PREPARATION FOR DACOITY : SHOULD IT BE PUNISHABLE ?

FINAL RESEARCH SUBMITTED IN PARTIAL FULFILLMENT OF THE

SUBJECT CIMINAL LAW -I FOR OBTAINING THE DEGREE B.B.A. LL.B (Hons.)
DURING ACADEMIC SESSION 2019-20.

SUBMITTED BY

ARFATUL AZAM

ROLL NUMBER – 2012

SUBMITTED TO

Dr. Fr. PETER LADIS FRANCIS

FACULTY FOR CRIMINAL LAW - I

SEPTEMBER, 2019

CHANAKYA NATIONAL LAW UNIVERSITY,

NAYAY NAGAR, MITHAPUR, PATNA – 800001.

1|Page
 TABLE OF CONTENTS

TABLE OF CONTENTS ........................................................................................................... 2

DECLARATION ....................................................................................................................... 4

CERTIFICATE .......................................................................................................................... 5

I. INTRODUCTION .................................................................................................................. 6

1.1 Dacoity : Definition and Meaning ............................................................................... 6

1.2 Aims and Objectives ................................................................................................... 6

1.3 Hypothesis ................................................................................................................... 7

1.4 Research Questions ..................................................................................................... 7

1.5 Research Methodology ................................................................................................ 7

1.6 Sources of Data ........................................................................................................... 7

1.7 Method of Writing ....................................................................................................... 7

1.8 Limitations of the Study .............................................................................................. 7

1.9 Scope of the Research ................................................................................................. 7

1.10 Ingredients Of Dacoity ................................................................................................ 8

1.11 Proof of Dacoity .......................................................................................................... 8

1.12 Punishment Under Sec 395 of Indian Penal Code ...................................................... 8

1.13 Sentence For Dacoity .................................................................................................. 9

1.14 Difference between Robbery and Dacoity .................................................................. 9

II. DACOITY IN ANCIENT INDIA ....................................................................................... 11

2.1 History ................................................................................................................... 11

2.2 The Kakori Rail Dacoity........................................................................................ 13

III. DACOITY A JUDICIAL OVERVIEW ............................................................................ 14

IV. DACOITY IN MODERN TIMES ..................................................................................... 22

2|Page
V. CONCLUSIONS AND SUGGESTIONS ........................................................................... 25

BIBLIOGRAPHY .................................................................................................................... 27

3|Page
 DECLARATION
I hereby declare that the project entitled “Preparation for Dacoity : Should It Be Punishable ”
submitted by me at Chanakya National Law University is a record of bona fide project work
carried out by me under the guidance of our mentor Dr. Fr. Peter Ladis Francis. I further declare
that the work reported in this project has not been submitted and will not be submitted, either
in part or in full, for the award of any other degree or diploma in this university or in any other
university.

I Once Again Thank Them All.

ARFATUL AZAM

ROLL NUBER – 2012

B.B.A. LL.B. (Hons.)

SESSION – 2018-23.

4|Page
 CERTIFICATE

This is to certify that the project report entitled “Preparation for Dacoity : Should It Be
Punishable” submitted by Arfatul Azam in partial fulfilment of the required for the award of
degree of B.B.A. LL.B(Hons.) to Chanakya National Law University, Patna is a record of the
candidate’s own work carried out by him under my supervision. The matter embodied in this
project is original and has not been submitted for the award of any other degree.

Date - ______/_______/2019.

Dr. Fr. Peter Ladis Francis

Faculty for Criminal Law - I

5|Page
 I. INTRODUCTION

1.1 Dacoity : Definition and Meaning

According to the Oxford Dictionary, Dacoity means – an act of violent robbery committed by
an armed gang. There is no difference between robbery and dacoity except in the number of
offenders. Robbery is dacoity, if the persons committing robbery are five or more in number.
In Malaysia and Singapore dacoity is termed as ‘gang robbery‘. The offence of dacoity consists
in the cooperation of five or more persons to commit or attempt to commit robbery. It is
necessary that all the persons should share the common intention of committing robbery. On a
plain reading of Section 391, IPC it would appear that in order that a dacoity can be said to
have been committed, it is necessary that five or more persons conjointly commit a robbery or
attempt to commit robbery. If a robbery was committed, the dacoits would have the booty with
them, but if the matter rested only with an attempt to commit a robbery there would be no
question of the dacoits having any booty with them. Dacoity is one of the oldest forms of crimes
in India and is committed purely for the purpose of looting or extortion. Every dacoity is
robbery. There is only slight difference between robbery and dacoity.

Section 391 of Indian penal code says “when five or more person conjointly commit or attempt
to commit a robbery or where the whole number of persons conjointly committing or
attempting to commits 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”.

It is punishable under section 396 of Indian penal code it says 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 liable to fine.

