Putting person in fear of death or of grievous hurt, in order to commit extortion
Section 387 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 deals with putting person in fear of death or of grievous hurt, in order to commit extortion. Whoever in order to the committing of extortion, puts or attempts to put any person in fear of death or of grievous hurt to that person or to any other, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to seven years, and shall also be liable to fine. The Act came into force on 01 Jan 1862. Repealed by section 358 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 (45 of 2023) with effect from 1 July 2024, but conduct before that date is still charged, tried and appealed under it.
Whoever in order to the committing of extortion, puts or attempts to put any person in fear of death or of grievous hurt to that person or to any other, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to seven years, and shall also be liable to fine.
Section 387, The Indian Penal Code, 1860 (Act 45 of 1860).
Now in the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita
BNS 308 Extortion Close, with changes 78%
Measured by comparing the text of the two provisions, not taken from an official correspondence table — there is no machine-readable one. See both texts side by side before relying on it.
Both regimes are live. The repealed enactment still governs what happened while it was in force. We never redirect one to the other.
Cross-references
Extracted from the operative text of the enactments themselves. Every destination below exists in our corpus.
Referred to by 1
Related judgements & precedents
These are some judgments that construed this section, and hold precedence value. They hold authority on how to read, interpret and use this section.
-
Manik vs The State of Maharashtra Home Department Secretary
Court's Decision & Legal Precedent
When a dead body is recovered and subjected to autopsy and necrotomic evidence is adduced to establish cause of death, failure to prove that the dead body is of the person allegedly murdered by the accused must have fatal and adverse consequence on the prosecution case. The case of an untraceable dead body is different from a case where the dead body is traced and evidence is adduced to prove the identity of the deceased. In the latter case, upon failure to prove identity, the prosecution cannot be permitted to advance a case that the dead body is untraceable. However, this principle applies only when the prosecution itself has put forth the case that the dead body was recovered. In such circumstances, when once identification of the dead body as that of the alleged victim based on fingerprint test is reversed by the High Court, in the absence of appeal by the State or the victim, it cannot be said that the dead body is that of the alleged victim, either for holding the accused guilty of murder under Section 302 IPC or under Section 304 IPC. (Justice C.T. Ravikumar's view, which represents the majority position on this specific issue)
On this section: Criminal intimidation with intent to cause alarm; conviction confirmed as part of custodial torture
-
Bomb Selvam @ Selvam vs The State of Tamil Nadu State Rep. by Deputy Commissioner of Police
Court's Decision & Legal Precedent
The ratio decidendi of the majority opinion (Justice V. Gopala Gowda) is that accomplice evidence, even if the witnesses are not formally designated as accomplices, must be corroborated in material particulars by independent evidence before an accused can be convicted. When the prosecution fails to provide such independent corroboration and the accused has been acquitted of the conspiracy charge, the conviction under abetment cannot be sustained. The burden is on the prosecution to establish the involvement of each accused individually in each offence charged, and mere presence at meetings or involvement in preparatory acts without direct evidence of participation in the crime is insufficient for conviction.
On this section: Punishment for extortion; applied to convict appellants for attempting to extort money from M.K. Balan
-
Manickam @ Poonga Manickam vs The State Rep. by the Deputy Commissioner of Police
Court's Decision & Legal Precedent
The case resulted in divergent opinions. Justice V. Gopala Gowda's ratio: Accomplice evidence requires corroboration from independent sources in material particulars connecting accused with crime. One accomplice cannot corroborate another. When accomplice evidence is the sole link between accused and crime and lacks independent corroboration, conviction cannot be sustained. Acquittal under Section 120-B IPC precludes conviction under Section 109 IPC as the latter requires proof of overt act in pursuance of conspiracy. Justice Arun Mishra's ratio: Accomplice evidence can sustain conviction when corroborated by confessional statements, vehicle recoveries, and circumstantial evidence. Acquittal under Section 120-B does not affect conviction under Section 109 as these are separate offences with different ingredients. Presumption under Section 106 Evidence Act applies when abduction is proved and victim murdered soon thereafter.
On this section: Punishment for extortion - applied to appellants
-
Choudhury Parveen Sultana vs State of West Bengal
Court's Decision & Legal Precedent
The protection afforded to public servants under Section 197 Code of Criminal Procedure does not extend to acts constituting criminal misuse or abuse of their official authority. Acts such as threatening, intimidating, and attempting to extort a complainant to withdraw a criminal complaint are not part of an investigating officer's official duties, regardless of whether they occur during the course of an investigation. Therefore, a public servant accused of such criminal misconduct is not entitled to Section 197 CrPC protection, and a Magistrate may take cognizance of offences against such public servant without prior government sanction. Each case must be examined in its own factual circumstances to determine whether the alleged acts constitute performance of official duties or represent misuse and abuse of authority.
