1

Dacoity

1. Introduction
Section 391 defines “Dacoity” Dacoity is a most heinous crime considered by the people all over
the world. Where robbery is committed by five or more persons, the offence committed is
dacoity.

2. Meaning and ingredients

Section 391: 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”.

Ingredients of Sec. 391

1. Where robbery is committed by five or more persons, the offence is dacoity.

2. Even if their attempt is failed, it is also considered as dacoity.

3. “Five or more persons”: It is the most essential ingredient of offence of dacoity.

Minimum number of accused five persons is necessary to constitute this offence.

4. “Conjointly commit or attempt to commit”: Another essential element of dacoity is that

the accused (five or more) must conjointly commit or attempt to commit robbery.

The commission of robbery in association by five or more persons is an essential ingredient of

the offence under Section 391. The gravity of the offence consists in the terror it causes by the
presence of a number of offenders. Abettors who are present and aiding when the crime is
committed are counted in the number.

Five or more persons must either conjointly commit or attempt to commit robbery. The word
‘conjointly’ refers to united or concerted action of the persons participating in the transaction.
When their individual action can be properly referred to their concerted action only then the
offence under Section 391 is committed.
 2

For application of Section 391 it is necessary that all the persons should share the common
intention 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 Dhanpat v. State (1960) it was observed that dacoity is perhaps the only offence which the
code has made punishable at four stages. When five or more persons assemble for the purpose of
committing a dacoity, each of them is punishable under Section 402 merely on the ground of
joining the assembly.

Another stage is that of preparation and if any one makes preparation to commit a dacoity, he is
punishable under Section 399. The definition of ‘dacoity’ in Section 391 shows that the other
two stages, namely, the stage of attempting to commit and the stage of actual commission of
robbery, have been treated alike, and come within the definition. In other words, attempt to
commit dacoity is also dacoity.

A person present and aiding the commission or attempt to commit robbery stands on the same
footing for the purposes of Section 391. Though Section 391 does not use the term ‘intentionally’
aid, the requirement of intention can be imported into the section, as an essential element of
dacoity and robbery is an aggravated form of theft and extortion and dishonest intention is an
essential element of both theft and extortion. Thus, there cannot be an offence of dacoity under
Section 391, unless an element of ‘dishonest intention’ on the part of the offender is present.

State of H.P. vs. Jagar Singh (1989): Nine accused attacked the complainant at a place and
threatened to hand over them all he had. They had beaten him. The complainant gave his money,
wrist-watch, cycle, etc. All the accused were punished under Sec. 395 dacoity.

Saktu vs. State of U.P. (1973) case, the Supreme Court held that when it is established that more
than five persons committed the dacoity the fact that conviction of all of them is not possible for
want of evidence, the remaining accused can be convicted even if the number of them is less than
five.
 3

3. Punishment for dacoity

Section 395 imposes punishment imprisonment for life or with rigorous imprisonment for a term
which may extend to ten years and also fine. The offence under this Section is cognizable, non-
bailable, non-compoundable, and triable by the Court of Session.

The offence under Section 395 is cognizable, and warrant should ordinarily, issue in the first
instance. It is both non-bailable and non- compoundable, and is exclusively triable by the Court
of Session.

In Re Muppanna Appanna [AIR 1948 Mad 96], a group of persons come to a house and beat up
the family who were sleeping outside. One accused broke open the door. Three of the accused
went inside and the other two kept guard outside. All the accused helped to remove the boxes.
Later two of the accused carried away the boxes. It was held that the beating and the robbery
were all part of the same transaction and that all the accused acted conjointly. They were all held
to be guilty of committing dacoity under Sections 391 and 395 IPC.

Ram Shankar Singh v. State of Uttar Pradesh (1956), six persons were charged with
committing dacoity. Three out of them were acquitted. The charges framed did not indicate that
along with the six persons there were other unknown persons with them, who had committed
dacoity. The charge was the six persons, 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. Hence, it was held that the three persons could be
convicted with only the lesser offence of robbery under Section 392 and not for dacoity under
Section 395.

Оm Prakash v. State of Rajasthan (1998), the Supreme Court ruled that where the charge of
dacoity is against five named persons and out of them two were acquitted, the remaining three
cannot be convicted for dacoity.

