ROBBERY AND DACOITY

Submitted by

MD. ALI IMRAN

--------------------------------------------

Roll No. 30 Class B.A.LL.B 3RD Semester (Regular) of

Faculty of Law

Jamia Millia Islamia

In

NOVEMBER, 2018

Under the guidance of

DR. SAADIYA
--------------------------------

Assistant Professor at Jamia Millia Islamia, New Delhi -110025

1
 CERTIFICATE

The project entitled “ROBBERY AND DACOTY” submitted to the Faculty of Law, Jamia Millia Islamia
for Law of Crimes I as part of Internal Assessment is based on my original work carried out under the
guidance of Dr. Saadiya from 30th October to November 2018. The Research work has not been submitted
elsewhere for award of any degree.

The material borrowed from other sources and incorporated in the research paper has been duly
acknowledged.

I understand that I myself would be held responsible and accountable for plagiarism, if any, detected later
on.

Signature of the Candidate

Date:
2
INDEX

1. Introduction…………………………………………………………………………………………4
2. Robbery……………………………………………………………………………………………..4
3. Essential ingredients of the offence of Robbery …………………………………………………...4
4. When theft is robbery………………………………………………………………………....…....5
5. When extortion is robbery……………………………………………………………………….....6
6. Punishment for robbery………………………………………………………………………........8
7. Attempt to commit robbery………………………………………………………………………...8
8. Aggravated form of robbery………………………………………………………………………...8
9. Dacoity ……………………………………………………………………………………….........8
10. Essential Ingredients of dacoity………………………………………………………………….….9
11. Proof of dacoity………………………………………………………………………….…………10
12. Punishment for Dacoity …………………………………………………………………………...10
13. Aggravated form of dacoity………………………...............................................................10
14. Conclusion………………………………………………………………………………………....12
15. Bibliography…………………………………………………………………………………….....13

3
 ROBBERY AND DACOITY

1. INTRODUCTION

These two might seem similar in common usage but, they are two distinct crimes under the Criminal Law.

A robbery is committed by one to four persons and having the ingredients of Section 389 is a robbery.
Where five or more persons had committed or attempted to commit a robbery, it is called dacoity. The main
difference between robbery and dacoity is the number of the accused participated in the offence.

2. ROBBERY

Section 390 of Indian Panel Code defines the term robbery.

Robbery is a special and aggravated from of either theft or extortion and means felonious taking from the
person of another or in his presence against his wall, by violence or putting him in fear, and it becomes
dacoity when it is committed by five or more person co-jointly.

Robbery in common language means to deprive a person of his or her property. The chief distinguishing
element in robbery is the presence of imminent fear of violence.

In all robbery, there is either theft or extortion. The essence of the robbery is that the offender for
committing theft or for carrying away or attempting to carry away the looted property, voluntarily causes or
attempts to cause death or hurt or wrongful restrain.1

2.1 Essential ingredients of the offence of Robbery are as follows:2

i. Committed theft as defined in Section 378.

ii. Offender caused or attempted to cause to some persons:

a) Fear of death, or hurt or wrongful restraint,

b) Fear of instant death, or of instant hurt or of instant wrongful restrain.

1
P S A Pillai, Criminal Law, (LexisNexis, Haryana, 13th edi., 2017).
2
http://www.academia.edu/19235540/Robbery_And_Dacoity.
4
 iii. Offender did such act either

a) in order to the committing of the theft

b) while committing the theft
c) in carrying away or attempting to carry away the property.

Robbery includes either theft or extortion. Section 390 shows that there can’t be any robbery; if there is no
theft or extortion. Both in theft and extortion, dishonesty is an essential ingredient. So, if there is no element
of dishonesty in an act, there can be no offence of theft or extortion and consequently there can’t be an
offence of robbery. Similarly, removal of movable property from the possession of another is a necessary
element to constitute an offence of theft. If this element is absent, then there is no theft and consequently,
there will be no robbery either.

In order to verify whether a particular act would amount to a robbery or not, one has to first establish that the
offence has essential ingredients of theft or extortion, since robbery is nothing but an aggravated form of
theft and extortion.

No minimum number of participants is prescribed in Robbery. Robbery may be committed by one person to
four persons. In robbery, the real wrong-doer is only punished. The offender of robbery should be present at
the victim, and should create fear of death.

2.2 When theft is robbery

Theft is “robbery” if, in order to the committing of the theft, or in committing the theft, or in carving 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.

Where robbery as an aggravated from of theft is alleged, following things has to be proved.3

i. Theft:

Proof of theft is essential for convicting a person for robbery.

