PROJECT OF INDIAN PENAL CODE ON THE OFFENCE “DACOITY”
SUBMITTED TO
SUBMITTED BY
PROF. ABHIJIT ANAND
ZAIBA REHMAN GU16R0272
L.LB (III SEM
1
TABLE OF CONTENT
2
TABLE OF CASE LA!S
INTRODUCTION" 3
Section 391 defines “Dacoity”. It 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. It is one of the oldest forms of crimes in India and is committed purely for the purpose of lootin! or e"tortion. #very dacoity is robbery. $here is only sli!ht difference between robbery and decoity. S#$. %&1' D$)*+,"
When five or more persons con%ointly commit or attempt to commit a robbery or where the whole number of persons con%ointly committin! or attemptin! to commit a robbery and persons present and aidin! such commission or attempt amount to five or more every person so committin! attemptin! or aidin! is said to commit dacoity. A. I-/#*#-+ ) S#$. %&1" 1. !3#/# /)44#/, * $)55*++# 4, *# )/ 5)/# #/)-8 +3# )#-$# * $)*+,& ' (nder this section the number of persons committin! robbery must be five or more. Where the evidence showed that there were si" robbers but at the trial three were ac)uitted it was held that the conviction under this section is not sustainable. In *m +ra,ash v state of -a%asthan 1 the
Supreme ourt ruled that where the char!e of dacoity is a!ainst five named persons and out of them two are ac)uitted the remainin! three cannot be convicted for dacoity. 2. E#- * +3#*/ ++#5+ * *9#8 *+ * 9) $)-*#/# $)*+, &' -obbery becomes dacoity when it is committed by five or more persons. #ven an attempted robbery by five or more person/s amounts to an offence of dacoity and the fact that the dacoits failed to remove any booty is irrelevant. %. “C)-:)*-+9, $)55*+ )/ ++#5+ +) $)55*+” &' $here should be con%ointly committin! of offence of dacoity word con%ointly used in section 391 I.+. means %ointly. 0ll the five persons should act in a concerned manner participatin! in the transaction.
0S#' State of .+. vs. 2a!ar Sin!h 4ine accused attac,ed the complainant at a place and threatened to hand over them all he had. $hey had beaten him. $he complainant !ave his money wrist'watch cycle etc. 0ll the accused were punished under Sec. 395 dacoity. 0S#' Sa,tu vs. State of (.+.3 $he Supreme ourt held that when it is established that more than five persons 1 Om Prakash v state of Rajasthan, AIR 1998 SC 1220 2 State of H.P. vs. Jaar S!nh "1989 Cr#J 12 H.P.$ 3 Sakt% vs. State of &.P. "AIR 19'3 SC '(0$ )
committed the dacoity the fact that conviction of all of them is not possible for want of evidence the remainin! accused can be convicted even if the number of them is less than five. B. P;-*35#-+ )/ $)*+,"
Sec. 395 imposes punishment imprisonment for life or with ri!orous imprisonment for a term which may e"tend to ten years and also be liable to fine. In a case nine persons had participated out of which only four were convicted by the i!h ourt and remainin! were dischar!ed in these circumstances conviction of only one cannot be %ustified because in a dacoity at least five persons are re)uired. 6 In a case the appellants were alle!ed to have committed dacoity in relation to certain railway property. 4o direct evidence was available. *nly a truc, as standin! near the railway trac, on which 73 pieces of .S.$. 9 plates were found and when as,ed by policemen to stop the truc, inmates refused to stop. It was held that the prosecution case must fail because8 firstly the fact that what was bein! carried by the truc, were the stolen !oods belon!in! to the railway was not established. Secondly stoppa!e of truc, by policeman and resistance offered by the inmates of the truc, cannot by a piece of evidence of dacoity.5 C. B;/#- ) /))"
0 decoity be!ins 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. 0s a matter of fact it is very difficult to identify the accused in the offence of dacoity. $he prosecution must establish' i:
that five or more persons %ointly committed the offence8
ii:
that one or more of the attempted or committed to commit robbery
iii: that others were present and aidin! such commission or attempt. If the dacoity is committed by un,nown persons wearin! veils in the dar, ni!hts it is hi!hly difficult to establish their identity. Without identity of the accused the ourts could not impose punishment. owever there are three ,inds of evidence !enerally available in robbery or dacoity. ;irst occasion when the offenders are cau!ht red'handed on the spot by the villa!ers. It is somewhat difficult in ma%ority dacoities. $he reason is that the villa!ers or residents do not wear the weapons. $he accused wear deadly weapons and attac, the complainants with coura!e and preplan. Second occasion when the wron!'doers are arrested in some other cases and they d ) Ram #akhan v. State of &.P., 1983 Cr!. #.j. (91 "S.C.$ * +.C. S!ha -anesh an others v. State of aharashtra, 198) Cr!. #.J. 193 "S.C$ *
isclose their previous offences durin! the interro!ation and investi!ation by the police in other cases. $hird occasion arises when the offender or offenders sell the stolen property after dacoity in another place. Such property and those accused are red'handedly cau!ht. 0S#'
