(7) robbery
Download as DOC, PDF2 likes2,882 views
The document discusses the legal issue of whether the accused, referred to as 'a', can be held liable for robbery against the victim 'b' under sections 390 and 392. It outlines the definitions and principles of robbery, emphasizing that actions involving theft or extortion may qualify as robbery. Ultimately, it concludes that 'a' may indeed be liable for the robbery committed against 'b'.
(7) robbery
- 1. ROBBERY The parties in this issue are A, as the accused and B, as the victim. The issue is whether A may be held liable for committing robbery as defined under section 390 and punishable under section 392 for the act committed to B. LAW PRINCIPLE • STATE SECTION 390 (1). • STATE SECTION 390 (2). IF THEFT-> ROBBERY • Nga Po Thet - the essence of robbery is that he offender, for committing theft, or in carrying away of in attempting to carry away of property obtained by theft, commits one or the other wrongful acts mention in section 390. • Bishambhar Nath v Emperor – appellant tried luck at carnival – fight with manager for prizes – remove cash from table – fight was not meant to rob – only convicted for theft. • STATE SECTION 390 (3). IF EXTORTION -> ROBBERY • EXTORTION -> ROBBERY =ILLUSTRATION (b) & (c) OF SECTION 390 APPLICATION CONCLUSION In conclusion, A may be held liable for committing robbery as defined under section 390 and punishable under section 392 for the act committed to B. )