CAHITER XVJI

Of Offences against Property

Of Robbery and Dacoity
S. 390. Robbery:—
In all robbery there is either theft or extortion.
When theft is robbery:— Theft is "robbery" if, in order to the
the theft, or in committing the theft or in carrying away or
attempting away property obtained by the theft, the offender, for
that end, causes or attempts to cause to any person death or hurt or
wrongful fear of instant death or of instant wrongful restraint.
When extortion is robbery:— Extortion is "robbery" if the offender at
time of committing the extortion, is in the presence of the person put in
fear, commits the extortion by putting that person in fear of death, of hurt,
or of instant wrongful restraint to that person, or to some offer and, by so
putting in fear, induces the person so put in fear than and there to deliver
up the thing extorted.
Explanation:— The offender is said to be present if he is suffide-ctly near to put the other person
in fear of mstant death, or instant hurt, or of wrongful restraint.

Illustrations
(a) A holds Z down, and fraudulently takes Z's money jewels from Zs clothes, without Z's consent.
Here A has committed theft, z-td in order to the committing of that theft, has voluntarily caused
wrongful restrair.t to Z. A has therefore committed robbery.

(b) A meets Z on the high road, shows a pistol, and demands Z's purse.
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.
(c) A meets Z and Z's child on the high road. A takes the child, and
threateß to fling it down a precipice, unless Z delivers his purse. Z
in consequen&' delivers his purse. Here A has extorted the purse
from Z, by causing Z to be in fear of instant hurt to the child who is
there present, A has therefore committed robbery to Z.
 (d) A obtains property from Z by saying—"Your child is in the hands
gang, and will be put to death unless you send us ten thousand
rupees
1his is extortion, and punishable as such; but it is not robbery, unless Z
is put in fear of the instant death of his child. S. 391. Dacoity:—
When five or Ilioro persons conjointly commit or attempt to commit a
robbery, or where the whole number of persons conjointly committing or attem
pting to comm i t 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"
S. 392. Punishment for robbery:—
Whoever commits robbery, shall be punished with rigorous imprisonmctt for
a term which may extend to ten years, and shall also be liable to fine; and, if
the robbery be committed on the highway between sunset and sunrise, the
imprisonment may be extended to fourteen years. S. 393. Attempt to commit
robbery:—
IVhoever 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.
S. 394. Voluntarily causing hurt in committing robbery:—
If any person, in committing or in attempting to commit robbery, voluntarily causes hurt, to such person,
and any other personjointly concemed in commitång 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.

S. 395. Punishment for dacoity:—

Whoever commits 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 Jiable to fine.
S. 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 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.
S. 397. Robbery or dacoity, with attempt to cause death or grievous hurt:—
 I
f, 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.

QUESTIONS AND ANSWERS

Q. 51. Explain with reasons what offence, if any, has been committed
in the illustration given below :
'Z' a passer by in a lonely street is pounced upon by '13' who wants
toforcibly deprive him ofthe valuable on his personflourishes a knife
tofrighten the victim. 'Z' succeeds in depriving '13' of the knife and strikes 'B'
to ward off the attack whett 'A ' suddenly appears not knowing the background
and hits 'Z' on the head with his stick to shield 'B', what ifany offences are
committed by 'B', 'Z' and [Year 19891
Ans: List of acts committed by A, B & Z.
(1) 'Z' is passing in a lonely street.
(2) 'B' wanted to forcibly deprive him of the valuable on the person of
'Z'.
(3) 'B' flourishes a knife to frighten 'Z'.
(4) 'Z' snatches the knife.
(5) 'Z' strikes 'B' with the knife to ward off the attack from 'B'

(6) 'A' intercepts and unknowingly hits 'Z' on his head.