1.2Aims and Objectives

• To find the meaning and provisions of dacoity
• To find whether preparation for offence under sec 391 is justified or not
• Effect of Dacoity in society

6|Page
 1.3Hypothesis
• Preparation is not punishable as it is very tender stage of an offence.
• Dacoity is an aggregated form of robbery.

1.4Research Questions
• What are the provisions under the code from section 391 to 402 ?
• What are the penalties involved ?

What are the stages of an offence ?

1.5 Research Methodology

The researcher has relied on Doctrinal method of research to complete the research.

1.6 Sources of Data

1. Primary Sources: I.P.C, Cr.P.C
2. Secondary Sources: Books, Newspapers, Journals and websites.

1.7 Method of Writing

The method of writing followed in the course of this research paper is primarily analytical.

1.8Limitations of the Study

The Researcher as a student has completed the project, he has access to a limited area and
having a limited time.

1.9 Scope of the Research

The researcher has taken this project for academic purpose and not published elsewhere and
this research work on “Preparation of Dacoity : Should it be made punishable”

7|Page
 1.10 Ingredients Of Dacoity

(i) Five or More Persons

Under this section, the number of persons committing robbery must be five or more. 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. In Om Prakash v state of Rajasthan
AIR 1998 SC 1220, the Supreme Court ruled that where the charge of dacoity is against five
named persons and out of them two are acquitted, the remaining three cannot be convicted for
dacoity.

(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 person’s amounts to an offence of dacoity and the fact that the dacoits
failed to remove any booty is irrelevant.

(iii) Conjointly Committing:

There should be conjointly committing of offence of dacoity word conjointly used in section
391 I.P.C means jointly. All the five persons should act in a concerned manner participating in
the transaction.

1.11 Proof of Dacoity

A dacoity 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.

1.12 Punishment Under Sec 395 of Indian Penal Code

Whoever commits dacoity shall be punished with imprisonment for life or which rigorous
imprisonment for a term which shall not be less than four years nor more than years, and shell
also be liable to fine.

(i) Jurisdiction of Court Offence u/sec 395, being triable by the Court of Session, magistrate
section 30 had no jurisdiction to take cognizance of the same.

8|Page
 1.13 Sentence For Dacoity

Section 395:- punishment for dacoity

Indian penal code provides punishment for dacoity; it says, “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 liable to fine”. It comes into play only when the prosecution
makes out an offence under section 390 and the number of assailants reaches to the statutory
minimum. The maximum punishment provided under this section is life imprisonment for a
term which may extend to ten years. Fine shall also be imposed. Dacoity is considered a very
grave and serious crime and hence, courts have held that in cases of dacoity, deterrent sentence
is called for.

In awarding punishment for an offence under this section two things are to be considered

1) Having regard to the gravity of the offence committed the punishment that each individual
deserves

2) On the facts and circumstances of a particular case whether an unusually heavy sentence is
required to protect the interests of the public at large by acting as a deterrent to others.

Where the presence of informant and other witnesses at the time and place of incident was
established and their positive evidence regarding the way in which the dacoity was committed
found reliable having no previous enmity with accused, no case of false implication established
therefore, conviction of accused under section 395 was just and proper (Chhedu v. State of
Uttar Pradesh)1.

1.14 Difference between Robbery and Dacoity

The offence of robbery is defined in section 390 IPC and as is cleat from a perusal of the said
section even a theft is robbery If during its commission the offender voluntarily causes or
attempts to cause to any person death or hurt or wrongful restrain or fear of instant death or of
instant hurt or of instant wrongful restrain. Whereas robbery is punishable under section 392
IPC and dacoity is punishable under sec 395 of IPC.

1
2000 Cr LJ 78 (All).

9|Page
(I) Number of Persons:

• In Robbery the numbers of persons are less than five. It may be committed by a single person.

• In dacoity, the number of persons is five or more.

(II) Seriousness:

• Robbery is less serious in nature.

• Dacoity is more serious offence than robbery because of the terror caused by the presence
number of offenders.

(III) Position of Abettors:

• In Robbery, the abettors are liable independently.

• In dacoity abettors who are present and aiding when the crime is committed are counted in
the number.

(IV) Jurisdiction of Court:

• Robbery may be triable by the illegal magistrate.

• Dacoity shall be triable by the Court of Session.

(V) Punishment:

• 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 shall also be liable to fine.

• Court while convicting a person u/sec 395, P.P.C, can either sentence him to imprisonment
for life or to rigorous imprisonment which cannot be than four years or more than ten years in
addition to fine.

(VI) Position in Highway:

• 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.