Saktu v. State of Uttar Pradesh (1973), it was alleged that apart from the named seven or eight
persons, five or six committed dacoity. A large number of persons were acquitted because their
identity could not be established. However, there was evidence that there were more than five
 4

persons who committed robbery in the house. So, the conviction under Sections 391 and 395 was
sustained.

Lachhman Ram v. State of Orissa (1985), it was held that in a case of dacoity, the factum of
recovery of articles at the instance of the accused persons in the presence of police officers and
panch witnesses who have deposed to the same is itself sufficient to bring the case not only
under Section 412 but also under Section 391 with the aid of Section 114, Evidence Act when
the recoveries were made very soon after the occurrence and from places not open and accessible
to one and all.

Kissour Pater (1867) it was observed that imminent fear of death, hurt etc., will be sufficient to
bring the Section 391 into operation. Where several persons attacked a house and took away
property, but the imamates obtaining information before hand fled before the attack, it was held
that the fact of the imamates running away was sufficient proof of fear of hurt and wrongful
restraint and the accused were guilty of dacoity.

Burden of proof: As a matter of fact, it is very difficult to identify the accused in the offence of
dacoity. The prosecution must establish (i) that five or more persons jointly committed the
offence; or (ii) that one or more of the attempted or committed to commit robbery; and (iii) that
others were present and aiding such commission or attempt. If the dacoity is committed by
unknown persons, wearing veils in the dark nights it is highly difficult to establish their identity.
Without identity of the accused, the Courts could not impose punishment.

However there are three kinds of evidence generally available in robbery or dacoity. First
occasion, when the offenders are caught red-handed on the spot by the villagers. It is somewhat
difficult in majority dacoities. The reason is that the villagers or residents do not wear the
weapons. The accused wear deadly weapons and attack the complainants with courage and
preplan. Second occasion, when the wrong-doers are arrested in some other cases and they
disclose their previous offences during the interrogation and investigation by the police in other
cases. Third occasion arises when the offender or offenders sell the stolen property after dacoity
in another place. Such property and those accused are red-handedly caught.
 5

Refer this case: Barendra Kumar Ghosh vs. King Emperor (AIR 1925 PC 1)

Kalika Tiwari vs. State of Bihar (1997): The accused formed a group and did dacoity. One of
them murdered the inmate. The trial Court punished all the members of the dacoity. The High
Court imposed punishment only on the member who murdered and acquitted the remaining
members. The Supreme Court held that the High Court erred in acquitting the remaining
members. It held that under Section 396 read with Sees. 302, 32 and 149, when a member of an
unlawful assembly murders, all the members of that unlawful assembly shall be imposed with
the same punishment. [This Case-Law may also be referred to in Topics "Common Intention
Common Object" & "Culpable Homicide and Murder".]

4. Aggravated forms and other section relating to dacoity

Dacoity with murder: According to Section 396, 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. Nature of offence:
Cognizable, non-bailable, non-compoundable, and triable by Court of Session.

Robbery or dacoity, with attempt to cause death or grievous hurt: According to Section 397,
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.
Nature of offence: Cognizable, non-bailable, non-compoundable, and triable by Court of
Session.

Attempt to commit robbery or dacoity when armed with deadly weapon: According to
Section 398, 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. Nature of offence: Cognizable, non-bailable, non-compoundable, and
triable by Court of Session.

Making preparation to commit dacoity: According to Section 399, whoever makes any
preparation for committing dacoity, shall be punished with rigorous imprisonment for a term
 6

which may extend to ten years, and shall also be liable to fine. Nature of offence: Cognizable,
non- bailable, non-compoundable, and triable by Court of Session.

Punishment for belonging to gang of dacoits: According to Section 400, whoever, at any time
after the passing of this Act, 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 Nature of
offence: Cognizable, non-bailable, non-compoundable, and triable by Court of Session.

Punishment for belonging to gang of thieves: According to Section 401, whoever, at any time
after the passing of this Act, shall belong to any wandering or other gang of persons associated
for the purpose of habitually committing theft or robbery and not being a gang of thugs or
dacoits, shall be punished with rigorous imprisonment for a term which may extend to seven
years and shall also be liable to fine. Nature of offence: Cognizable, non-bailable, non-
compoundable, and triable by Magistrate of the first class.

Assembling for purpose of committing dacoity: According to Section 402, whoever, at any
time after the passing of this Act, 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. Nature of offence: Cognizable, non-
bailable, non- compoundable, and triable by Court of Session.

5. Distinction between dacoity and robbery