1

INDIAN PENAL CODE

TOPIC OF MY PROJECT

- DACOITY Sec 391, Sec-395 and Sec 396

Submitted By- Submitted to-

Shubham Gupta Prof. Vandana Bhanot

Roll No- 81

LLB 4th Semester

2

ACKNOWLEDGEMENT

I would like to express my special thanks of gratitude

to my teacher Prof. Vandana Bhanot, who gave me
the golden opportunity to do this wonderful project
on ‘Dacoity’ and its various sections with the case
study, she also helped me in completing my project.
I came to know about so many things to which I am
thankful.

Secondly, I would like to thank my parents and

friends who helped a lot in finalizing this project
within the limited time span.
3

TABLE OF CONTENTS

S.No PARTICULARS PAGES

1. Dacoity Section- 391 4-5 pages

2. Dacoity Section- 395 6-7

3. Dacoity Section- 396 7

4. Cases 8-9

5. Bibliography 10
4

Sections of Dacoity-
Section -391. Dacoity.- When five or more persons conjointly
commit or attempt to commit a robbery, or where the whole
number of persons conjointly committing or attempting to
commit a robbery, and persons present and aiding such
commission or attempt, amount to five or more, every person
so committing, attempting or aiding, is said to commit”
dacoity”.

There are three ingredients in Dacoity:

- The accused commit or attempt to commit robbery;

- Persons committing or attempting to commit robbery and
persons present and aiding must not be less than five;
- All such persons should act conjointly.

Robbery committed by five or more persons is Dacoity. Five

or more persons must either conjointly commit or attempt to
commit robbery, then only the offence of dacoity is
constituted. The word conjointly refers to united or concerted
action of five or more persons participating in the act of
committing the offence. When their individual action can be
properly referred to their concerted action only then the
offence under this section is committed.

Five or more persons should be concerned in the commission

of the offence and they should commit or attempt to commit
robbery. For application of this application of this section it is
5

necessary that all the persons should share the common

intension of committing robbery. The accused must be shown
to have committed robbery or aided in the commission of it
and that they must be among the body of persons who
extorted money or aided them in extorting money.

In counting the number of offenders for the purposes of this

section the whole number of persons conjointly committing or
attempting to commit a robbery and persons present and
aiding such commission or attempt are taken into account.

Difference between Robbery and Dacoity :-

- Every case of dacoity is primarily a case of robbery but

vice-versa is not correct.
- In dacoity the number of participants must be five or
more; in robbery the number of participants is always
less than five because robbery committed by five or more
persons is dacoity.

CASE:-

The Supreme Court in the case of Saktu v. State, made it

clear that section 391 where says that the conviction of
minimum five persons is necessary for an offence of dacoity.
It will thus be seen that the principle underlying joint liability
under Section 34, 149, 120-A, which is punishable under
Section 120-B, is similar to offence of dacoity under Section
391 which is punishable under Section 395.
6

Section – 395. - Punishment for dacoity. Whoever commits

dacoity shall be punished with 1[imprisonment for life], or with
rigorous imprisonment for a term which may extend to ten years,
and shall also be liable to fine.

In a dacoity case nine persons had participated out of which only

four were convicted by the Court of Sessions. Out of these four
only one was convicted by the High Court and the remaining were
discharged, in these circumstances conviction of only one cannot
be justified because ina dacoity at least five persons are required.

In a case the appellants were alleged to have committed dacoity

in relation to certain railway property. No direct evidence was
available. Only a truck was standing near the railway track on
which 63 pieces of C.S.T. 9, plates were found and when asked
by the policemen to stop, the truck inmates refused to stop. It was
held that the prosecution case must fail because: firstly, the fact
that what was being carried by the truck were the stolen goods
belonging to the railway was not established. Secondly, stoppage
of truck by policeman and resistance offered by the inmates of the
truck cannot be a piece of evidence of dacoity.

CASE:-

In State of Rajasthan v. Sukhpal Singh, the respondent along with

six others looted the State Bank of Bikaner and Jaipur. After
looting the bank they ran away in a blue Ambassador car which
met with an accident in the way. At that place they were
intercepted by the police and after the game of hide ad seek and
after a hot chase they were apprehended. The trial court found
7

them guilty of dacoity and punished them under section 395 I.P.C
but the High Court reversed the judgment. In appeal the SC found
them guilty of the offence of dacoity but instead of punishing them
under this section, imposed upon each of them a fine of Rs.3000
keeping into account their social status and future prospects.
Such an attitude of the Court, it is submitted, is not in the fitness
of the thing.

Section-396 . Dacoity with murder- If any one of five or more

persons who are conjointly committing dacoity, commits murder in
so committing dacoity every one of these persons shall be
punished with death, or imprisonment for life, or rigorous
imprisonment for a term which may extend to ten years, and shall
also be liable to fine.

Dacoity with murder creates co-extensive responsibility of each

participant for murder in the act of such a dacoity.

INGREDIENTS.- The following are the ingredients of this section:

- The dacoity must be the joint act of the accused persons.
- Murder must have been committed in the course of the
commission of the dacoity.

If any one of the five or more persons who are conjointly

committed dacoity commit murder in so committing dacoity then
every one of all the accused at the scene of dacoity is not
necessary.
8

CASE-

 Shyam Behari vs. State Of Uttar Pradesh

FACTS: The appellant had been charged inter alia with having
committed an offence under Section 396, Indian Penal Code,
along with other persons committed dacoity in the house of
Mendai and that in the commission of such dacoity, murder was
committed by one of the members. The learned Sessions Judge
found that the appellant, and others, had entered the house of
Mendai with intent to commit a robbery but were foiled in the
attempt owing to Mendai and Ganga having raised a hue and cry.
The residents of Banni Purwa and the adjoining “Abadi” of village
Banni arrived on the scene and the appellant and his
companions, without collecting any booty, ran away from the
house of Mendai. They were chased by Mendai and Ganga and
when they were crossing the ditch of Pipra Farm, Mendai caught
hold of one dacoit. Another dacoit who was identified by several
witnesses as the appellant thereupon fired a pistol shot which hit
Mendai and Mendai fell to the ground and was removed to the
hospital where he died. The appellant shot and killed Mendai to
secure the release of one of his companions and also to ensure
their safe retreat.

The appeal of the appellants was dismissed by the High Court

and the death sentence passed by the Learned Sessions Judge
was confirmed upon them.
9

 Satya Narain Choube vs. State Of Madhya Pradesh

FACTS: It has been has found that these accused along with
others (total 5 or more), committed dacoity in the house of
Babulal. The dacoits exploded Bombs in the house beat the
inmates of the house including ladies and looted them of their
cash, ornaments and utensils. When the neighbours came to help
the inmates of the house, on their hue and cry, the dacoits threw
Bombs and one Bomb exploded at Chhedilal neighbour, who died
as a result of this explosion and resultant injuries.

The trial Court found that though the identity of other dacoits
could not be established and they could not be arrested, yet they
were more than 5 dacoits in all who participated in this dacoity.

--------x-----------x-----------x-------------x----------------x-------------x------
10

BIBLIOGRAPHY

 Textbook on INDIAN PENAL CODE – with the criminal law

(amendment) Act 2018, 21st edition by Prof. S.N. Mishra

 www.indiankanoon.org

 Textbook on INDIAN PENAL CODE by K.D Gaur