10 | P a g e
 II. DACOITY IN ANCIENT INDIA
2.1 History

In the past many kings, Nawabs and Zamindars used to take the help of these pirates quite often
in war or to take possession of land. After the fall of those landlords and princely houses, for
some time these riverine bands were forced to eke out a livelihood only by means of dacoity.
Like these pirates, the land dacoits were also extremely powerful in this region in the past. At
places, their leaders have received honours even like kings. In the past landlords were even
forced to pay them annual taxes. In the first part of British rule in India, their power was not
slight. It even said that the ancestors of some famous Zamindar families of today were dacoits.
Even though these dacoits committed dacoity, they would rob the poor less. Their target was
always the houses of big landlords or merchants' establishments. Their only motto was ‘hunt
but the rhino, loot but the treasury.' From such prevalent folk sayings, much can be found out
about the hopes and aspirations of the dacoits of those days. Such stories have also been heard
of the dacoits of this region that some of them would loot the wealth of the rich and to the beat
of drum distribute it among the poor. Because of the sympathy of the poor public of the region
for them, it was extremely difficult to arrest them in the old days. In the course of time, with
the establishment of British Rule in this country, these dacoit bands have been wiped out.

Many in the dacoit gangs that came into being at the beginning of British rule were sepoys and
lathials dismissed by Zamindars. During the Pathan rule, these Zamindars were fully
autonomous with respect to internal government. For this reason they had to establish these
sepoys and lathials in their areas for generations by gifting them land. By family tradition, their
very profession became fighting for the Zamindar. Even though under the Mughals the
autonomy of the Zamindars was slightly abridged, they went on sustaining these fighters for a
long time for their personal requirement. Under the English too for some time law and order
responsibility was vested in these Zamindars. Thereafter on establishment of the police and the
judiciary, the Zamindars had no longer any need for them. Many of these dismissed lathials
began to serve with the dacoit leaders of those times for their livelihood. For these reasons at
that time in every district of Bengal, several dacoit gangs had gathered. It can be declared with
surety that some dacoits of today belonging to criminal tribes are the unworthy descendants of
those very warriors.

By way of example, the Bagelis can be cited. Some branches of this Bagdi Class have been
declared as criminal tribes in present times because of their violent nature. This Bagdi class

11 | P a g e
was at one time one of the important professional warrior clans. Disturbed by the depredations
of the Marathas the Nawab of Bengal Alivardi Khan had dispatched his family members for
their safety to the Natore royal family. At that time, the army of the semi-independent Natore
kingdom was constituted of the Bagdis of West Bengal and the Bhojpuris of Bihar. It is because
of the great trust he placed in these Bagdi soldiers that Nawab Alivardi Khan made such
arrangements. Every historian is well aware of the bravery of the Bagdi soldiers of Bishnupur.
With their help, Bishnupur was able to safeguard its independence for long. The famous
cannons of Bishnupur used to be handled by these Bagdi soldiers. But it is a matter of regret
that some bands of these very Bagdis became dacoits in later times. Perhaps even today they
have been unable to renounce the war-lust cultivated over time. That is why despite such long
effort the nature of these criminal tribes could not be changed. Another instance of this are the
Bekaar Hindu criminal-tribe of the Deccan who were previously among Tipoo Sultan's
commanders and soldiers. But after the fall of his kingdom, they roam about even now
committing dacoity.

In rural areas there are many such dacoit gangs who are said to announce their location to one
another by imitating animal calls. Leaders quite often convey instructions thereby to members
of the gang to meet at a particular spot. There are many such criminal tribes as are said even
today to commit misdeeds voicing such animal calls. For example the Bauri tribe of Bengal
can be cited.

During the Muslim rule, these dacoit gangs had established a parallel government in many
places. Of course, local zamindars had also helped them in this. Although, the Muslims had
established supremacy in the towns and the capital of Hindustan, they had no powers in the
villages or remote areas of the country. In those places, the Zamindars and dacoit leaders ruled
unchallenged. Because of this, at the rise of Marathas, Jats and Rajputs etc., the Mughal Empire
easily collapsed.

12 | P a g e
 2.2 The Kakori Rail Dacoity

On August 9, 1925 when the No.8 Down Train from Shahjahanpur to Lucknow was
approaching Kakori , someone pulled the chain and the train stopped abruptly. Asfaqullah got
off the second class compartment with his friends Sachindra Bakshi and Rajendra Lahiri. Four
young men entered the guard’s van. They managed to push the box to the ground. It had a
strong lock. There was an opening on the top; through this opening they could drop moneybags
into it. But nothing could be taken out of it. The revolutionaries started dealing blows with
hammers to break it open. Ashfaq was the strongest of the group and ran towards the box. He
dealt blows after blows on the opening of the box to widen it. The safe lay open. They were
busy taking out the moneybags bundling them in rugs. Some of them walked towards Lucknow
with the bundles on their head. Just ten young men had done this difficult job because of their
courage, discipline and patience, leadership and, above all, love for the country. They had
written a memorable chapter in the history of India’s fight for freedom. These revolutionaries
were Ramaprasad Bismil, Rajendra Lahiri, Thakur Roshan Singh, Sachindra Bakshi, Chandra
Sekhar Azad, Keshab Chakravarty, Banwari Lal, Mukundi Lal, Manmath Nath Gupta and
Ashfaqulla Khan. A month passed after the Kakori dacoity, and yet no one was arrested. But
the Government had spread a big net. On the morning of September 26, 1925 Ramaprasad was
arrested and later everyone was arrested except Ashfaqulla. Later he was also arrested in Kashi
and the court awarded him and other three the death penalty while rest of them were given life
imprisonment on December 19, 1927.

