Law and You > Criminal Laws > Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 > Chapter XVII > Aggravated Forms of Theft (Ss. 305 to 307 BNS)
Theft is a criminal offense under the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 (BNS) and involves taking someone else’s movable property without their consent with a dishonest intention. Several elements must be present for an act to be considered theft under the BNS. Section 303(1) BNS defines the offence of theft. Section 303(2) BNS specifies punishment for theft. Let us discuss aggravated forms of theft defined under IPC.
Theft in human dwelling in the form of building, tent, or vessel is punishable under section 305 BNS. The object of this Section is to give greater security to property deposited in a house, tent or vessel. Section 306 provides punishment for theft committed by a clerk or servant of property in possession of the master. S. 307 BNS deals with offence of theft after preparation made for causing death, hurt or restraint in order to committing of theft.
Section 303(1) BNS defines theft as “Whoever, intending to take dishonestly any moveable 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.:
Essential Ingredients of Theft:
- There must be dishonest intention to take property;
- The property must be movable;
- The Property should be taken out of possession of another person;
- It should be taken without consent of that person; and
- There should be the taking of the property.
Comparative Study BNS and IPC
| Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 | Indian Penal Code, 1860 | Change |
| S. 305 | S. 380 | The definition enlarged “means of transportation or place of worship,’ is added in the heading is reframed containing various sub-sections wherein sub-sections (b), (c), (d), (e) are new additions. |
| S. 306 | S. 381 | No Change |
| S. 307 | S. 382 | No Change |
S. 305 BNS:
Theft in a Dwelling House, or Means of Transportation or Place of Worship, etc:
Whoever commits theft—
(a) in any building, tent or vessel used as a human dwelling or used for the custody of property; or
(b) of any means of transport used for the transport of goods or passengers; or
(c) of any article or goods from any means of transport used for the transport of goods or passengers; or
(d) of idol or icon in any place of worship; or
(e) of any property of the Government or of a local authority,
shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to seven years, and shall also be liable to fine
Essential Ingredients of S. 305 BNS:
- The accused committed theft; and
- The theft was committed
- in any building, tent or vessel used as a human dwelling or used for the custody of property; or
- of any means of transport used for the transport of goods or passengers; or
- of any article or goods from any means of transport used for the transport of goods or passengers; or
- of idol or icon in any place of worship; or
- of any property of the Government or of a local authority,
Punishment:
Imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to seven years, and shall also be liable to fine
Classification of Offence:
The offence under this Section is cognizable, non-bailable, and triable by any magistrate
The word ‘building’ means a permanent edifice of some kind. The use of this word along with the words ‘tent’ and ‘vessel’ goes on to show that there must be some kind of a structure intending some kind of protection to the persons living there or for the property placed there for custody. Section 48 of IPC defines The word “vessel” as anything made for the conveyance by water of human beings or of property.
In Krishna K. Reddy v. R. D. Bhoyar, 2008 CrLJ 685 (Bom) case, the accused employees of the bank after house trespass seized articles belonging to the complainants as co-mortgagors. There was no intention on part of accused to commit offences under Section 380/448 IPC (S. 305/ 329(4) BNS) and evidence on record disclosed that seizure was made in good faith and on bona fide belief. The Court held that the acquittal by the lower court was proper.
In K. E. Lokesha v. State of Karnataka 2012 CrLJ 2120 (Kar) case the Court held that offence under Section 454 (S. 331(3) BNS) also includes Section 380 (S. 305 BNS). In view of the conviction under Section 454 of the IPC (S. 331(3) BNS), a separate conviction for the offence under Section 380 of IPC (S. 305 BNS) is not needed.
S. 306 BNS:
Theft by clerk or servant of property in possession of master:
Whoever, being a clerk or servant, or being employed in the capacity of a clerk or servant, commits theft in respect of any property in the possession of his master or employer, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to seven years, and shall also be liable to fine.