The above particulars show that 'B' conceived the idea of committing
theft of the valuables of He also brandished his knife to cause fear of hurt
to 'Z'. This attempt was stopped by 'Z'. Hence 'B' is guilty of committing an
offence of robbery u/s. 390, punishable u/s. 392 IPC, r/w. 511 1.P.c.
'Z' has committed no offence since he has no mensrea and since he is acting
in self defence u/s. 101 to 104 IPC.
 'A' who is a third party came on the scene, and attacked 'Z' with his stic k.
Therefore, he has committed an offence for the hurt caused on 'Z". Since 'A'
used stick he may be punished for the offence u/s 323 IPC according to the
gravity Of the injury caused on
 Q. 52. 1710' Contplainattt lodged the First Inforntation Report at the
police station saying that seven persons nanted in the report had
participated in the dacoit!! in the course of which the cmnplainant's
ornaments and other property were looted away. They were tried for
offence of comntitting dacoity u/s. 395 IPC. The Court convicted two of
the seven accused u/s. 395 IPC and acquitted the rest. Discuss the legality
of conviction of the two accused u/s. 395? [Year 19S5 & Oct.20071
Ans : Before answering the above problem it is desirable to know what
is the difference between 'robbery' and 'dacoity'.
Robbery is committed by any number of persons, while dacoity is
committed by five or more persons. However abettors, who are present
and aiding when a crime is being committed, are counted in the numbers.
Robbery is committed when the offender voluntarily causes or attempts to
cause to any person death or hurt or wrongful restraint, or fear or instant death
or of instant hurt, or of instant restraint for the carrying away the property
obtained by theft or by extortion while in dacoity five or more persons
commits the robbery otherwise there is no difference between robbery and
dacoity.
Section 391 IPC defines 'Dacoity'. Under this section the number of persons
committing robbery must be five or more. Where the evidence showed in the
case of Pidda Enumundugaru (1910) 11 Crl.L.J. 249, that there were six
robberers but at the trial three were acquitted, it was held that a conviction u/s.
395 IPC was not sustainable and that the accused should be convicted u/s. 392
IPC. In the case of Sakru 1973 Crl.L.J. 599 (S.C.), the Apex Court held that
where about 14 persons had admittedly taken part in the dacoity and the charge
was also framed against 8 named persons that they along with six others had
taken part in the dacoity the conviction of three persons only is not bad
because Section 395 requires only the participation and not the conviction of
more than five person. It is also held by Orissa High Court in the case of
Madan Kandi vs. State of Orissa 1996 Crl.L.J. 227, that in dacoity the theft
should be perpetrated by means either of actual violence or of threatened
violence. The threatened violence may be implied in the conduct and character
of the mob. It is not necessary that force or menace should be displayed by any
overt act. A person cannot be held guilty of dacoity unless he has committed,
attempted to commit or aided in committing robbery. Dacoity is perhaps the
only offence which the Legislature has made punishable at four stages. When
five or more persons assemble for the purpose of committing a dacoity, each of
them is punishable u/s. 399 IRC. The definition of dacoity in
Section 391 shows that the other two stages, namely, the stage of attempting
to commit, and the stage of actually commission of robbery have been
treated alike and come within the definition. There may well be a stage
when there is only an agreement to commit dacoity. If there is proof of
agreement the offence of conspiracy punishable u/s. 120-B is complete.
Robbery is defined in Section 390 IPC. In all robberies there is either theft
or extortion. Robbery is a special and aggravated form of either theft or
extortion. Section 390 contemplates that the accused should have, from the
heavy start, the intention to deprive the complainant of the property, and
should for that purpose either hurt him or place him under wrongful
restraint. The definition of robbery requires that either death or hurt or
wrongful confinement is caused or it must be actually found that the citrons
were put in fear or instant death, instant hurt or instant wrongful
confinement. Under Sec.391 the number of persons committing robbery
must be five or more. In the said case it is held that the accused committed
on offence punishable u/s.395 cannot be maintained, as four accused have
been acquitted. The conviction is altered to one under Section 392 IPC.
In the given problem, as per complaint 7 person alleged to have participated
in the dacoity and looted the property. All the accused were tried by the trial
Court for the offence under Section 395 IPC. There is no specific finding of
the Court in the case as to whether all the seven have participated in the crime
attracting Section 391. If it is proved that all the 7 persons have participated in
the commission of offence, the conviction held against 2 accused would be
proper. If the participation of all 7 is not established conviction against two
persons is not sustainable. However, in the light of the case law referred to
above, the two accused can be convicted under Section 392 IPC.
 Q. 53. The prosecution case was that eight persons, A B CD E F G Il
banded themselves together for the purpose of looting foodgrains frotn a shop.
A and B were armed with axes. C D E and r were anned with ordinary sticks.
G and Il were unarmed. The door which was boltedfront inside was broken
open by A and B. All of them entered the shop. The shopkeeper and his wife
protested. C bea t him on the nose with the stick and it fractured the nasal
bone. C slapped the shopkeeper's wife. The shopkeeper and his wife kept
quiet. Each of the accused theit removed a bag of rice. While going Il noticed
a watch lying on a table and took it. What charges would against the several
accused? [Year 19721
Ans: In the given problem all the accused have to be charged under Section
402 read with Section 34 IPC for assembling for the purpose of committing
dacoity. The said offence is cognizable, non-bailable, non-compoundable and is
triable by the Court of Session.
All the accused have to be charged under Section 394 read with Section 34,
IPC for acting conjointly to commit robbery and C and G for causing hurt and
the other accused for being jointly concerned in committing such robbery.
All the accused have to be charged u/s. 451 read with Section 34 IPC for
committing house trespass in order to commit the offence of dacioty - and 'H'
has to be charged for committing theft of a watch lying on a table u/s. 380 IPC.