Hence it can be seen that the Kakori Dacoity was more of a revolutionary thing by these
freedom fighters as they didn’t killed any civilian and neither the guards on duty of the train
but the only motive was to loot the money and things belonging to the Britishers yet they faced
very serious punishments and that makes us feel as why the britishers has this strictness in
dealing with dacoity…

13 | P a g e
 III. DACOITY A JUDICIAL OVERVIEW
3.1 Cases Related to Sec 391
State of H.P. vs. Jagar Singh2

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. (AIR 1973 SC 760)

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.

3.2 Dacoity with Murder

Shyam Behari v State of Uttar Pradesh3

In an attempt to commit robbery the appellant killed one of the victims who had caught hold
of the appellant’s associate. The appellant was convicted under section 396 for the offence of
dacoity with murder. The appellant contended that he could not be convicted under section 396
IPC because any murder committed by the dacoits during their fight when they were running
away without any booty could not be treated as murder committed in the commission of the
dacoity.

The high court negative this contention and held that section 396 would be attracted even where
an attempt had been made to commit dacoity and a murder was committed when the dacoits
were trying to make safe retreat and confirmed the sentence of death passed by the session
judge. The appeal of the accused was similarly dismissed by the apex court. In order to bring
home the offence of dacoity with murder under section 396 it is not necessary to prove that in
under 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 it is necessary to prove that murder was committed jointly by all the members
of the gang. All that is required to be established by the preoccupation is that the murder had
been committed while committing a dacoity. If that is established then all the members of the
aging who have committed dacoity are also equally liable for the murder under this section.

2
(1989 CrLJ 12 H.P.)
3
1957 AIR (SC) 320

14 | P a g e
(i) when prosecution failed to establish any nexus between death and commission of
dacoity charge under section 396 will fail;

3.3 Minimum Sentence for Dacoity

Section 397:- Robbery or dacoity with attempt to cause death or grievous hurt

This section says if at the time of committing robbery or dacoity the offender used 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 be less than
seven years.

Punishment-Rigorous imprisonment for not less than 7 years -Cognizable –Non-bailable-

Triable by Magistrate of the first class–Non-compoundable.

(i)An act would only fall within the mischief of this section 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;

Case Law: Shravan Dashrath Dartange v. State of Maharashtra4 ,

Ss.452, 392 and 397 r/w s. 34-Test Identification parade not conducted- Effect of-Accused
armed with pistol and knives-Entered the house of complainant and using threat of weapons
took away cash and other belongings of the persons present in the house-Conviction and
sentence by trial court- Affirmed by High Court-Appeal by two of the accused contending that
identification of accused in court without conducting a test identification parade renders
prosecution case unreliable- S.397-Robbery- 'Offender uses deadly weapon'-Connotation of-
Plea that since it was not shown by evidence that deadly weapon was actually used or put into
any use, s. 397 cannot be resorted to- S. 397 r/w s. 34-Out of the four accused one armed with
pistol and others with knives-Plea that since one accused alone was in possession of pistol,
others could not have been vicariously held liable u/s 397 with the aid of s.34-

(ii) There can be no quarrel that knife is a deadly weapon within the meaning of section 397;

Case Law: State of Maharashtra v. Vinayak Tukaram Utekar5 ,

Fact

4
(1997)2 Crimes 47 (Bom)
5
(1997) 2 Crimes 615 (Bom)

15 | P a g e
It is that on 26th January, 1981, at about 9 p.m. the informant along with his friend Anant Iyer
(P.W. 2) had gone to take a stroll. At about midnight the two of them reached Thane Railway
Station. They decided to have tea at Platform No. 1 of the said Station. After taking the same
while they were returning, three persons came. One of them namely respondent Vinayak put
his hand in the shirt of the informant and snatched three gold buttons. The informant caught
the hand of respondent Vinayak. He tried to run away. Thereupon respondent Vinayak took
out a knife from the back pocket of his trousers and inflicted a blow on the shoulder of the
informant. The informant overpowered him. A grappling between them took place. Both fell
on the ground. In the meantime Anant Iyer snatched knife from respondent Vinayak and picked
up the three gold buttons which had fallen on the ground. He then informed the RPF on
Platform No. 2 of Thane Railway Station. Thereafter Senior Rakshak Awad Behari Singh P.W.
3 came. He apprehended Vinayak and along with the informant and Anant Iyer came to the
RPF outpost, situated at Platform No. 2 of Thane Railway Station. Meanwhile the informant
Hemant Ramchandra Holkar was sent to Civil Hospital, Thane. At about 12.45 p.m. he was
examined by Dr. Govind Mahadeo Kolge (P.W. 4), who found that he had sustained an injury
of the dimensions of 3" x 2" x 3", which was attributable to a sharp cutting object. The said
injury was possible by the knife shown to him. The F.I.R. of the incident was lodged by Hemant
Ramchandra Holkar (P.W. 1) and on its basis P.S.I. Sidheshwar Ramchandra Digole (P.W. 6)
registered an offence at about 3 a.m.