Meaning of theft under sec 378 “whoever intending to take dishonestly any moveable property out of
the possession of any person without that person’s consent, moves that property in order to such
taking, in said to commit theft.”

3
Ibid
5
 Ingredients of theft:

A. Dishonest intention to take property.

B. Property must be moveable
C. That should be in possession of another person.
D. There must be removal or moving of that property
E. Without consent of the owner.

ii. Death, hurt or wrongful Restraint:

Accused should in order to commit theft, either causes or attempts to cause any person’s death
or hurt him or put him under a wrongful restraint.

iii. Fear of death, hurt or wrongful Restraint:

There may be fear of instant death or of instant hurt or of instant wrongful to the victim to achieve
the and specified in section 390

iv. For the specified in sec. 390:

The use of violence will not convert the offence of theft into robbery the violence he be committed
for one of the ends specified in sec. 390 viz to committing of theft carrying away or attempting to
carry away property obtained by theft.

Illustration:

‘A’ holds ‘Z’ down and fraudulently takes Z’s clothes without Z’s consent. Here ‘A’ has committed theft
and in order to the committing of that theft, has voluntarily caused wrongful restraint to ‘Z’. ‘A’ has
therefore committed robbery.

2.3 When extortion is 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

6
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.4

Where robbery as an aggravated form of extortion if alleged, following things has to be proved.

i. Extortion:

A proof of extortion is essential for convicting a person for robbery.

Under sec 383 whoever intentionally puts any person in fear of any injury to that person or to any
other and thereby dishonestly induces the person so put in fear to deliver to any person any property
or valuable security or anything singed or sealed which may be converted into a valuable security,
commits extortion.

ii. Fear of Instant death, hurt or wrongful Restraint:

There must be extortion by putting the person in fear of instant death or of instant hurt or of instant
wrongful restraint to that person or to some other person and they by doing so, induces the person so
put in fear then and there to deliver up the thing extorted.

Illustration:

‘A’ object property from ‘Z’ by saying “your child is in the hands of my gang and will be put to
death unless you send us ten thousand Rs”. This is extortion punishable as such but it is not robbery,
unless ‘Z’ is put in fear of the instant death of his child.

iii. Presence of person put in fear:

It is necessary that the extortion must be committed by the offender in the presence of the person put
in fear and commits the extortion by putting that person in fear of instant death, hurt or wrongful
restraint. The offender is said to be present if he is sufficiently near to put the other person in fear of
instant death, hurt or wrongful robbery.

Illustration:

‘A’ meets ‘Z’ on the high road, 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 extorted in his presence ‘A’ has therefore committed robbery.

4
https://www.legalbites.in/law-notes-ipc-robbery-and-dacoity/
7
3. Punishment for robbery

According to section 392 of IPC, Whoever commits robbery shall be punished with rigorous imprisonment
for a term which shall not be less than three years nor more than ten years and shell also be liable to fine and
if the robbery be committed on the highway the imprisonment may be extended to fourteen years.5

4. Attempt to commit robbery

Section 393 of IPC deals with Attempt to commit robbery.—whoever attempts to commit robbery shall be
punished with rigorous imprisonment for a term which may extend to seven years, and shall also be liable to
fine.6

5. Aggravated form of robbery

Voluntarily causing hurt in committing robbery (section 394) — If any person, in committing or in
attempting to commit robbery, voluntarily causes hurt, such person, and any other person jointly concerned
in committing or attempting to commit such robbery, 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.

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. Not only the person who
actually causes hurt but an associate of his/her would equally be liable for the mischief contemplated by this
section.7

Shravan Dashrath Darange v. State of Maharashtra, (1997) 2 Crimes 47 (Bom).

6. 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

5
BARE ACT, The Indian Penal Code (Universal Law Publishing, 2018).

6
Ibid
7
P S A Pillai, Criminal Law (LexisNexis, Haryana, 13th edi., 2017).
8
commission or attempt, amount to five or more, every person so committing, attempting or aiding, is said to
commit “dacoity”.

Section 391 defines robbery. There is no difference in between robbery and dacoity accept in the number of
offenders.

When robbery is either committed or an attempt to commit it is made by five or more persons then all such
persons, who are present or aiding in its commission or in an attempt to commit it, would commit the
offence of dacoity.8

State of Maharashtra v. Joseph Mingel Koli, (1997) 2 Crimes 228 (Bom).

Dacoity is most serious and heinous offence than robbery. In dacoity, every member of the gang of dacoity
is punished, whether he takes active part or not. If one of members of dacoity commits wrong defined under
this section, all the members are held liable for punishment. Every member of dacoity group need not
present at the victim. In a circumstance, where one is watching at the centre, another at door of the house,
remain commit terror in the minds of the owner, all the members are liable, including those who do not
present at the very spot of offence.

