Extortion under Section 383 IPC
Extortion, defined as the illegal extraction of money or assets through coercion, has evolved from historical methods involving violence and blackmail to contemporary cyber-extortion tactics. In the modern age, cybercriminals leverage threats and potential harm to an organization’s information or electronic infrastructure. By hacking into a business’s system and stealing data, perpetrators can demand payment under the threat of releasing or deleting valuable information.
According to Section 383 of the Indian Penal Code, extortion involves intentionally instilling fear in a person to induce them to hand over their property, valuable security, or signed items convertible into assets. Essentially, extortion forces individuals to transfer their possessions through force or threat, causing wrongful loss to the victim and wrongful gain to the extortionist.
For instance, if X threatens Y to surrender his new bike under the threat of harming Y’s daughter, X commits extortion. Similarly, if M threatens to publish defamatory content about N unless N gives up his property, M is guilty of extortion.
In simpler terms, extortion involves compelling someone to relinquish their valuables through force or threat, resulting in unjust loss for the victim and undeserved gain for the extortionist.
Essential elements of extortion
1. Deliberately putting a person in fear of hurt or injury
To establish extortion, a person must have a malicious intent to cause wrongful gain to themselves and wrongful loss to the owner. Additionally, the actual delivery of property is a crucial element in constituting extortion.
In the case of R. S. Nayak v. A. R. Antulay (1984), Chief Minister A.R. Antulay was involved in interrogating sugar cooperatives with pending cases before the government. He promised to review and address their cases. However, the Supreme Court ruled that these actions did not amount to extortion. The essential elements of fear and threat were lacking, as it was proven that the management of sugar cooperatives had not been coerced or placed in any state of fear. The contributions were made willingly and with consent, indicating that extortion had not taken place in this scenario.
2. Dishonest inducement to the person
The crux of this section lies in the deceptive inducement leading to the acquisition of property. Consequently, the presence of wrongful loss or wrongful gain is imperative. The offense of extortion remains incomplete unless there is a transfer of property from the possessor to the extorter.
In the case of Biram Lal and Ors. v. State (2006), the complainant accused the defendants and fellow community members of establishing an unlawful offense by subjecting community members to humiliation and hefty fines. The court emphasized that in extortion, the person induced through fear must have been dishonestly persuaded to surrender their property. This is a crucial aspect, as consent is obtained through the deceitful inducement by the perpetrator. The inducement, orchestrated by the wrongdoer, must at least secure the victim’s agreement to part with their property. Even if the actual transfer does not transpire, if the inducement fails to elicit any effect, the act is considered an attempt to commit extortion.
3. Delivery of valuable security
Under this Section, the item delivered can encompass any valuable or property, or any document, excluding a blank sheet, that is signed or sealed and can be transformed into a valuable security. The concept of “valuable security” is explained in Section 30 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC). If a minor is coerced and physically forced to execute a promissory note, the individual using such force would be liable under this Section.
In the case of Anil B. Nadkarni and Ors. v. Amitesh Kumar (2001), the defense argued that the crucial element of extortion under the IPC is the transfer of property, which must occur from the property holder to the accused while under the threat or fear of injury. However, the court dismissed this argument. The court emphasized that extortion requires one person to deceitfully induce another by instilling fear of harm, compelling them to deliver property or valuables. The mere threat of harm, without the actual transfer of property, is sufficient to constitute extortion under this Section.
Punishment for extortion
Section 384 IPC
Section 384 of the Indian Penal Code pertains to the punishment for extortion. It stipulates that anyone found guilty of extortion may face imprisonment for a term that could extend to three years, or be subjected to a fine, or both. This offense is not classified as a compoundable offense under Section 320. It is a cognizable and bailable offense, triable by any magistrate.
Section 385 IPC
Section 385 IPC, addresses situations where a person induces fear or threatens harm to commit extortion. The punishment for such actions includes imprisonment for up to two years, a fine, or both. The offense under this section is cognizable, non-bailable, and triable by any magistrate. It is also non-compoundable.
Section 386 IPC
Section 386 IPC focuses on instances where a person instills fear of death or grievous hurt to another individual. The prescribed punishment for this offense may extend to ten years of imprisonment and includes a fine. The offense is cognizable, non-bailable, non-compoundable, and triable by a magistrate of the first class.
Section 387 IPC
Moving forward, Section 387 IPC deals with extortion where a person puts someone in fear of grievous hurt or death. The penalty for this offense is imprisonment for up to seven years, along with a fine. Gursharan Singh v. State of Punjab (1996) is an example where the accused was convicted under Section 387 for demanding money to purchase weapons against terrorists, coupled with threats of dire consequences if the money was not paid.
