Overview
The laws related to Extortion have been entailed in Section 383- 389 of IPC. The definition of ‘Extortion’ is given under Section 383 of IPC. Section 384 IPC contains the penalty for extortion whereas Section 385 of IPC entails the punishment for an attempt to commit extortion. It must be noted that Section 386 to 389 go on to the extent of discussing much harsher punishments for much-aggravated forms of extortion.
Definition
As per Section 383 IPC, extortion is an act to put someone in fear of injury or any other harm to obtain his property or any other valuable item. Section 383 IPC reads 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, or anything signed or sealed which may be converted into a valuable security, commits “extortion”.”
The definition of extortion can be understood with the help of the following illustration:
A threatens B that he will kill his wife if B will be failed to pay Rs.1 Crore on his birthday. This is a clear-cut case of extortion against A.
The main essence of Section 383 is obtaining the delivery of property or any item of value in consequence of dishonest inducement. To be more precise, an intention to cause wrongful loss to one and wrongful gain to other is an essential ingredient of extortion.
Essential elements:
1. Intentionally putting a person in fear of injury: It is a must that the person must have an intention to cause a wrongful gain to one and wrongful loss to another in a manner where another person is put under threat. The actual delivery of the property is essential to constitute extortion.
2. The purpose of which is to dishonestly induce the person put in fear: The objective of the 0ffence should have been towards the furtherance of the crime of Extortion.
3. To deliver property or valuable security: The actual transaction must have happened to have the section come into play in its entirety. If at all, for any reason.
Punishment
Section 384 contains the punishment for extortion. Section 384 is a cognizable offence wherein police may arrest without warrant and the same is triable by any Magistrate. However, ordinarily, the warrant is required to be issued in the first instance. It is a non- bailable offence and cannot be compounded. Section 384 IPC reads as under:
“Whoever commits extortion shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to three years, or with fine, or with both.”
Punishment for Attempt of Extortion
Section 385 IPC deals with the punishment for an attempt of extortion. It must be understood that even putting a person under the fear of injury of any kind is enough to attract punishment under this section. It is cognizable, bailable and non-compoundable offence and is triable by a Magistrate. Section 385 reads as follows:
“Whoever, in order to the committing of extortion, puts any person in fear, or attempts to put any person in fear, of any injury, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to two years, or with fine, or with both.”
More aggravated forms of extortion:
As discussed, Section 383 – 385 IPC deals with the definition and followed by punishment for extortion and its attempt. The more serious forms of extortion are categorized under Sections 386- 389 IPC, wherein, the victim of the offence is put under the fear of grievous injury or threat to the life of self or of someone else. Even the attempt of extortion by putting someone in fear of death or grievous injury is dealt with more seriously under these sections. The Sections 386-389 are discussed hereunder:
a) Section 386 IPC: The offence under this section is more serious form of extortion. Here, the victim is put under the fear of death or grievous hurt and the extortion is actually committed. It must be mentioned that the offence under this section is cognizable, non-bailable and cannot be compounded. Section 386 reads as under:
“386. Extortion by putting a person in fear of death or grievous hurt.—Whoever commits extortion by putting any person in fear of death or of grievous hurt to that person or to any other, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to ten years, and shall also be liable to fine.
b) Section 387 IPC: Under this section, merely an attempt to extort by putting a person in fear of death or grievous hurt is enough, the actual commission of extortion is not necessary. The offence under the said section is cognizable, non-bailable and non-compoundable and is triable by Magistrate of the first class. The said section reads as follows:
“387. Putting person in fear of death or of grievous hurt, in order to commit extortion. — Whoever, in order to the committing of extortion, puts or attempts to put any person in fear of death or of grievous hurt to that person or to any other, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to seven years, and shall also be liable to fine.”
c) Section 388 IPC: Under this section, the extortion is made by way of threat of accusation to a person where punishment of the offence carries death penalty or imprisonment for life. The essence is an actual commission of extortion by such threat. The offence under this section is cognizable, bailable and cannot be compounded and is triable by the Magistrate of the first class.
