This document discusses the legal definition and elements of the crime of robbery according to Section 390 of the Penal Code. Robbery is defined as aggravated theft or extortion involving violence, attempted violence, or threats of violence. For robbery by theft, the prosecution must prove that the defendant stole property, intended to take it without consent, did so dishonestly, and used or threatened violence to commit the theft. For robbery by extortion, the prosecution must prove that the defendant put the victim in fear and induced them to hand over property through dishonest means while in their presence. The violence or threat of violence must be causally linked to the commission of the theft or extortion.

1. ROBBERY
CRIMINAL LAW LLB104B
Norhakimah binti Seman @ Abdullah

2. Introduction
Robbery is committed where the accused has
committed theft or extortion and had also used,
attempted to use or threatened to use violence in
order to commit the offence.
It is an aggravated form of theft or extortion.
Refer to s 390 of the Penal Code.

3. Ingredients in s 390
• For robbery by theft, the prosecution must prove:-
• D moved moveable property;
• D intended to take the moveable property without V’s consent;
• D was dishonest;
• Linked to theft or to the taking away of the property, D voluntarily cause:
• Death, hurt or wrongful restraint or
• Fear of instant death, instant hurt or instant wrongful restraint.

4. • For cases of extortion, the prosecution must prove:
• D was in the presence of V;
• D intentionally put V in fear of instant death, instant hurt or instant wrongful
restraint;
• D thereby induced V to deliver property to any person;
• D was dishonest.

5. The Violence
• Both forms of robbery refer to the accused causing, attempting to cause or
threatening to cause death, hurt or wrongful restraint.
• Robbery by theft – must prove that the accused voluntarily caused of attempted
to caused harm and not simply that harm is resulted.
• Where the charge is based on a threat rather than the use of force, there must be
immediacy to the threat. Illutration (c) and (d) indicate hw these provisions
operate to differentiate extortion from robbery.

6. The causal
link
It is necessary to prove that the
violence or attempted violence was
related to the end of theft or
carrying away the property.
Where there is an offence of theft
and also a separate use of violence,
the proper charges will be theft and
of an offence against the person.

7. Bishambar Nath v Emperor AIR (1941)
• The applicants tried their luck at a dart shooting stall at a carnival. An
argument ensued with the manager. A scuffle broke out and thereafter
the applicants removed a cash box and money from a table.
• The court held that it was not sufficient to prove that hurt was caused in
the circumstances. The words “to that end” meant that it was only
robbery if the violence was inflicted with the primary object of enabling
the commission of theft or carrying the goods away.

8. PP v Victor
Rajoo
(1995)
The accused was convicted of raping
a girl in the back of a van.
He had then taken her money. The
court found that the causal link was
present as he had just raped her and
there were signs of a struggle with
respect with money itself.