Note: this post is a part of our important question answer
series on Criminal law (IPC). You can read other questions by clickinghere.
Answer
Yes, the offence herein made out is of theft.
The only place where you can find
these updates earliest,, join our Telegram
or WhatsApp
group and never miss a single update.
A careful perusal of Section 378 reveals the following
essentials required to constitute the offense of theft:
1.
Dishonest intention of taking property from the
possession of someone,
2.
That property should be movable in nature,
3.
The property should be taken without the consent
of the rightful possessor,
4.
Even the slide movement of such property
constitute theft.
The explanation 4 of this section clearly and unequivocally
makes it clear that the animals are also susceptible to theft. Hence, if
someone a dishonestly and without the consent of the true possessor takes away
any animal, it also constitutes theft. Such person is liable to punished under
section 379.
In the given problem, irrespective of the fact that A was
indebted to B, as soon as B removed that cow from the possession of A, the
offence of theft made out.
Let’s connect with the author on LinkedIn,
(Opens in a new tab)
Also read:
- Question: Discuss Kelsen’s pure theory of Law.
- Question: Explain legal status of unborn child.
- Question: "No Consideration No Contract": State the exceptions of this rule.
To Support us:
We hope you found this useful. Support us by Sharing
Your Knowledge or any information. Every contribution toward a goal is
valuable, regardless of how small it may be.
·
You can share your internship experience with In
Light of Law Community, click
here.
·
Write article/ blog/notes/case comments/your Law
School news, click here.
Read important descriptive questions
on Constitutional and Contract Law, Click
here.
Read Paid internship related posts, Click
here.
0 Comments