Uttarakhand Calamity: Looting & IPC Provisions

Relevant Provisions of the Indian Penal Code

The actions of individuals removing valuables from the dead bodies in Uttarakhand can attract prosecution under several sections of the IPC. These sections relate to theft, receiving stolen property, and offences against the human body.

1. Section 378 – Theft

Section 378 defines theft as the dishonest appropriation of movable property out of the possession of another with the intention of permanently depriving the other of it. In this case, the ‘other’ would be the legal heirs of the deceased. The key elements to prove theft are:

• Dishonest intention: The individuals must have had the intention to permanently deprive the legal heirs of the ornaments and valuables.
• Movable property: Gold ornaments, watches, and other valuables clearly fall under this category.
• Possession of another: The deceased had possession of these items.
• Appropriation: Taking possession of the property.

However, proving ‘dishonest intention’ might be challenging as the individuals might claim they intended to safeguard the valuables or return them later. The prosecution would need to establish beyond reasonable doubt that the intention was to permanently deprive.

2. Section 379 – Punishment for Theft

If theft is established under Section 378, Section 379 prescribes the punishment. The punishment for theft is imprisonment for a term of up to three years, or with fine, or with both. The severity of the punishment would depend on the value of the stolen property and the circumstances of the case.

3. Section 411 – Dishonestly Receiving Stolen Property

Even if the individuals did not directly steal the valuables from the bodies, they can be prosecuted under Section 411 if they are found in possession of property that they know or have reason to believe was stolen. This section applies even if the property was stolen by someone else. The key elements are:

• Dishonest receipt: Receiving the property dishonestly.
• Knowledge or reason to believe: Having knowledge or a reasonable belief that the property was stolen. This is crucial. If they can convincingly argue they didn’t know the property was stolen, prosecution under this section becomes difficult.

Section 411 carries a punishment of imprisonment which may extend to five years, or with fine, or with both.

4. Section 297 – Disrespect to a dead body

Section 297 deals with offences relating to corpses. It states that whoever, with a knowing disregard for the feelings of any person, disrespects or disturbs the peace of any place of worship or burial ground, or any place set apart for the performance of funeral rites, or any corpse, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to one year, or with fine, or with both. Removing valuables from a dead body, especially in a disaster situation, can be construed as disrespecting the corpse and disturbing the dignity of the deceased. This section focuses on the act’s impact on the sentiments of others.

5. Section 304A – Causing death by negligence (Potential Consideration)

While less directly applicable, if the act of removing valuables hindered rescue efforts or contributed to further harm to the deceased or other victims, a charge under Section 304A (causing death by negligence) could be considered, though this is a stretch and would require a strong causal link.

Challenges in Prosecution

Several challenges may arise during prosecution:

• Establishing Mens Rea: Proving the ‘dishonest intention’ of the accused can be difficult.
• Identifying Legal Heirs: Identifying the legal heirs of the deceased to establish ownership of the stolen property can be a lengthy process, especially in a mass casualty event.
• Evidence Collection: Collecting and preserving evidence in a disaster zone can be challenging.