hosh vs. =in! #mperor7 $he accused formed a !roup and did dacoity. *ne of them murdered the inmate. $he trial ourt punished all the members of the dacoity. $he i!h ourt imposed punishment only on the member who murdered and ac)uitted the remainin! members. $he Supreme ourt held that the i!h ourt erred in ac)uittin! the remainin! members. It held that under Section 397 read with Sees. 3? 3 and 169 when a member of an unlawful assembly murders all the members of that unlawful assembly shall be imposed with the same punishment. D. D$)*+, <*+3 5;/#/"
0ccordin! to Section 397 if any one of five or more persons who are con%ointly committin! dacoity commits murder in so committin! dacoity every one of those persons shall be punished with death or imprisonment for life or ri!orous imprisonment for a term which may e"tend to ten years and shall also be liable to fine. 0S#' =ali,a $iwari vs. State of
was a common intention of the !an! to commit the murder or that other members of the !an! e"pected the murder to ta,e place. 4or it is necessary to prove that murder was committed %ointly by all the members of the !an!. 0ll that is re)uire to be established by the preoccupation is that the murder had been committed while committed dacoity are also e)ually liable for the murder under this section. 1: when prosecution failed to e stablish any ne "us between death and co mmission of dacoity char!er under section 397 will fail. 0S#' Wa,il Sin!h state of
could not be e"cluded. When the presence of accused persons recoveries of different items of an incriminatin! nature from each of them are sufficient to establish that all of them con%ointly participated in the offence of dacoity with murder therefore their conviction under section 397 is liable to be confirmed8 =.C.lbrahim alias
0ccordin! to Section 39@ if at the time of committin! robbery or dacoity the offender uses any deadly weapon or causes !rievous hurt to any person or attempts to cause death or !rievous hurt to any person the imprisonment with which such offender shall be punished shall not be less than seven years. $his section does not create any substantive offence but only re!ulate the punishment already provided for robbery and dacoity. $his section fi"es a minimum term of imprisonment when the commission of dacoity or robbery is accompanied with certain a!!ravatin! circumstances vi. use of deadly weapons or causin! of !rievous hurt or attempt to cause death or !rievous hurt is present. Section 36 of the code has no application in the construction of this section. 9 $he accused himself must possess the deadly weapon. $he liability 1?
is neither co'e"tensive nor constructive as in Section 169. 0S#& Shravan Dashrath Dartan!e v. State of Caharashtra11 Ss.65 39 and 39@ rEw s. 36'$est Identification parade not conducted' #ffect of'0ccused armed with pistol and ,nives'#ntered the house of complainant and usin! threat of weapons too, away cash and other belon!in!s of the persons present in the house'onviction and sentence by trial court' 0ffirmed by i!h ourt'0ppeal by two of the accused contendin! that identification of accused in court without conductin! a test identification parade renders prosecution case unreliable' S.39@'-obbery' F*ffender uses deadly weaponF'onnotation of' +lea that since it was not shown by evidence that deadly weapon was actually used or put into any use s. 39@ cannot be resorted to' S. 39@ rEw s. 36'*ut of the four accused one armed with pistol and others with ,nives'+lea that liable since one accused in possession of pistol others could not have been vicariously held uEs 39@ with alone the aidwas of s.36' i: $here can be no )uarrel that ,nife is a deadly weapon within the meanin! of section 39@8 F. A++#5+ +) $)55*+ /)44#/, )/ $)*+, <3#- /5# <*+3 #9, <#)-" 8 ..6rah!m a!as /ava v. State of arnataka, 2000 Cr #J 19' 9 A! !r7a, "1923$ *1 Ca. 2(*. 10 Ha7ara S!nh, "19)($ 2* Pat. 2'' 11 Shravan +ashrath +artane v. State of aharashtra, "199'$2 Cr!mes )' "/om$ 8
0ccordin! to Section 39A if at the time of attemptin! 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. $his section punish the cases of attempt to commit robbery as distin!uished from actual accomplished robbery. It applies where the offenders are armed with deadly weapons thou!h they do not use them in the attempt to rob or commit robbery. It does not apply to other offenders who in combination with such person have committed robbery or dacoity. $he essential of this section are as follows' a: 0n offence of robbery or dacoity must have been committed. b: $he offender should be ta,en part in the said offence. c: $he offender should have used a deadly weapon or cased !rievous hurt or attempted to cause death or !rievous hurt to any person at the time of committin! a dacoity. 0S#& +hool =umar v Delhi administration1 $he facts of the case is that the accused had entered a petrol pump. $he first accused was armed with a ,nife while the second accused had small fun in his hand. $he first accused as,ed the employees of the petrol pump to hand over the ,eys. $o terrorie the employees the second accused fired three shots in the air. *ne shot struc, the window and two hit the !round. $hereafter they ransac,ed the office and decamped with the money the )uestion threat arose for consideration was whether the first accused that was carryin! a ,nife with him but did not use it for committin! any over act would be covered under se 39@.$he Supreme ourt held that in section 39@ the words used were the offender uses whereas in section 39A the e"pression is armed with deadly weapons.
