The Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 (BNS), a landmark legislation that replaces the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (IPC), introduces new definitions, restructures offences, and aligns criminal law with contemporary Indian realities. Among the numerous property-related offences, theft and extortion remain foundational crimes affecting both individual rights and public order.
This article explores the statutory framework governing theft and extortion under the BNS, analyses their essential components, punishment provisions, judicial interpretation, and highlights the key differences between the two offences.
Theft under Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023
Definition
Section 303 of the BNS redefines theft in almost identical terms to the IPC. It states:
“Whoever, intending to take dishonestly any movable property out of the possession of any person without that person’s consent, moves that property in order to such taking, is said to commit theft.”
This provision retains the core elements of theft from Section 378 IPC, but under a new statutory regime.
Key Ingredients of Theft
To establish the offence of theft, the following elements must be present:
- Dishonest Intention: There must be an intention to cause wrongful gain to one person or wrongful loss to another.
- Movable Property: The subject must be movable in nature—land or buildings cannot be stolen.
- Possession of Another: The item must be in the possession of someone other than the offender.
- Lack of Consent: The property must be taken without the owner’s or possessor’s consent.
- Movement: Even slight movement of the property with dishonest intent constitutes theft.
Illustration:
A meets a bullock carrying a box of treasure. He drives the bullock in a certain direction, in order that he may dishonestly take the treasure. As soon as the bullock begins to move, A has committed theft of the treasure.
Various Categories of Theft under the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 (Sections 305–307)
Section 305 – Theft in a Dwelling House, Transport Vehicle, or Place of Worship
This provision applies when theft is committed in any of the following circumstances:
(a) Within any building, tent, or vessel used as a human dwelling or for the custody of property;
(b) Involving any means of transport used for transporting goods or passengers;
(c) Of goods or articles from such transport vehicles;
(d) Of an idol or icon from any place of worship;
(e) Of any property belonging to the Government or a local authority.
Section 306 – Theft by Clerk or Servant
This section addresses theft committed by a person employed in the capacity of a clerk or servant. It covers cases where the theft is in respect of any property that is in the possession of their employer or master.
Section 307 – Theft with Preparation to Cause Harm or Restraint
This section deals with theft where the offender has made prior preparations to cause death, hurt, restraint, or induce fear thereof. Such preparations are aimed at facilitating the commission of theft, ensuring escape after the theft, or retaining the stolen property.
Punishment for Theft
The BNS prescribes varying degrees of punishment depending on the gravity and circumstances:
- Simple Theft (Section 303): Imprisonment up to 3 years, or fine, or both.
- Theft in Dwelling House/Place of Worship/Transport (Section 305): Imprisonment up to 7 years and fine.
- Theft by Employee or Servant (Section 306): Imprisonment up to 7 years and fine.
- Theft after Preparation for Hurt or Restraint (Section 307): Rigorous imprisonment up to 10 years and a fine.
These provisions reflect a continued focus on aggravated forms of theft being punished more severely.
Extortion under Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023
Definition
Extortion is defined under Section 308 of the BNS as follows:
“Whoever intentionally puts any person in fear of any injury to that person or to any other, and thereby dishonestly induces the person so put in fear to deliver to any person any property or valuable security, commits extortion.”
Key Ingredients of Extortion
The offence of extortion requires:
- Intentional Inducement: A conscious act of the offender to create fear in the victim.
- Fear of Injury: The fear must pertain to physical, reputational, or economic injury.
- Dishonest Motive: The purpose must be to gain property or a valuable security.
- Delivery: The victim must actually deliver the property or document as a result of fear.
Illustration:
A threatens to publish a defamatory libel concerning Z unless Z gives him money. He thus induces Z to give him money. A has committed extortion.
Punishment for Extortion
Section 308(2) of the BNS prescribes: Imprisonment up to 7 years, or fine, or both.
Extortion by Threat of Injury [Section 308 (3)]: Whoever, in the course of committing extortion, puts or attempts to put any person in fear of injury, shall be punished with:
- Imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to two years,
- Or with fine,
- Or with both.