On this section: Sections relating to dacoity with attempt to cause death or grievous hurt and criminal intimidation with criminal intent.
-
Somasundaram @ Somu vs The State Rep. by the Deputy Commissioner of Police
Court's Decision & Legal Precedent
The case presents a divergent opinion on the reliability of accomplice evidence and the legal distinction between criminal conspiracy and abetment. Justice V. Gopala Gowda's ratio is that accomplice evidence requires independent corroboration in material particulars connecting the accused with the crime, and absent such corroboration, conviction cannot be sustained. Furthermore, acquittal under Section 120-B IPC is fatal to conviction under Section 109 IPC as the latter requires proof of specific overt acts in pursuance of conspiracy. Justice Arun Mishra's ratio is that accomplice evidence, when corroborated by multiple independent sources including eyewitness testimony, confessional statements, and recovery of articles, can sustain conviction even without formal designation as accomplice. Additionally, acquittal under Section 120-B does not affect conviction under Section 109 as these are separate offences with distinct ingredients, and the presumption under Section 106 Evidence Act applies when abductors cannot explain the fate of the abducted person.
On this section: Punishment for extortion; applied to convict appellants
-
Shankar Ganesh @ Shankar vs State Rep by the Dy Commisssioner of Police
Court's Decision & Legal Precedent
The case presents a split decision with no single ratio decidendi. Justice V. Gopala Gowda's ratio is that accomplice evidence requires independent corroboration in material particulars connecting the accused with the crime, and when such corroboration is absent and the accused are acquitted of conspiracy, conviction under abetment provisions cannot be sustained. Justice Arun Mishra's ratio is that accomplice evidence can be relied upon when sufficiently corroborated by confessional statements and recovery of articles, and acquittal under Section 120-B does not preclude conviction under Section 109 as these are separate offences with distinct legal requirements.
On this section: Defines extortion; applied to charge of extortion attempt during kidnapping
-
Iruthayaraj@iruthi& ORS. vs Home Ministry State Rep. by the Deputy Commissioner of Police Cbcid Metro Wing Chennai
Court's Decision & Legal Precedent
The ratio decidendi is split between the two judges. Justice Gopala Gowda's ratio: Accomplice evidence, even if corroborated by other accomplices, cannot sustain conviction without independent corroboration in material particulars connecting the accused to the crime. When the charge under Section 120-B (criminal conspiracy) is not proved, conviction under Section 109 (abetment by conspiracy) cannot be sustained as it requires proof of an overt act in furtherance of the conspiracy. The burden remains on the prosecution to prove each accused's individual involvement in the crime beyond reasonable doubt through independent evidence, not merely through accomplice testimony. Justice Arun Mishra's ratio: Accomplice evidence, when corroborated by confessions of co-accused, recovery of material objects, and circumstantial evidence, can sustain conviction even without direct evidence of the accused's presence at the scene of crime. Acquittal under Section 120-B does not affect conviction under Section 109 as these are separate and distinct offences with different ingredients. The presumption that an abductor is a murderer when the victim is found dead soon after abduction can be applied to sustain conviction when circumstantial evidence is overwhelming.
On this section: Punishment for putting person in fear of injury to commit extortion
-
Balamurugan @ Bala and Anr. Etc vs The State of Tamil Nadu Home Department Deputy Commissioner of Police Cbcid Metro Wing
Court's Decision & Legal Precedent
The case resulted in divergent opinions. Justice V. Gopala Gowda held that accomplice evidence requires independent corroboration in material particulars connecting the accused with the crime, and absent such corroboration, conviction cannot be sustained even if the accomplice evidence is otherwise reliable. Justice Arun Mishra held that accomplice evidence can be relied upon if corroborated by confessional statements of other accused, recovery of articles, and circumstantial evidence, and that acquittal under Section 120-B does not preclude conviction under Section 109 when the ingredients of abetment are satisfied.
On this section: Punishment for extortion; applied to demand for money from victim
-
Shahana Parveen vs State
Court's Decision & Legal Precedent
A woman accused of extortion and criminal intimidation is entitled to regular bail when: (1) the evidence against her consists primarily of contradictory statements of the complainant; (2) the case falls within the Arnesh Kumar guidelines suggesting procedural defects in arrest; (3) the trial is expected to take considerable time; (4) she has no prior convictions; (5) she is entitled to the statutory concession for women under Section 437(1) Proviso of Cr.P.C.; and (6) the nature of offences and circumstances do not warrant continued detention.
