assaulted the victim or used criminal force.
2. Intent to Commit Theft: The act must be aimed at stealing property. This intention is a critical component in determining the culpability under Section 356.
3. Attempt: There must be an attempt to commit theft. Even if the theft is not completed, the attempt, coupled with violence, is punishable.
4. Property in Possession: The property must be in the victim’s possession, and the accused must use force or assault to attempt to take it away.

Punishment under IPC Section 356:

The punishment prescribed under Section 356 is imprisonment of either description (rigorous or simple) for a term which may extend up to two years, or with a fine, or both. The nature of the punishment varies depending on the severity of the case, the harm caused to the victim, and other factors like prior criminal records.

Distinction Between Theft, Robbery, and Extortion:

While theft involves the simple act of taking away someone’s property without consent, robbery elevates the crime by adding force or violence to it. Extortion, on the other hand, involves coercion or threats to obtain property. Section 356, therefore, covers the intersection where theft overlaps with assault or force, making it akin to robbery but with a specific emphasis on the use of criminal force during the theft.

Case Studies on IPC Section 356:

Case Study 1: Ramesh Kumar vs. State of Rajasthan (2017)

In this case, Ramesh Kumar was charged under Section 356 for attempting to snatch a woman’s handbag while she was walking on a busy street. He used force to grab the bag, pulling the victim in the process, causing her to fall and sustain minor injuries. Although the theft was unsuccessful due to the intervention of passersby, the court held Ramesh guilty under Section 356 as the element of force and the intent to steal were clearly established.

Court’s Judgment: The court sentenced Ramesh to six months of rigorous imprisonment and imposed a fine of Rs. 10,000. The court stressed that even though the theft was not completed, the use of criminal force warranted punishment under Section 356.

Case Study 2: State of Maharashtra vs. Akash Sharma (2015)

In this case, Akash Sharma was found guilty of using criminal force to snatch a gold chain from a pedestrian. Sharma, who was riding a motorcycle, forcefully pulled the chain off the victim’s neck, causing a deep cut. Despite escaping with the chain, the police arrested him soon after. The victim’s injuries and witness testimonies provided solid evidence of criminal force with the intent to steal.

Court’s Judgment: Akash was sentenced to two years of rigorous imprisonment under Section 356, along with a fine. The court noted that the victim’s injuries and the aggressive nature of the theft attempt justified the maximum penalty prescribed under this section.

Case Study 3: Lalita Devi vs. State of Uttar Pradesh (2020)

In this case, Lalita Devi was walking home when two individuals attempted to forcibly snatch her mobile phone. She resisted, and during the scuffle, one of the accused struck her on the arm, causing significant pain. Although they failed to steal the phone, the force used in the attempt led to their conviction under Section 356.

Court’s Judgment: The court ruled that even though the theft was not completed, the clear intention to steal and the use of physical force to intimidate the victim fulfilled the requirements under IPC Section 356. Both accused were sentenced to one year of imprisonment and fined Rs. 5,000 each.

Legal Interpretations and Relevance:

Section 356 of the IPC serves an important function in India’s legal framework. The courts have consistently upheld that the mere attempt to steal using force qualifies as a serious crime, even if the theft is unsuccessful. This provision also overlaps with other sections dealing with violent crimes such as robbery (Section 392) and extortion (Section 383), but remains distinct in its focus on force during theft.

IPC 356 vs. Section 392 (Robbery):

One of the main differences between IPC Section 356 and Section 392 is that robbery involves the actual taking of property with violence or intimidation. Section 356 can be invoked even in cases where the theft was attempted but not completed. The overlap occurs in cases where the accused uses force in an attempt to steal but is caught before the theft is successful.

Conclusion:

IPC Section 356 is a vital provision in India’s criminal law. It addresses an area where theft escalates into a more serious crime due to the use of force or assault. The legal system ensures that individuals who resort to violence for theft face strict punishment, even if their attempt is thwarted. The punishment of up to two years serves as a deterrent against such acts and emphasizes the protection of individual safety and property rights.

The above case studies demonstrate how the judiciary has applied this section in real-life scenarios, highlighting the importance of this provision in maintaining law and order. Section 356, with its emphasis on criminal force and intent to steal, remains a cornerstone in dealing with theft-related offenses in India.