Held

In the trial Court the respondent Vinayak was charged under Section 397, I.P.C. To the said
charge he pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried. During trial in all the prosecution
examined seven witnesses. Two of them, Hemant Holkar and Anant Iyer P.Ws. 1 and 2
respectively were examined as eye-witnesses. In defence no witness was examined.Vinayak
has been wrongly acquitted by the trial Court for an offence u/S. 397, I.P.C. He deserves to be
convicted for that offence. Order of the trial Court releasing respondent Vinayak under Section
360, Cr.P.C. is unsustainable and deserves to be quashed. The crucial question is whether
respondent Vinayak is guilty of the offence of robbery within the meaning of Section 390,
I.P.C. If the offence of robbery is proved then he would be also liable under Section 397, I.P.C.
because knife is a deadly weapon and he caused hurt but with it to the informant. It is significant
to point out that Section 397, I.P.C. only provides that if the offender while committing robbery
or dacoity is armed or uses a deadly weapon etc. he shall not be awarded a sentence of less than
seven years' R.I. It deals with robbery/dacoity of a more serious nature than that referred to in

16 | P a g e
Sections 394 and 395, I.P.C. respectively. The impugned judgment releasing respondent
Vinayak u/S. 360, Cr.P.C. is set aside.

(iii) When identification of articles alleged to have been recovered from accused is not
properly proved nor victim could identify accused in identification parade or in court accused
cannot be convicted under section 397;

Case Law: Bhure khan state of Madhya Pradesh6

The conviction of the appellant Bhure Khan rests purely on recovery of a torch and currency
notes of the value of Rs. 235 found with him. The identification of these two articles is not
satisfactorily proved as forming part of the corpus delicti. Chakradhar Singh failed to identify
Bhure Khan at either of the two identification parades and his identification in court will not
help the prosecution. So far as the torch is concerned it is a very common article and no
particular mark appearing thereon has been indicated as-enabling Chakradhar Singh to identify
as belonging to him. As regards the currency notes it is true that these have not been claimed
by Bhure Khan as his money but till these notes are established for be the subject matter of the
dacoity which occurred at Chakradhar Singh's place the appellant is not called upon to plain its
possession. For these reasons would be difficult to maintain the conation of Bhure Khan. The
appeal is therefore allowed and the appellant is quitted of the charge under Sections 397 I.P.C.
and 395, I.P.C.

Section 398:- attempt to commit robbery or dacoity when armed with deadly weapon

The section says if at the time of attempting to commit robbery and 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.

Both section 397 and section 398do not create substantive offence, but merely prescribe a
minimum sentence for the offence of robbery and dacoity mentioned in these sections. Under
section 397 of IPC if at the time of committing robbery or dacoity the offender uses any deadly
weapons or causes grievous hurt or attempts to cause death or grievous hurt, he shall be liable
to suffer a minimum sentence of seven years imprisonment.

The essential of this section is as follow-

a) An offence of robbery or dacoity must have been committed.

6
AIR 1982 SC 984

17 | P a g e
b) The offender should be taken part in the said offence.

c) The offender should have used a deadly weapon or cased grievous hurt or attempted to cause
death or grievous hurt to any person at the time of committing a dacoity.

Case Law: Phool Kumar v Delhi administration7

Facts of the case

The accused had entered a petrol pump. The first accused was armed with a knife while the
second accused had small fun in his hand. The first accused asked the employees of the petrol
pump to hand over the keys. To terrorize the employees the second accused fired three shots in
the air. One shot struck the window and two hit the ground. Thereafter they ransacked the office
and decamped with the money, the question threat arose for consideration was whether the first
accused that was carrying a knife with him but did not use it for committing any over act would
be covered under se 397.

Held

The Supreme Court held that in section 397 the words used were the offender uses whereas in
section 398 the expression is armed with deadly weapons. Both the section provides minimum
sentences of seven years. The court held that first accused was carrying a knife which was
deadly weapon open to the view of the victims sufficient to frighten or terrorize them. Any
other overt act such as brandishing of the knife or causing of grievous hurt with it. It was not
necessary to bring the offender under this section.