“388. Extortion by threat of accusation of an offence punishable with death or imprisonment for life, etc.—Whoever commits extortion by putting any person in fear of an accusation against that person or any other, of having committed or attempted to commit any offence punishable with death, or with 1 [imprisonment for life], or with imprisonment for a term which may extend to ten years, or of having attempted to induce any other person to commit such offence, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to ten years, and shall also be liable to fine; and, if the offence be one punishable under Section 377 of this Code, may be punished with 1 [imprisonment for life].”
d) Section 389 IPC: This section deals with an attempt to extort by putting the person in fear of accusation of offence. There is no actual commission of extortion. The offence under this section is cognizable, bailable and cannot be compounded and is triable by the Magistrate of the first class.
“389. Putting person in fear or accusation of offence, in order to commit extortion.—Whoever, in order to the committing of extortion, puts or attempts to put any person in fear of an accusation, against that person or any other, of having committed, or attempted to commit, an offence punishable with death or with 1 [imprisonment for life], or with imprisonment for a term which may extend to ten years, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to ten years, and shall also be liable to fine; and, if the offence be punishable under Section 377 of this Code, may be punished with 1 [imprisonment for life].
To constitute the offence of extortion, the burden of proof is on the prosecution to prove the actual commission or an attempt to commit the offence under these above-discussed sections. The ingredients of extortion have been discussed in several cases to keep a check is an offence is actually committed or not. Some of the case laws are discussed hereunder:
In Gursharan V. State of Punjab (1996) 10 SCC 190, it was held that one of the ingredients of the offence is that the offender “induces the person so put in fear then and there to deliver up the thing extorted. Even if the amount demanded is paid after few days, it amounts to extortion.
In Dhananjay v. State of Bihar (2007) 14 SCC 768, it was held that ingredients that would constitute an offence are (1) the accused must put any person in fear of injury to that person or any other person (2) the putting of person in such fear must be intentional (3) the accused must thereby induce the person so put in fear to deliver to any person any property, valuable security or anything signed or sealed with may be converted into a valuable security (4) such inducement must be done dishonestly.
In Biram Lal vs. State, RLW 2007(1) Raj.713, it was held that in order to complete the act of extortion the person who was put in fear, must have been induced to deliver the property. If the act of inducement caused by the wrongdoer should bring forth its result at least by the victim consenting to deliver property even if actual delivery does not take place due to any fortuitous circumstances which would constitute extortion, but if it fails to produce the requisite effect, the act would remain only at the stage of an attempt to commit extortion. In the instant case, even if the offence of extortion is held to be not made out for want of delivery of the property at least, the offence of attempt to commit extortion is clearly made out.
In R.S. Nayak vs. A.R Antulay, AIR 1986 SC 2045, the accused was Chief Minister at the relevant time and the Sugar Co-operatives had some of the grievances pending consideration before the Government. The pressure was brought about on the Sugar Co-operatives to make the donations with a promise that their grievances shall be considered. Held that the ingredients of the offence of extortion not made out. There was no evidence at all that the management of the Sugar Co-operatives had been put in any fear and the contributions had been paid in response to threats.
CONCLUSION
To recapitulate, I pen down saying that Indian Penal Code provides for extortion under Section 383 IPC along with certain sections to save the common public from the crime of Extortion. Whereas, in spite of the essential ingredients and checks provided in the section, there has been a major misuse of the section for booking the innocents. As a matter of fact, many innocents are put behind the bars under false charges of extortion. Entirely fake cases are made against innocent persons owing to corruption and negative, but, the powerful influence of some nefarious miscreants in the society. When such a situation arises, it is advisable to reach out to the best criminal advocate who maintains a deeper understanding and analytical appreciation of the ingredients of the crime of extortion under Section 383 IPC and is capable enough to deconstruct the prosecution’s case on material grounds.
