Question: Sanjoy cuts down a tree on Vijoy’s ground with the intention of dishonestly taking the tree out of Vijay’s possession without consent from Vijoy. Sanjoy is prosecuted for the offence of theft. Sanjoy takes the defence that the offence of theft can be committed in respect of only a movable property and as the tree is not… Read More »

Question: Sanjoy cuts down a tree on Vijoy’s ground with the intention of dishonestly taking the tree out of Vijay’s possession without consent from Vijoy. Sanjoy is prosecuted for the offence of theft. Sanjoy takes the defence that the offence of theft can be committed in respect of only a movable property and as the tree is not a movable property, he cannot be convicted for ‘theft’. Is Sanjoy guilty of the offence of theft? Give reasons. Find the answer to the mains question...

Question: Sanjoy cuts down a tree on Vijoy’s ground with the intention of dishonestly taking the tree out of Vijay’s possession without consent from Vijoy. Sanjoy is prosecuted for the offence of theft. Sanjoy takes the defence that the offence of theft can be committed in respect of only a movable property and as the tree is not a movable property, he cannot be convicted for ‘theft’. Is Sanjoy guilty of the offence of theft? Give reasons.

Find the answer to the mains question only on Legal Bites. [Sanjoy cuts down a tree on Vijoy’s ground with the intention of dishonestly taking the tree out of Vijoy’s possession without the consent of Vijoy. Sanjoy is prosecuted for the offence of theft…. Is Sanjoy guilty of the offence of theft? Give reasons.]

Answer

Section 378, IPC defines the offence of Theft as:

“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.”

Movable property is defined in section 22 as including:

‘corporeal property of every description, except land and things attached to the earth or permanently fastened to anything which is attached to the earth’.

Further, Explanation 1 to section 378— A thing so long as it is attached to the earth, not being movable property, is not the subject of theft; but it becomes capable of being the subject of theft as soon as it is severed from the earth.

Explanation 2—A moving effected by the same act which affects the severance may be a theft.

It is expressly stated by explanations 1 and 2 of section 378 that things attached to the land may become movable property by severance from the earth and that the act of severance itself will be theft.

Illustration (a) to section 378 shows that when A cuts down a tree on Z’s ground with the intention of dishonestly taking the tree out of Z’s possession without his consent, A is guilty of theft.

Therefore, in the present case, the defence of enjoying that the offence of theft can be committed in respect of only a movable property and as the tree is not a movable property, he cannot be convicted of theft cannot be sustained.

The moment Sanjoy cut down the trees on Vijoy’s ground with the intention of dishonestly taking the tree out of Vijoy’s possession without the consent of Vijoy, he is said to have committed the offence of theft.


Important Mains Questions Series for Judiciary, APO & University Exams

  1. IPC Mains Questions Series Part I: Important Questions
  2. IPC Mains Questions Series Part II: Important Questions
  3. IPC Mains Questions Series Part III: Important Questions
  4. IPC Mains Questions Series Part IV: Important Questions
  5. IPC Mains Questions Series Part V: Important Questions
  6. IPC Mains Questions Series Part VI: Important Questions
  7. IPC Mains Questions Series Part VII: Important Questions
  8. IPC Mains Questions Series Part VIII: Important Questions
  9. IPC Mains Questions Series Part IX: Important Questions
  10. IPC Mains Questions Series Part X: Important Questions
Updated On 2021-08-26T06:52:59+05:30
Admin LB

Admin LB

Next Story