Section 399:- Making preparation to commit dacoity

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. In our
Indian penal code there are very few sections where mere preparation of any offence is
punishable for example offence against country. Preparation of dacoity is also one of the
offences which preparation is punishable.

Case Referred: Sadashiv Shiva Antappa Pujari vs. State Of Maharashtra8 on 26 August, 2002

Fact

7
AIR 1975 SC 905
8
2003 CriLJ 3661

18 | P a g e
The Station House Officer, P.S.I. Gavaonkar, attached to R.K. Kidvai police station, received
secret information that some seven unknown persons armed with dangerous weapons have
assembled at Comrade, G.L. Patil, Municipal Corporation Market, Acharya Gonde Road,
Seweree, and Mumbai for committing dacoity at Lokmanya Jewelers shop, situated in the near
vicinity. After receiving said information, the police staff of the said police station went to the
said spot, they divided themselves in two groups, and P.W.1 Gaonkar went ahead near those
persons. He heard the said persons giving instructions as to how they should behave at the time
of said dacoity. He gave a signal to other persons, and all members of the raiding party caught
4 of them. However 3 out of them managed to run away. Panch witnesses were called. The
person, of apprehended persons searched. They found a country made revolver in possession
of one Irshad, a chopper in possession of the present appellant and some other weapons in
possession of other accused. After investigation, the appellant was put to trial with other
associates and after trial the learned trial Judge, passed the order of conviction and sentence.

In this case of this appellant is so unnatural that it cannot be accepted for basing a conviction,
because it is alleged by the prosecution that this appellant possessed a chopper, which was
seized from him under panchanama. There is absolutely no mention of it in the statement of
P.W.1. The F.I.R. has been lodged by him two hours after reaching the police station, for which
the prosecution was unable to give any satisfactory explanation. Had there been a chopper in
possession of the present appellant, it would have been certainly mentioned by him in F.I.R.
But that has not been done and there is no acceptable explanation coming from the prosecution.
The possession of the chopper is the only evidence against the appellant so far as the said crime
is concerned.

They could have been assembled for assaulting somebody else at the most. If proper
explanation is offered for possession of such day to day use articles, and if there is no
convincing evidence to show that such persons had assembled for the purpose of committing
robbery or dacoity, they cannot be punished for the charge in context with other offences
spelled out such persons cannot be punished under Sections 399, 402 of I.P.C. They would be
guilty if guilt is proved but for some other offences connected with the evidence adduced by
the prosecution against them. If the charge for committing the offence punishable under Section
399 of I.P.C. or Section 402 of I.P.C. is to be held as proved, some more evidence is needed
and that should be also natural evidence.

Held

19 | P a g e
The appellant is hereby assailing correctness, propriety and legality of the order of conviction
and sentence passed against him, in Sessions Case, wherein the appellant has been convicted
for the offence punishable under provision of Sections 399 and 402 of Indian Penal Code. The
appellant has been sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for four years and to pay fine
of Rs. 1000/-, in default to undergo rigorous imprisonment for one month in context with
provisions of Section 399 of Indian Penal Code. He has been sentenced to undergo rigorous
imprisonment for three years and to pay fine of Rs. 500/-, in default to undergo rigorous
imprisonment for fifteen days for the offence punishable under Section 402 of Indian Penal
Code. The learned trial Judge has lost sight of the important aspect of the matter and therefore,
he landed in error of passing the order of conviction and sentence against this appellant. The
said judgment and order of conviction and sentence being improper, incorrect and illegal, needs
to be set aside.

Section 402:-Assembling for purpose of committing dacoity

This section says whoever at any time after the passing of this act shall be one of five or more
person 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.

Case Referred: Chaturi Yadav v State of Bihar9

Fact

The accused had assembled at a lonely spot in the school premises when they were detected by
the patrol squad. One of the accused was found to be in possession of a gun and a live cartridge,
and others had merely one live cartridge in their pockets. There was absolutely no evidence to
establish that the accused had assembled there for the purpose of committing dacoity.

Held

In the absence of such evidence, it was held that since one of the ingredients of the offence had
not been established by the prosecution, no offence under this section was made out.

Section 400:- Punishment for belonging to gang of dacoits

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,

9
AIR 1979 SC 1412

20 | P a g e
or with rigorous imprisonment for a term which may extend to ten years, and shall also be
liable to fine.

Section 401:- punishment for belonging to gang of thieves

The section says 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.

This section makes the fact of belonging to a gang of dacoits by itself an offence. The essential
ingredients of the section are:

• There must be a gang of persons;

• The gang must be associated for the purpose of habitually committing dacoity.

Punishment-Rigorous imprisonment for 7Years and fine -Cognizable –Non-bailable-Triable

by Magistrate of the first class –Non-compoundable.

