Theft requires dishonest taking of movable property without consent; extortion adds coercion to make the victim deliver property; robbery is either theft or extortion committed with the use of force or in circumstances creating fear of instant death or grievous hurt.
Explanation
Application examples
Scenario
Ravi enters a jewelry shop and, while the shopkeeper is distracted, slips a gold chain into his pocket and walks out without paying. The shopkeeper did not see him, and no force or threat was used. What is the offence?
Analysis
This is a classic case of theft. The essential elements are present: Ravi took movable property (the gold chain) without the owner's consent and with dishonest intent. No force was used, no threat was made, and the shopkeeper was unaware of the taking. The absence of force, threat, or apprehension of harm clearly rules out extortion and robbery. The dishonest mental state is evident from Ravi's intent to deprive the shopkeeper of the chain permanently.
Outcome
The offence is theft. Ravi is liable to imprisonment up to three years and fine. The shopkeeper can also sue in tort for conversion and recover the value of the chain or the chain itself.
Scenario
Priya receives an anonymous letter stating that unflattering photographs of her will be published unless she deposits ₹5 lakhs in a specified bank account within 48 hours. Terrified, Priya deposits the money. Later, she discovers the sender was her business rival, Sneha, who never intended to publish anything.
Analysis
This is extortion. Sneha communicated a threat (publication of photographs, which would damage reputation and cause mental anguish) and induced fear in Priya, causing her to part with property. Although the threat is not of instant death or grievous hurt in the physical sense, it operates through fear and coercion to compel delivery of property. Priya's consent was vitiated by duress. The fact that Sneha never intended to publish the photographs is immaterial; the offence lies in making the threat and obtaining property by it. The 48-hour deadline reinforces the sense of immediacy and urgency that characterizes extortion.
Outcome
Sneha is guilty of extortion. She is liable to imprisonment up to two years and fine. Priya can recover the ₹5 lakhs through civil suit based on duress. If Sneha used a false identity, additional offences under forgery or cheating may also apply.
Scenario
Vikram approaches a woman at night on a deserted street, grabs her purse, and when she tries to hold on to it, he pushes her hard, causing her to fall and sustain grievous injuries. He runs away with the purse containing ₹50,000.
Analysis
This is robbery. The offence involves both the taking of movable property (the purse) and the use of actual force (pushing her down, causing grievous hurt). Robbery is either theft committed with force, or extortion committed with force or threat of instant death or hurt. Here, Vikram used actual force during the act of taking, which immediately elevates what might otherwise be theft to robbery. The grievous injury is an additional consequence, potentially attracting charges under laws relating to hurt as well. The use of force is not merely incidental but integral to the manner of taking.
Outcome
Vikram is guilty of robbery. He faces imprisonment up to seven years and fine. Additionally, he can be charged under provisions relating to voluntarily causing grievous hurt. If multiple persons were involved, dacoity charges would apply, with sentences up to life imprisonment. The victim can sue for damages for personal injury and loss of property.
Scenario
A security guard at a bank, Harsh, is on duty when a man enters and politely requests to open the vault, claiming he has authorization from the bank manager. Harsh, suspecting foul play, refuses. The man then pulls out a realistic-looking gun (later found to be a toy), points it at Harsh, and demands he open the vault or face death. Terrified, Harsh complies, and the man escapes with ₹20 lakhs.
Analysis
Despite the gun being a toy, this is robbery, not extortion. The critical test is not whether the weapon was real but whether the victim reasonably apprehended instant death or grievous hurt. Harsh, faced with what appeared to be a genuine firearm, had every reason to believe his life was in danger. The apprehension of instant harm was created and communicated, and the property was obtained as a result. The force or threat of instant harm is the defining feature of robbery over extortion. That the weapon was later found to be a toy is irrelevant to the moment of the offence; the victim's reasonable apprehension at that time governs the classification.
Outcome
The offender is guilty of robbery. The use of an imitation firearm to create fear of instant death constitutes the force or threat element of robbery. The sentence is the same as for robbery with an actual firearm. The fact that the gun was fake does not mitigate the offence because the victim's reasonable apprehension is the test, not the actual danger.
How CLAT tests this
- Examiners present a scenario where an offender uses force, but to escape after stealing, not to effect the stealing—e.g., 'A stole B's laptop while B was asleep. When caught red-handed leaving B's house, A pushed the security guard.' The push during escape does not convert the theft into robbery because the force was not used with intent to commit theft; it was used after the theft was complete. This tests whether aspirants understand that robbery requires force in the commission of theft or extortion, not after.
- A fact pattern describes obtaining property through psychological coercion without any threat—e.g., 'A, posing as a bank manager, convinced B to hand over her jewelry for 'safekeeping' and never returned it.' This is not extortion but cheating or criminal breach of trust, because no threat was communicated. Examiners use this to test whether aspirants confuse coercion through deception with coercion through fear or threat.
- A scenario where the victim initially consents but later claims duress—e.g., 'B gave A money willingly, but later said A had earlier threatened him.' If the threat was not actually made or communicated at the moment of giving, it is not extortion. Examiners test whether aspirants understand that extortion requires contemporaneous fear or threat, not post-hoc claims.
- Presenting a threat of harm to property rather than the person—e.g., 'A threatened to burn B's house if B did not give money.' While this might be criminal intimidation, it does not strictly qualify as extortion under the classic definition, which specifies threat of death, hurt, restraint, or confinement to the person. Aspirants often incorrectly classify this as extortion.
- A fact pattern mixing theft and criminal intimidation separately—e.g., 'A stole B's documents, and separately threatened B with violence if B reported it to police.' These are two distinct offences (theft + criminal intimidation), not robbery or extortion, testing whether aspirants understand that robbery requires force or threat used in the commission of theft or extortion, not separately.
- Presenting a scenario where consent is obtained through misrepresentation rather than force or threat—e.g., 'A, falsely claiming to be from an insurance company, convinced C to hand over cash for a 'policy,' which he never issued.' This is cheating and criminal breach of trust, not extortion or robbery, because no threat or force was used. The fact that the victim would not have consented had they known the truth does not make it extortion.
- A temporal trap where the threat is not of 'instant' harm but of future harm—e.g., 'A threatened B that if B did not give money now, A would spread rumors about B next month.' Because the threat is not of instant death or hurt, this is not robbery or extortion in the strict sense, but criminal intimidation or coercion. Aspirants often incorrectly elevate it to robbery or extortion.
- Presenting facts where the offender has a legitimate legal right to the property but uses force to assert it—e.g., 'A, who was owed ₹5 lakhs by B, forcibly seized B's car worth ₹10 lakhs as self-help.' This is not robbery but wrongful restraint or criminal intimidation, because A had some legal claim, albeit to recover a debt, not to take property worth more. This tests aspirants' understanding that robbery requires dishonest intent, not mere force.
- A scenario involving pickpocketing—'A's hand touched B's wallet while removing it from B's pocket without B noticing.' Some aspirants mistakenly think the physical contact makes it robbery, but it remains theft because no force was used to effect the taking, nor was there any apprehension of harm. The contact is incidental.
- Presenting a hypothetical where the offender is arrested during the act and uses force to escape—e.g., 'A was caught mid-theft by a shopkeeper. A drew a knife and threatened to kill the shopkeeper to escape.' The force is used after the theft is complete; therefore, this is theft + criminal intimidation/causing hurt, not robbery. However, if A threatened the shopkeeper before taking the item ('Give me the item or I'll kill you'), it would be robbery or extortion.