Q. 54. Six persons were charged with offences under Secs. 395 and 397
with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code. The trial Court on evidence
found (a) that all six accused conunitted robbery and while doing so they
were acting Jointly; (b) that at the time of the commission of the offence
the six accused were armed with axes and spheres; and (c) that at the time
of committing robbery one of the six accused viz 'A' caused grievous hurt
to the complainant with the axe ?
On the basis of the above finding the trial Court convicted all the six
accused u/s. 397 read with Section 34 IPC and sentenced each one of them
to suffer rigorous imprisonment for seven years?
Section 397 reads this:
"Ifat the tinte ofcommitting robbery ofdacoity, the offender uses any
deadly weapon or attempts to cause a grievous hurt to any person the
imprisonment with which such offender shall be punished shall not be less
than seven years"?
Discuss the legality of the conviction of the six accused Ids. 397 r/w. 34 of
the Indian Penal Code ? [Year 19851
Ans : From a bare reading of Section 397 IPC it is evident that it does
not create any substantive offence. It is complementary to Sections 392 and
395 of the Indian Penal Code which prescribe the sentence for committing
the offences of robbery and dacoity. It merely regulates the punishment
already provided for dacoity by fixing minimum term of imprisonment
when the commission has been done with certain aggravating circumstances
i.e. use of deadly weapon etc.
In order to make out a case for imposing minimum sentence prescribed
under Section 397 IPC the prosecution is bound to prove the commission
of robbery or dacoity; that the accused used a deadly weapon, or caused
grievous hurt; or attempted to cause death or grievous hurt; that the above
acts were done during the commission of robbery or dacoity.
 In the case of Wilson Abraham Chouriappa vs. State of Maharashtra 1996 (3)
bom.C.R. 163, the Bombay High Court observed that Section 397 IPC contains
the principle of individual liability. The words used in it are the offender. In
otherwords, before Section 397 IPC can have any application, prosecution has to
establish as to who was that offender or accused person who during the course of
commission of robbery or dacoity was armed with deadly weapon or caused
grievous hurt to any person or attempted to cause the death or grievous hurt to
any person.
The Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Phool Kumar 1975 SCC (Cri.)
336, held that the use of a deadly weapon by one offender at the time of
committing robbery cannot attract Section 397 for the imposition of the
minimum punishment on another offender who has not used any deadly
weapons. (see Law of Crimes by Ratan Lal and Dhiraj Lal 23rd edn. -
(revised edn.) at P. 1496).
The above view has also been held by the Punjab and Haryana High
Court in the case of Ramnivas vs. State ofHaryana 1996 (2) Recent C.R.
313 (P&H). In the said case it is held that the term offender is confined to
the offender who uses any deadly weapon. The use of deadly weapon by
one offender at the time of committing robbery cannot attract Section 397
for the imposition of the minimum punishment on another offender who had
not used any deadly weapon.
In the given problem six persons were charged with offences under
Secs.395 and 397 read with Section 34 IPC. All Six accused committed
robbery and were acång Jointly. All the six accused were armed with axes
and spheres i.e., deadly weapons. I is also found that at the time of
committing robbery one of the accused 'A' caused grievous hurt to
complainant with the axe.
In view of the decided legal position by the Apex Court and High Courts
'A' is liable for punishment u/s. 397 IPC but not others. Hence conviction
against accused 'A' is sustainable. In respect of other accused, they have
participated in the offence with common intention and committed robbery.
The remaining accused are liable for punishment for the offence u/s. 395
r/w 34 IPC. Therefore the conviction against the accused except the accused
'A' is not proper.