Robbery and Dacoity | 17 Nov 2023

Introduction

‘Robbery’ is an aggravated form of either ‘theft’ and ‘extortion’ or of both.

The essence of the offence of robbery is the presence of imminent fear or violence.
A large proportion of robberies are a mixed case of aggravated form of theft and
extortion.
‘Robbery’ committed by five or more people is a dacoity.

Robbery- Meaning.

According to Section 390 of Indian Penal Code 1860 (IPC), in all robbery there is either
theft or extortion.

Conditions when theft is Considered as Robbery-

Theft is “robbery” if, in order to the committing of the theft, or in committing the
theft, or in carrying away or attempting to carry away property obtained by
the theft, the offender, for that end, voluntarily causes or attempts to cause to any
person death or hurt or wrongful restraint, or fear of instant death or of instant
hurt, or of instant wrongful restraint.
Conditions when Extortion is Considered as Robbery
Extortion is “robbery” if the offender, at the time of committing the extortion,
is in the presence of the person put in fear, and commits the extortion by
putting that person in fear of instant death, of instant hurt, or of instant
wrongful restraint to that person or to some other person, and, by so putting in
fear, induces the person, so put in fear then and there to deliver up the thing
extorted.
Illustrations
A holds Z down, and fraudulently takes Z’s money and jewels from Z’s clothes,
without Z’s consent. Here A has committed theft, and, in order to commit that
theft, has voluntarily caused wrongful restraint to Z. A has, therefore, committed
robbery.
A meets Z on the high roads, shows a pistol, and demands Z’s purse. Z, in
consequence, surrenders his purse. Here A has extorted the purse from Z by
putting him in fear of instant hurt and being at the time of committing the
extortion in his presence. A has, therefore, committed robbery.

Punishment for Robbery

Section 392 prescribes the punishment for robbery. The maximum punishment for
the offence of robbery shall be rigorous imprisonment for a term which may extend
to ten years and fine as well.
If the robbery is committed on the highway between sunset and sunrise, it is
considered an aggravating factor and the imprisonment may be extended to
fourteen years.

Attempt to Commit Robbery

Section 393 punishes an attempt to commit robbery with rigorous imprisonment

which may extend to seven years and also fine.
It was observed by the Supreme Court in the case of Venu alias Venugopal v. State of
Karnataka, (2008) that robbery is an aggravated form of offence of theft or
extortion, and aggravation is in use of violence, of death, hurt or restraint.
 Violence must be in the course of theft and not subsequently. It is not necessarily
violence must be committed even attempt is enough.

Punishment for being a Member of Gang of Thieves or Robbers

Section 401 of the IPC punishes those who constitute a gang of thieves or robbers.
It is not necessary to prove that each individual member of the gang has habitually
committed theft or has committed any particular theft in the company with the
other members.
Being a member of the gang is enough for punishment. Punishment for being a
member of a gang of thieves or robbers is imprisonment for a term up to seven years
with fine.

Aggravated form of Robbery

Section 394 is a special provision, which is applicable to cases where the offender has
actually caused hurt to the victim for the purpose of committing robbery or in
attempt to commit robbery.
Whoever commits an offence under Section 394 shall be punished with
imprisonment for life, or with rigorous imprisonment for a term which may
extend to ten years and shall also be liable for fine.
An offence punishable under Section 394 is not compoundable with or without the
permission of the court concerned.
Similarly, Section 397 and 398 do not create any specific offence but merely regulate
the punishment already provided for robbery. These sections fix a minimum term of
imprisonment when the commission of robbery has been attended with certain
aggravating circumstances merely the use of deadly weapon, or the causing or
grievous hurt or attempting to cause death or grievous hurt.
Section 397 and Section 398 fixes the minimum punishment of imprisonment which
shall not be less than seven years.

Dacoity

Section 391 of IPC states that ‘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.’

Essentials of Crime of Dacoity

Five or more people should be concerned in the commission of the offence.

Act must be robbery or attempt to commit robbery.
Five persons must consist of those who themselves commit or attempt to commit
robbery or those who are present and aid the principal actors in the commission or
attempt of such robbery.

Punishment for Dacoity

Section 395 of IPC provides punishment for dacoity. The maximum punishment for
the offence of dacoity is life imprisonment or rigorous imprisonment for a term which
may extend to ten years and shall also be liable for fine.

Aggravated form of Dacoity

 Section 396 of IPC states that if any one of five or more persons, who are conjointly
committing dacoity, commits murder in so committing dacoity, every one of those
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.

Offences Connected with Dacoity

Section 399, 400 and 402 are all provisions which deal with offences connected with
dacoity.

Preparation to Commit Dacoity

Section 399 of the IPC states that whoever makes any preparation for
committing dacoity, shall be punished with rigorous imprisonment for a term
which may extend to ten years, and shall also be liable to fine.
Ordinarily, preparation to commit an offence is not per se punishable. Dacoity is
one of the few exceptions to the general rule.
Dacoity has been regarded as an offence so intrinsic against the interests of the
public that the legislature has made a departure from the general rule and made
even preparation to commit dacoity an offence punishable under IPC even if
the people concerned do not proceed beyond the stage of preparation.
However, a mere assembly of persons carrying knives, choppers etc., does not
attract Section 399 unless some act amounting to preparation is proved.

Belonging to Gangs of Dacoits

Section 400 of IPC states that whoever, at any time after the passing of the code,
shall belong to a gang of persons associated for the purpose of habitually
committing dacoity, shall be punished with imprisonment for life, or with
rigorous imprisonment for a term which may extend to ten years, and shall
also be liable to fine.

Assembling for Purpose of Committing Dacoity

Section 402 of the IPC states that whoever, at any time after the passing of the code,
shall be one of five or more persons assembled for the purpose of committing
dacoity, shall be punished with rigorous imprisonment for a term which may extend
to seven years, and shall also be liable to fine.

Minimum Sentence to be Awarded in Certain Cases of Dacoity

Section 397 of the code states that if at the time of committing robbery or dacoity,
the offender uses any deadly weapon, or causes grievous hurt to any person, or
attempts to cause death or grievous hurt to any person, the imprisonment with
which such offender shall be punished shall not be less than seven years.

Attempt to Commit Robbery or Dacoity when Armed with Deadly Weapon

Section 398 of the code states that if at the time of attempting to commit robbery or
dacoity, the offender is armed with any deadly weapon, the imprisonment with
which such offender shall be punished shall not be less than seven years.

Case Law

Ram Shankar Singh v. State of Uttar Pradesh (1955):

 In this case six people were charged with committing dacoity. Three out of the
six people were acquitted. The charges framed did not indicate that along with
the six people there were other unknown persons with them, who had committed
dacoity.
The charges were that the six people, who were placed on trial, were the persons
who had committed dacoity.
Since three persons were acquitted, there were only three other persons left as
the persons involved with the crime. The SC held that the three persons could be
convicted only to the lesser offence of robbery under Section 392 and not for
dacoity under Section 395 of IPC.
Ghotlu Modi v. State of Bihar (1985):
Patna High Court held that mere assembly of some persons sitting together in a
lonely house under construction at night with some firearms, bombs etc., does
not make out a case of conviction under Section 399 as there was no indication
that they intended to commit dacoity.