6.1 Essential Ingredients of dacoity:9

i. Five or more persons:

Under this section, the number of persons committing robbery must be five or more.

In Ram Shankar Singh v. State of Uttar Pradesh) where the evidence showed that there were six
robbers but at the trial three were acquitted, it was held that the conviction under this section is not
sustainable.

ii. Committing or attempting to commit robbery:

Robbery becomes dacoity when it is committed by five or more persons. Even an attempted robbery
by five or more persons amounts to an offence of dacoity and the fact that the dacoits failed to
remove any booty is irrelevant.

iii. Co-jointly committing:

There should be co-jointly committing of offence of dacoity. (Om Prakash v State, AIR 1956 All
163).

8
https://www.legalbites.in/law-notes-ipc-robbery-and-dacoity/.
9
http://www.academia.edu/19235540/Robbery_And_Dacoity
9
 Word co-jointly used in section 391. The word conjointly refers to the united or concerted action of 5
or more person should be concerned in the commission of the offence or they should commit or
attempt to commit robbery.

6.2 Proof of dacoity:

A decoity begins as soon as there is an attempt to commit robbery. It is not necessary that the force or
menace should be displayed by any overt act and it may be implied in the conduct of the mob.

Dacoity is perhaps the only offence which is punishable at three stages.

They are:

Making preparations for commission of dacoity (a person who makes preparation is punishable under s399),
assembling for the purpose of committing dacoity (each of the person who assembles is guilty under s 402)
and belonging to a gang of dacoits (s 400).

7. Punishment for Dacoity

According to section 395 of IPC, Whoever commits dacoity shall be punished with imprisonment for life, or
which rigorous imprisonment for a term which may extend to ten year, and shall also be liable to fine.

8. Aggravated form of dacoity

Dacoity with murder (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.

In order to bring home the offence of dacoity with murder under s 396, it is not necessary to prove that
murder was committed by any particular member of the gang or that it was a common intention of the gang
to commit the murder or that other members of the gang expected the murder to take place. Nor is it
necessary to prove that murder was committed jointly by all the members of the gang. All that is required to
be established by the prosecution is that the murder had been committed while committing a dacoity. If that

10
is established, then all the members of the gang, who have committed dacoity, are also equally liable for the
murder under this section. 10

However, if the dacoity has failed and the offenders are running away without any booty, while others are
chasing them, one of the dacoits kills someone of the persons chasing them; other members of the gang
cannot be guilty under s 396 of the IPC.

10
Supra7
11
 9. CONCLUSION

I can say, that the definition of robbery contemplates that an accused should from very beginning have the
intention to deprive another person of the property and to achieve that end, either hurt is caused or a person
is placed under wrongful restraint, or it must be actually found that victim was put in fear of instant death,
hurt or wrongful confinement when the same offence is committed by five or more serious in nature. There
is no difference in between robbery and dacoity accepts in the number of offenders. If robbery is committed
on the highway, the imprisonment may be extended to fourteen years. The fact that the Dacoity is committed
on the highway does not change the position or punishment. The abettors are liable independently in robbery
while in dacoity abettors who are present and aiding when the crime is committed are counted in the number.
Dacoity is more serious offence than robbery because of the terror caused by the presence number of
offenders.

12
 BIBLIOGRAPHY

BOOKS

1. P S A Pillai, Criminal Law (LexisNexis, Haryana, 13th edi., 2017).

2. Bare Act, The Indian Penal Code (Universal Law Publishing, 2018).

WEB REFERENCES

1. “Robbery And Dacoity”, http://www.academia.edu/19235540/Robbery_And_Dacoity.

2. “Robbery and Dacoity(390-402) Chapter XVII of IPC”, https://www.writinglaw.com/robbery-and-
dacoity-390-402-chapter-xvii-of-ipc/.
3. “Robbery and Dacoity – MEANING AND IMPORTANT PROVISIONS”,
https://www.legalbites.in/law-notes-ipc-robbery-and-dacoity/.
4. PRAJWAL PUJARI, “Difference between “Robbery” and “Dacoity” – Explained!” ,
http://www.shareyouressays.com/knowledge/difference-between-robbery-and-dacoity-
explained/115763.

CASES

1. Shravan Dashrath Darange v. State of Maharashtra, (1997) 2 Crimes 47 (Bom)

2. State of Maharashtra v. Joseph Mingel Koli, (1997) 2 Crimes 228 (Bom).
3. Ram Shankar Singh v. State of Uttar Pradesh, AIR 1956 SC 441.

13