On this section: Extortion - non-bailable offence carrying imprisonment up to 7 years; applied after complainant's statement recorded
-
Roop Ram Sharma vs State
Court's Decision & Legal Precedent
When a co-accused with a similar or graver role is granted bail, the principle of parity applies to the remaining accused provided their role is not more severe.
On this section: Putting person in fear of death or of grievous hurt, in order to commit extortion.
The holding above is the ratio decidendi as extracted from the judgment by eCourts India, reproduced unaltered — it is a rendering of the court's reasoning, not a substitute for its words. Read the order itself before relying on it.
Judgments citing this section
These may be obiter dicta or a precedent, for you to study. These are the judgments where this section is quoted.
-
… Resultantly, the Trial Court convicted the accused as follows: (i) A1 and A2 were found guilty of the offences under Sections 120B of The Indian Penal Code, 1860 (hereinafter referred to as 'the IPC', for short), Section 365 read with Section 109 of the IPC, Section 387 of the IPC, Section 302 read with Section 109 of the IPC, Section 347 read with 109 of the IPC and under Section 364 read with Section 109 of the IPC. (ii) A3 is found to have acted upon the conspiracy of A1 and A2. He was found guilty of the offences under Section 365 read with Section 109 of the …
-
… Resultantly, the Trial Court convicted the accused as follows: (i) A1 and A2 were found guilty of the offences under Sections 120B of The Indian Penal Code, 1860 (hereinafter referred to as 'the IPC', for short), Section 365 read with Section 109 of the IPC, Section 387 of the IPC, Section 302 read with Section 109 of the IPC, Section 347 read with 109 of the IPC and under Section 364 read with Section 109 of the IPC. (ii) A3 is found to have acted upon the conspiracy of A1 and A2. He was found guilty of the offences under Section 365 read with Section 109 of the …
-
… Resultantly, the Trial Court convicted the accused as follows: (i) A1 and A2 were found guilty of the offences under Sections 120B of The Indian Penal Code, 1860 (hereinafter referred to as 'the IPC', for short), Section 365 read with Section 109 of the IPC, Section 387 of the IPC, Section 302 read with Section 109 of the IPC, Section 347 read with 109 of the IPC and under Section 364 read with Section 109 of the IPC. (ii) A3 is found to have acted upon the conspiracy of A1 and A2. He was found guilty of the offences under Section 365 read with Section 109 of the …
Questions about Section 387
What have the courts held on Section 387 of the Indian Penal Code?
Manik vs The State of Maharashtra Home Department Secretary (25 Sep 2024) is the leading judgment on this section among those set out below: Criminal intimidation with intent to cause alarm; conviction confirmed as part of custodial torture. Another 9 judgments on this section are set out below, 8 of them from the Supreme Court. They run from 2006 to 2024.
How do I find court cases under Section 387 of the Indian Penal Code?
In judgments and charge sheets this section is written several ways, and each form finds a different set of orders. These search the full text of every order eCourtsIndia holds, best matches first: IPC 387, section 387 IPC, section 387 of the Indian Penal Code. People searching for it also type ipc 387 is bailable or not and ipc 387 punishment. Each opens the full list of orders on eCourtsIndia, where it can be narrowed by court, year and outcome. 10 reported judgments on this section are set out on this page, beginning with Manik vs The State of Maharashtra Home Department Secretary (25 Sep 2024).
What should I read with Section 387 of the Indian Penal Code, and has it changed?
1 other provision in this corpus refers back to it. For anything done on or after 1 July 2024 the provision to read is BNS 308 (Extortion), which replaced it; conduct before that date is still charged, tried and appealed under this section.
When did Section 387 of the Indian Penal Code come into force?
Section 387 of the Indian Penal Code, cited as IPC 387, came into force on 01 Jan 1862, having been enacted on 06 Oct 1860. It is no longer in force.
Other sections of this Act
- 499. Defamation1512 words
- 464. Making a false document1223 words
- 300. Murder1172 words
- 378. Theft980 words
- 108. Abettor745 words
- 403. Dishonest misappropriation of property727 words
Source and method. Compiled from the enactments of Parliament and of the State legislatures as published on India Code, and republished together with commentary and other original matter under section 52(1)(q)(ii) of the Copyright Act, 1957. Structured, cross-referenced and maintained by eCourtsIndia. Recovered from the consolidated text published by India Code (item 7b7d4fe6-206b-4e33-81f1-b98b018acaf6). This page is not a substitute for legal advice.