A clerk or servant is a person bound either by an express contract of service or by conduct implying such a contract to obey the orders and submit to the control of his master in the transaction of the business which it is his duty as such clerk or servant to transact.
A person was bound to obey the orders of his employer so as to be under his employer’s, it is not necessary that there should be a payment by salary for commission will do nor that the whole time should be employed nor that the employment should be permanent, – for it may be only occasional, or in a single instance – if, at the time, the prisoner is engaged as a servant.
In the DG, Delhi Doordarshan Kendra vs Tej Pal on 12 December, 2023 case, the Delhi High Court observed that a servant is an agent who works under the supervision and direction of his employer and he is a person engaged to obey his employer’s orders from time to time; an independent contractor is a person engaged to do certain work
Essential Ingredients:
- That the accused was a clerk or servant or was employed in such a capacity;
- That he committed that theft in respect of any property; and
- That such property was in possession of his master or employer.
Examples:
- A clerk of a toll-contractor illegally levied toll on carts laden when leaving a town, and prevented the carts from passing through the toll-gate, unless the toll demanded was paid, he was held guilty of this offence.
- Some policemen stole a sum of money shut up in a box and placed in the Policy Treasury building, over which they were mounting guard as sentinels, they were held guilty of an offence under this Section and not under Section 409 IPC (S. 316(5) BNS).
Punishment:
Imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to seven years, and shall also be liable to fine
Classification of Offence:
The offence under this section is cognizable, non-bailable and is triable by any magistrate
In Vallabhram v. Emperor AIR 1926 Bom 122 case, a clerk took official papers out of the possession of another person who himself is another clerk of Tahsil office without Mamlatdar’s consent with a view to show to the lawyer of one of the parties to the case; the Court held that it is theft by the clerk and is punishable under article 381.
S. 307 BNS:
Theft after Preparation Made for Causing Death, Hurt or Restraint in order to Committing of Theft:
Whoever commits theft, having made preparation for causing death, or hurt, or restraint, or fear of death, or of hurt, or of restraint, to any person, in order to the committing of such theft, or in order to the effecting of his escape after the committing of such theft, or in order to the retaining of property taken by such theft, shall be punished with rigorous imprisonment for a term which may extend to ten years, and shall also be liable to fine.
Illustrations:
(a) A commits theft on property in Z’s possession; and while committing this theft, he has a loaded pistol under his garment, having provided this pistol for the purpose of hurting Z in case Z should resist. A has committed the offence defined in this section.
(b) A picks Z’s pocket, having posted several of his companions near him, in order that they may restrain Z, if Z should perceive what is passing and should resist, or should attempt to apprehend A. A has committed the offence defined in this section.
Ingredients of S. 307 BNS:
- The accused commits theft; and
- He had made preparation for causing death, or hurt, or restraint, or fear of death, or of hurt, or of restraint, to any person, in order to the committing of such theft; or
- He had made such preparations for effecting his escape after the committing of such theft; or
- He had made such preparations for retaining of property taken by such theft.
The possession by a thief at the time of his committing a theft of a knife or other weapon, which, if used on a human being, might cause death or hurt, would not of itself justify a conviction under the Section. There must be something to show or from which it may properly be inferred, that the offender made preparation for causing one or more of the results mentioned in the Section.
Punishment:
Rigorous imprisonment for a term which may extend to ten years, and shall also be liable to fine.
Nature of Offence:
The offence under this section is cognizable, non-bailable and is triable by the Magistrate of First Class
Conclusion:
Aggravated forms of theft under the BNS reflect the law’s intention to impose stricter penalties where the gravity of the offense is heightened—whether due to the manner of commission, the place, or the victim involved. Provisions such as Sections 305 to 307 BNS emphasize that theft committed with violence, by armed individuals, or in contexts like dwelling houses or sacred places is treated with greater seriousness. These distinctions serve not only to deter offenders but also to reinforce societal values of safety, sanctity, and trust. Understanding these nuances is crucial for both legal practitioners and the public to appreciate how the law balances justice with protection.
For More Articles on the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 Click Here