Extortion by Threat of Death or Grievous Hurt (Attempt) [Section 308 (4)]: Whoever, in the course of committing extortion, puts or attempts to put any person in fear of death or grievous hurt, to themselves or any other person, shall be punished with:
- Imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to seven years, and
- Fine.
Extortion by Actual Threat of Death or Grievous Hurt [Section 308 (5)]: Whoever commits extortion by actually putting any person in fear of death or grievous hurt, to themselves or any other person, shall be punished with:
- Imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to ten years, and
- Fine.
Extortion by Threat of False Accusation (Attempt) [Section 308 (6)] : Whoever, in the course of committing extortion, puts or attempts to put any person in fear of being accused—either themselves or someone else—of committing or attempting to commit an offence punishable with:
- Death,
- Imprisonment for life, or
- Imprisonment up to ten years,
- shall be punished with:
- Imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to ten years, and
- Fine.
Extortion by Actual Threat of False Accusation [Section 308 (7)]: Whoever commits extortion by putting any person in fear of being accused—either themselves or someone else—of:
- committing or attempting to commit any offence punishable with death, life imprisonment, or imprisonment up to ten years, or
- attempting to instigate another person to commit such offence, shall be punished with:
- Imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to ten years, and
- Fine.
Comparison: Theft v. Extortion under BNS
| Criteria | Theft | Extortion |
|---|---|---|
| Nature of Offence | Taking property without consent | Obtaining property by causing fear |
| Means Used | Physical removal of property | Psychological coercion or threats |
| Consent | No consent of the owner | Consent is obtained, but through fear |
| Use of Threat or Force | No threat involved | Threat to person or third party involved |
| Property Involved | Movable property only | Movable, immovable, valuable security, or documents |
| Delivery by Victim | Victim does not deliver property | Victim delivers under fear or compulsion |
| Punishment | 3 to 10 years, depending on circumstances | 7 to 10 year,s depending on threat used |
| Illustrative Example | Stealing a bag from a shop | Forcing someone to sign a cheque by threatening harm |
Significant Judicial Observations
1) K. N. Mehra v. State of Rajasthan (1957)
In this landmark judgment, the Supreme Court upheld the conviction of K.N. Mehra, a cadet in the Indian Air Force, for theft under Section 379 IPC (now Section 303 BNS) for unlawfully flying a Harvard aircraft to Pakistan without authorization. The Court held that even temporary unauthorized use of government property with dishonest intent constitutes theft under Section 378 IPC (Section 303 BNS), as it involves wrongful gain and wrongful loss.
Rejecting the defense of implied consent due to Mehra’s training status, the Court emphasized that the unauthorized nature of the flight, breach of regulations, and the intention to go to Pakistan negated any claim of innocence or prank. Although the conviction was upheld, the sentence of 18 months’ imprisonment was reduced to the period already undergone, considering the time elapsed and circumstances of the case.
2) Biram Lal & Ors. v. State (2007)
The Rajasthan High Court upheld charges under Section 384 IPC (extortion) (now Section 308 of BNS), observing that even though no property was actually delivered, the accused had allegedly threatened and demanded Rs. 1 lakh from the complainant for re-entry into the community. The Court clarified that under Section 383 IPC (Section 308 BNS), actual delivery is not essential if there is dishonest inducement and fear of injury. Even in the absence of delivery, the act constitutes at least an attempt to commit extortion under Section 385 IPC [now Section 308 (3) of BNS], making the charges legally sustainable.
Conclusion
The Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023, continues to uphold the essence of criminal liability concerning property crimes but through a more refined, simplified statutory framework. Both theft and extortion represent distinct dimensions of unlawful gain—one through stealth and the other through coercion.
As the BNS takes legal effect, awareness of the structural distinctions and legal consequences of these crimes is essential for police, prosecutors, defense lawyers, and the judiciary. Proper understanding ensures that justice is served not just in substance but also in the spirit of fair application of the law.
References
[1] Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023
[2] Indian Penal Code, 1860
[3] K. N. Mehra v. State of Rajasthan, AIR 1957 SC 369
[4] Biram Lal & Ors. v. State, RLW 2007 (1) Raj 713