21 | P a g e
 IV. DACOITY IN MODERN TIMES
After the British Rule ended and India got independence, the rise of dacoits did not stopped
and it continued with some notorious dacoits of modern India, some of them when killed in an
encounter while some of them surrendered and later released…

4.1 Dacoits of Chambal

Chambal Region of Madhya Pradesh is very famous for the dacoits of modern India and some
of the most dangerous are mentioned below;

Phoolan Devi 10

Some call her a dacoit. But for many she became the symbol of rebellion against the tyranny
of the upper castes and elite against those who belong to lower castes. Better known as Bandit
Queen, Phoolan rose to fame after she allegedly massacred 22 Rajputs in Behmai village in
February 1981. She carried out the massacre seven months after the upper caste Rajputs of
Behmai village allegedly raped her for three long weeks before she escaped with the help of
Man Singh Mallah, who later became her trusted lieutenant. In 1983, after a long negotiation
with the Indira Gandhi government, she surrendered along with other members of her gang. In
1996, two years after she was released from prison, she contested the Lok Sabha elections on
a Samajwadi Party ticket from Mirzapur seat and won. In 1998 she lost the election but was re-
elected in 1999. She remained an MP till 2001 when she was assassinated outside her bungalow
in Delhi.

Daku Man Singh 11

Daku Man Singh is perhaps the most feared dacoit in the history of Chambal. Born in a Rajput
family in Khera Rathore village in Chambal, Man Singh was a local Robin Hood. Folk songs
were made after him by locals who used to get freebies of loot. "Rasta Chalta Koi Nahin Loota,
Na Bahino Se Chheene Haar" "Jo Bhi Mila So Baant Diya, Bahino Ko Pahinaye Bhaat," says
one of the songs made after him. Until his death in 1955, he is believed to have committed
1,112 robberies and 185 murders, including the killing of 32 police officers. He was shot dead
in 1955 while sitting under a banyan tree.

10
https://www.indiatimes.com/culture/who-we-are/5-of-the-most-dangerous-dacoits-who-once-ruled-the-
beehads-of-chambal-257186.html
11
https://www.indiatimes.com/culture/who-we-are/5-of-the-most-dangerous-dacoits-who-once-ruled-the-
beehads-of-chambal-257186.html

22 | P a g e
Nirbhay Singh Gujjar 12

Nirbhay Singh Gurjar AKA Baagi was one of the last dacoits of the Chambal. With as many
as 205 criminal cases registered against him, he was certainly among the dacoits who were
most feared. If conjecture is to be believed he used to run a parallel government in 40 villages
of the Chakranagar area in UP. Gujjjar carried a bounty of 2.5 lakhs provided by UP and MP
police and was believed to be a really bad guy with a fascination for women, wine and weapons.
He reportedly had AK-47 assault rifles, shotguns, bulletproof jackets, night-vision binoculars
and mobile phones at his disposal. He was killed in an encounter in November 2005.

Pan Singh Tomar 13

He isn't among the most fierce dacoits of Chambal, but his story from being a soldier and
champion athlete to being a Daku is an interesting one. In fact, 2012 Bollywood movie Paan
Singh Tomar more or less shows what he went through and how the tyranny of Babu Singh, a
local village goon of his village Bhidosa in MP, affected him. After retiring from the military
in 1972, he decided to live in a village. But soon things worsened when he had a land dispute
with Babu Singh who headed a family of 200 and also had seven licensed guns. A panchayat
was held to solve the dispute and Tomar was asked to give Rs 3000 for his land to Babu Singh.
Tomar obliged but his nephew retaliated as he was paying money for his own land. While the
collector, who was witness to the accord signed in the Panchayat, went out of the district for
15 days, Babu Singh barged into Tomar's house and beat his 95-year-old mother. On Tomar's
return, she asked him to avenge this insult. Tomar along with his nephew rushed for Babu and
shot him dead. Ever since, he became a daku and wandered in Beehad of Chambal. Later, on
October 1, 1981, the Circle Inspector Mahendra Pratap Singh Chauhan and his team of sixty
trapped and killed Tomar. Ten other members of his gang were also killed. The gunfight lasted
over 12 hours.

12
https://www.indiatimes.com/culture/who-we-are/5-of-the-most-dangerous-dacoits-who-once-ruled-the-
beehads-of-chambal-257186.html
13
https://www.indiatimes.com/culture/who-we-are/5-of-the-most-dangerous-dacoits-who-once-ruled-the-
beehads-of-chambal-257186.html

23 | P a g e
 4.2 Operation Bawaria
Operation Bawaria was an operation by Tamil Nadu Police against organized dacoity, murder
and robbery that were prevalent in residential areas near the National Highway during 1995 -
2006 that was carried out by the notorious group of North Indian lorry drivers who belonged
to Bawaria community. The Bawaria gang was involved in crimes in multiple states. They were
also called as the Lorry Gang.

