Commonly, robbery is said to be the act of a person taking property owned by another person, either by force or threat. From the legal point of view, robbery was defined by Mukerji J. in the case of Karali Prasad Dutta v. The East India Railway Co as unlawful theft by another person or against the will of a person in his existence, through the violence or putting her in fear. The issue of robbery is not a new trend in Malaysia. Recently, there is a case where a 17-year-old and his friend were arrested for committing a robbery crime at a convenience store in Sibu, Sarawak. In this case, the offenders were arrested for robbing a 24-hour convenience store worth RM1,000 and would be jailed under Section 395 or 397 of the Penal Code for the crime they committed, which was armed robbery. Say no to plagiarism. Get a tailor-made essay on "Why Violent Video Games Shouldn't Be Banned"? Get Original Essay Our Malaysian law protects us from robbery as there are express provisions made in the Penal Code regulating robbery which comes under the provision of Section 390 to Section 402. Section 390 briefly provides that in robbery there must be theft or extortion . However, robbery is distinct from theft and extortion as elements such as use of force or fear of someone must be present in robbery to distinguish the offenses as mentioned in sub-section (2) and (3) of Section 390. Therefore, in order to establish whether it is the crime of robbery, it is first necessary for the criminal action to demonstrate theft or extortion, as provided respectively by article 378 and article 383. The actus reus for robbery it is similar to theft and extortion but accompanied by the use of force or violence while the mens rea for robbery is the intention to frighten a person so as to commit the criminal act of theft and extortion. For further understanding, one may refer to illustration (e) of section 390 wherein it is said that A commits robbery if Z is walking along a road and A who is on a motorcycle snatches Z's bag and in the process injures Z and subsequently drives away with Z's handbag. According to the case of Karuppa Goundan, it is suggested not to interpret the phrase "for that purpose" as meaning "under those circumstances". In the case of Bishambhar Nath v Emperor, it is held that the use of force or violence will not convert theft into robbery unless the force used is aimed at achieving any of the purposes specified in Section 390(2). Section 391 provides that the offense of collective robbery is committed when two or more persons commit or attempt to commit a robbery together, and of persons present and aiding such commission or attempt. Another proof to demonstrate that our law has effectively protected us from robbery is that the penal code also provides punishment for the crime of robbery, as provided for in Article 392, which provides that a person is punished with imprisonment up to to a maximum of fourteen years, and is also liable to sanctions such as fine or flogging if he commits robbery. In the case of Mohd Shaiful bin Rahmad v PP, the appellant was charged with stealing a gold necklace belonging to the complainant under section 392. The appellant was found guilty and was punished with imprisonment for seven years and two strokes of whippings. Furthermore, whoever commits or attempts to commit robbery, voluntarily causing hurt shall be sentenced to imprisonment for a maximum term of twenty years and at the same time liable to fine or flogging as provided in Section 394. In Muhammad Afandi bin Mukhtar v. Public Prosecutor , yes it isfound that the appellant was responsible for an offense under Article 394 of the Criminal Code in conjunction with Article 34 for voluntarily causing injury to the victim by committing robbery and was imprisoned for nine years from the date of arrest and two whiplash. The penalty for collective robbery has been provided in Section 395 which reads that whoever commits collective robbery shall be punished with imprisonment up to a maximum of twenty years and may also be punished with flogging. Section 396 deals with gang robberies involving murder wherein the offenders shall be subjected to death or imprisonment for a maximum term of thirty years and yet be inflicted with the punishment of flogging if death penalty is not imposed. Section 397 makes caning a mandatory punishment for an offender who arms or uses any dangerous weapon or causes serious injury to another person. The seriousness of the robbery, especially in cases of gang robbery, can be reflected in the higher sentence provided. In the case of Public Prosecutor v Lee Wei Chin & Anor, the Court accepted the Public Prosecutor's appeal, annulling the two-year prison sentence issued by the SCJ and replacing it with the sanction of seven years' imprisonment for both defendants and five lashes with the justification of the seriousness of the crime committed. The fact that the item in question was only RM200, as submitted by the learned counsel for the accused, does not mean that the offense can be treated as trivial in nature. The ordeal and trauma the victim must have undergone when he feared for his life at being confronted with a knife must also be considered. Furthermore, in the case of Mohd Irwan Shah bin Zainaul v PP, the appellant's appeal was rejected and the sentence of 14 years' imprisonment and six strokes of rotan was maintained on the basis that the sentence had to be commensurate with the crime committed for the sentence was commensurate with the crime committed. society to feel safe and protected. As for a comparative study, the anti-robbery law in Singapore can be defined as the Singapore legislature makes caning a mandatory punishment for almost all robbery-related crimes, while the law in Malaysia is still regarded as lenient as it part of the provision suggests that there is the possibility of choosing whether to impose a fine or flogging. For example, in Section 394 of both the Penal Code of Malaysia and the Penal Code of Singapore, the penalty provided in the Penal Code of Malaysia is that the offender shall be imprisoned for a maximum of 20 years and may also be subjected to fine or caning while found in the provision in Singapore states that the offender should be imprisoned for a minimum of 5 years and not exceeding 20 years and caned with a minimum number of 12 strokes. In the Chang Kar Meng v. PP case, the defendant was jailed for five years and caned with 12 strokes for the robbery on the charge of causing injury. As in the Islamic perspective, the Hudud provided for four punishments, including the death penalty, crucifixion, amputation of hands and feet from opposite sides, and even exile. However, the penalties vary depending on the severity of the crime committed. If the robbery occurred without murder, the punishment would be the amputation of the right hand and left leg. If the robbery involves murder, the death penalty will be imposed and the culprit will also be crucified. However, for ḥudud to be executed, a number of conditions must be met, whereby he must be subjected to a fair trial and all forms of doubt and suspicion must be eliminated. Please note: this is just an example. Get a custom paper now from our expert writers. Get an essay.