0ccordin! to Section 399 whoever ma,es any preparation for committin! dacoity shall be punished with ri!orous imprisonment for a term which may e"tend to ten years and shall also be liable to fine. $his section punishes preperation which consists in devisin! or arran!in! means necessary for the commission of an offence. *nly 3 cases of preparation are punishable in the code& 1.
+reparation to wa!e war a!ainst the >overnment of India. S. 1:
12 Phoo %mar v +eh! am!n!straon on 13 arh, 19'* AIR 19'* SC 90* 9
. +reparation to co mmit depredation on t erritories of a pow er at peace with the >overnment of IndiaS.17: 3.
+reparation to commit dacoity.S.399:
0S#" Cal,iat Sin!h v. state of +un%ab 13 It for is held that the preparation in devisin! arran!in! means or measures necessary the commission of the offence. *n theorother hand the an attempt to commit H. P;-*35#-+ )/ 4#9)-*- +) - ) $)*+"
0ccordin! to Section 6?? whoever at any time after the passin! of this 0ct shall belon! to a !an! of persons associated for the purpose of habitually committin! dacoity shall be punished with imprisonment for life or with ri!orous imprisonment for a term which may e"tend to ten years and shall also be liable to fine. $his section punishes those who associate with habitual !an!s of dacoits. Its ob%ect is to brea, !an!s of dacoits. $he fact that women lived with dacoits as their wives or mistresses is not enou!h to prove that they belon!ed to a !an! of dacoits. It is essential to prove that the women themselves were associated with the husband or protectors for the purpose of themselves habitually committin! dacoities. 16$he e"pression Gbelon!/ implies somethin! more than casual associati on for the purpose of committin! one or two dacoities by a person who was ordinarily lived by honest means. It refers to those persons who habitually associate with a !an! of dacoits and actively assist them in their operations.
0ccordin! to Section 6?1 whoever at any time after the passin! of this 0ct shall belon! to any wanderin! or other !an! of persons associated for the purpose of habitually committin! theft or robbery and not bein! a !an! of thu!s or dacoits shall be punished with ri!orous imprisonment for a term which may e"tend to seven years and shall also be liable to fine. $his section punishes those who constitute a !an! of thieves or robbers. It is not necessary to prove that each individual member of the !an! has habitually committed theft or has committed any particular theft in company with the other members.17 bein! a member of the !an! is enou!h for 13 ak!at S!nh v. state of P%nja6 AIR 19'0 SC '13 1) :ea, "189($ &nreorte Cr. C. 8(3. 1* /hama Sha5, A.I.R. 19*( Ca. 19*. 1( /e!a, "191)$ P.R. ;o. 13 of 191) 10
punishment. J. A#549*- )/ ;/)# ) $)55*++*- $)*+,"
0ccordin! to Section 6? whoever at any time after the passin! of this 0ct shall be one of five or more persons assembled for the purpose of committin! dacoity shall be punished with ri!orous imprisonment for a term which may e"tend to seven years and shall also be liable to fine. 0S#& haturi Hadav v. State of
$he offence of robbery is defined in section 39? I+ and as is clear from a perusal of the said section that even a theft is robbery If durin! its commission the offender voluntarily causes or attempts to cause to any person death or hurt or wron!ful restrain or fear of instant death or of instant hurt or of instant wron!ful restrain. Whereas robbery is punishable under section 39 I+ and dacoity is punishable under sec 395 of I+. (IN;54#/ ) P#/)-"
In -obbery the numbers of persons are less than five. It may be committed by a sin!le person. In dacoity the number of persons is five or more. (IIS#/*);-#"
-obbery is less serious in nature whereas Dacoity is more serious offence than robbery because of the terror caused by the presence number of offenders. (IIIP)*+*)- ) A4#++)/"
In -obbery the abettors are liable independently whereas In dacoity abettors who are present and aidin! when the crime is committed are counted in the number. (I>J;/**$+*)- ) C);/+"
1' Chat%r! :aav vState of /!har AIR 19'9 SC1)12 11
-obbery may be triable by the ille!al ma!istrate. dacoity shall be triable by the ourt of Session. (>P)*+*)- *- H*3<,"
If robbery is committed on the hi!hway the imprisonment may be e"tended to fourteen years whereas the fact that the dacoity is committed on the hi!hway does not chan!e the position or punishment.
CONCLUSION" $o conclude that the definition of dacoity contemplates that an accused should from very be!innin! have the intention to deprive another person of the property and to achieve that end either hurt is caused or a person is placed. (nder wron!ful restraint or it must be actually found that victim was put in fear of instant death hurt or wron!ful confinement when the same offence is committed by five or more serious in nature.
12
