K. SREEDHAR RAO, J. ( 1 ) THE case of the prosecution discloses that on 16. 2. 05, the accused visited the house of PW 1 robbed cash of Rs. 8000/- and gold jewellary marked at Mos 1 to 11. The accused is a nephew in the sense. e. , brother-in-law of PW 1. The accused at the time of robbery assaulted with iron rod and TV remote caused bloody injuries. After robbery, accused went away by locking the doors from outside, PW 1 informed her husband by telephone about the incident. PW 2-daughter of pw 1 after return from school finds that the door is locked and mother is injured. PW 2 also informs the land lady-PW 8 about the incident, PW 8 come to the scene and console PW 1. PW 1 is admitted to the hospital for treatment. The FIR is lodged on the same day in the night at 10. 30 p. m. , The accused is arrested. The property robbed is recovered and marked at Mos 1 to 11. PW 1 testifies the above incriminating circumstances. The post event circumstances are testified to by PW 8 and PW 5-the husband of PW 1. The circumstances of recovery, the injuries of PW 1 also corroborate the evidence of PW 1. ( 2 ) IT is the contention of the accused that he did visit the house of PW 1. On the said date and time but Mos 1 to 11 are the properties belonging to him, therefore, he took those properties despite the resistance of PW 1. It is argued by the Learned Counsel for the accused that if really the accused had intention of robbery, he could have robbed the gold jewellary worn by PW 1. The accused has only taken his property from PW 1 and it does not amount to robbery. ( 3 ) THE prosecution has not established by cogent evidence to prove that PW 1 had title over Mos 1 to 11, only the possession is proved. The robbery is the higher manifested form of offence of theft. Section 379 of IPC defines the theft in the following manner: 370, Theft.-Whoever, intending to take dishonestly any movable 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. The robbery is the higher manifested form of offence of theft. Section 379 of IPC defines the theft in the following manner: 370, Theft.-Whoever, intending to take dishonestly any movable 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. ( 4 ) IN order to constitute theft, two necessary ingredients have to be established. The first ingredient is dishonestly taking away the movable property. The second ingredient is such taking should be without the consent of the person. In the present case, the evidence of PW 1 may prove that MOs 1 to 11 have taken without her consent, but when there is a dispute with regard to title over Mos 1 to 11 it cannot be categorically said that the accused was guilty of dishonestly taking away the property. The taking of the property by violence and force may be unlawful, but such a conduct may not amount to robbery. ( 5 ) FOR the injuries inflicted on PW 1, the accused to be held guilty only Under Section 324 of ipc. The accused is sentenced to a fine of Rs. 20000/-in default to suffer SI for a period of six months. Out of the fine amount PW 1 to be paid compensation of Rs. 15000/-.