Section 388 IPC
Section 388 IPC covers extortion through the threat of falsely accusing someone. The punishment for this offense includes imprisonment for ten years and a fine. For instance, if a person demands money by threatening to falsely accuse someone of murder, as exemplified in the case of C and D, the accused would be liable under Section 388.
Difference between extortion and theft
In theft, the perpetrator appropriates property without the owner’s consent, whereas in extortion, consent is wrongfully obtained through coercion or fear.
In theft, the property in question must be movable, while in extortion, it can involve either movable or immovable property. Theft can be committed by a single individual, whereas extortion can involve one or more perpetrators. Force or compulsion is a crucial element in extortion, while theft does not necessarily involve force or compulsion.
In the case of Dhananjay Kumar Singh v. State of Bihar (2007), the court emphasized that in theft, the intention is always to take property without the owner’s consent. Conversely, in extortion, the consent of the owner is secured unlawfully, typically through inducing fear.
Difference between extortion and robbery
Robbery is considered a specific subtype of extortion. In extortion, victims often willingly surrender money, property, or valuable security to avoid potential violence or damage in the future. In contrast, robbery involves an immediate threat to the victim.
In the case of Venugopal and Others v. State Of Karnataka (2008), the court observed that a significant portion of robberies can be characterized as a combination of theft and extortion. According to the court, extortion becomes robbery when the offender, in the presence of another person, instills fear of death, immediate injury, wrongful restraint, or induces fear of harm, injury, or unlawful restraint. Essentially, any case of robbery is encompassed within the definitions of extortion or theft.
To illustrate this point, consider an example where B threatens W and W’s child with a pistol, demanding W’s wallet. W, fearing harm to his child, reluctantly hands over the wallet. In this scenario, it is plausible that W’s wallet was obtained through extortion. Therefore, B is deemed to have committed robbery against W.
2 Tips for your Defence
Be Cautious While Being Online
In today’s digital landscape, exercising caution online is crucial to protect personal and organizational data. The internet poses various cyber threats, and being vigilant helps minimize the risk of unauthorized access, cyber attacks, and exploitation of software vulnerabilities. This cautious approach also guards against identity theft and financial losses from online scams.
Additionally, responsible online behavior preserves one’s digital reputation. Adopting a careful stance enhances defenses, with measures like regular software updates and multi-factor authentication for added security on sensitive accounts. This proactive approach is essential amid evolving cyber risks and potential extortion attempts, creating a safer online environment for all.
Stay Informed About Extortion Laws:
Stay informed about extortion laws by familiarizing yourself with Section 383 of the Indian Penal Code. This knowledge empowers you to recognize and respond effectively to extortion attempts, contributing to your personal security and that of the community.
Keep updated on any changes in relevant laws for ongoing awareness and compliance. Being well-versed in extortion laws allows individuals to take appropriate legal action, fostering a sense of justice and accountability in society.
FAQs
Is extortion the same as blackmail?
Extortion and blackmail, while related, are distinct concepts within the realm of criminal activities. Extortion involves obtaining something from someone through the use of violence, threats, or coercion. On the other hand, blackmail can be considered a specific form of extortion, where an individual demands payment or actions from another under the threat of revealing sensitive or incriminating information.
What is the difference between theft and extortion?
Distinguishing between theft and extortion is crucial in understanding these criminal offenses. Theft pertains to the unauthorized taking of someone else’s property without their consent. Extortion, however, involves compelling someone to surrender their property through the use of force, threats, or intimidation. In essence, theft is characterized by stealth and unlawfully taking possession, while extortion hinges on the exertion of coercion or force to obtain valuables or assets.
What is extortion law in IPC?
In the context of Indian law, the Indian Penal Code (IPC) addresses extortion in Section 383. This section explicitly outlines that anyone who intentionally induces fear of injury or harm to a person or their property with the aim of obtaining property from them is culpable of extortion under Section 384 of the IPC. This legal framework is designed to deter and punish individuals who employ threats or violence to coerce others into yielding their possessions.
Contact Us – Anil Kumar & Associates
If you find yourself entangled in a situation involving extortion and need legal advice, contact Anil Kumar and Associates. Our experienced legal team is well-versed in extortion laws, ready to provide guidance and support. We understand the complexities of such cases and can assist you in navigating the legal landscape. Don’t face extortion threats alone—reach out to Anil Kumar and Associates for the legal counsel you need to protect your rights and interests