The operation against the Bawariya criminals was launched in January 2005 soon after the
murder of AIADMK MLA K. Sudarsanam from Gummidipoondi.[3] When armed dacoits
struck affluent houses along National Highways in Tamil Nadu, Karnataka and Andhra
Pradesh, Chief Minister of Tamil Nadu, Jayalalithaa ordered intensive action against the
culprits. Director General of Police S. R. Jangid along with Additional Director General of
Police Sanjay Arora led a team to investigate.

Soon after the start of the investigation, the team were able to match the fingerprints with the
modus operandi of the gang. They speculated that the murders were carried out by a same
group in different parts of India. The team coordinated with the Uttar Pradesh Police and central
intelligence agencies.

Following specific information, The team raided a house in Kannauj in the early hours. With
reinforcement from the U.P. Special Task Force, they nabbed Bawaria and his wife Beena Devi
as they were preparing for a major dacoity nearby hough the accused resisted, the police
overpowered the couple and took them into custody.[4] Police sources said the duo was taken
to an unknown destination for interrogation.

Beginning in January 2005, the team nabbed ten Bawaria gang members in various parts of the
country along with four trucks used by them. After their arrest, no dacoity cases were logged
in the northern districts. Over the course of the next eight years, the team hunted down the
criminals and finally they found the remaining gang members in Rajasthan.

24 | P a g e
 V. CONCLUSIONS AND SUGGESTIONS

To conclude, that the definition of dacoity 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. When law is weak in the current
situation happening crimes there is more chance to increase in the crime rate i.e. incensement
in robbery & dacoity. When we compare to the English law which establishes theft act for
separately and punishes the criminal severely with death penalty there are more chances to
reduce commit the crime in our country also.

So, the definition stated in 1860 is not appropriate for present generation and should be modify
according to the new generation crimes and legislature should increase the punishment and
procedure also. That’s why researches came to conclusion that “if we want to reduce the crime
rate of Robbery & Dacoity, Govt. should establish either the special statute like theft act in
Eng. law or either it should increase the punishments in IPC and amend the sections in Cr.p.c.
like issuing no bails against these crimes”.

Since, the preparation in the criminal offences are not punishable as they are at a very tender
stage but the exception lies under sec 39914 because the very preparation is made punishable
as in order to fight the evil nature of the dacoits while committing dacoity.

14
Indian Penal Code, 1860

25 | P a g e
Reform Suggested

The Fifth Law Commission, in its forty-second report on the IPC, offered a few proposals for
reform in the law relating to robbery and dacoity. However, it suggested imprisonment for a
term up to ten years provided for dacoity. It also not only favoured the retention of the existing
sentence of death or life imprisonment or rigorous imprisonment for up to 10 years provided
for all members of the group when one of them commits murder while committing dacoity.

However, the commission suggested scaling down for the existing mandatory imprisonment
for a term of seven years provided for attempt to commit robbery or dacoity with deadly
weapon to imprisonment for three years. It suggested that the sentence of rigorous
imprisonment from a term up to 10years provided for getting assembled for committing
dacoity.

The researcher would humbly suggest that;

All the provisions of dacoity relates back to the colonial era where the laws made were
draconian in nature for curbing any kind of voice against the state but in a democratic country
like India, these laws don’t hold a good position and their application should be more of a
reformative theory and people found guilty should be punished in a reformative form.

Sec 39915 makes the preparation of dacoity a punishable offence and it has never been amended
by the parliament despite the suggestions by the different law commissions hence it is high
time the government should make laws regarding the same, the researcher does not proposes
to scrap down the entire section rather some mandatory provisions should be included which
would make the law more of a constructive theory and not destructive theory for anyone’s
life…

15
Indian Penal Code

26 | P a g e
 BIBLIOGRAPHY
The researcher has consulted following sources to complete the research paper:

Primary sources:

Primary sources include statutes, acts etc.

STATUTES AND ACTS:

1. Indian Penal Code 1860

Secondary sources:

Secondary sources include books, articles, magazines, journals, websites etc.

BOOKS:

1. Ratanlal & Dhirajlal, Indian Penal Code, Published by Lexis Nexis, Edition: 35th , (2017)

2. Dr. K. L. Vibhute, PSA Pillai’s Criminal Law, Published by Lexis Nexis, Edition: 11th, 2012

3. Prof. SN Mishra, Indian Penal Code, Published by Central Law Publications, 7th Edition,
2016

4. Text, Cases and Materials on Criminal Law - Smith and Hogan David Ormerod and Karl
Laird (OUP)

Websites

• https://www.indiatimes.com/culture/who-we-are/5-of-the-most-dangerous-dacoits-
who-once-ruled-the-beehads-of-chambal-257186.html
• www.indiankanoon.org
• www.manupatra.com
• www.scribd.com
• http://www.shareyouressays.com/knowledge/legal-provisions-regarding-dacoity-
section-391-of-ipc/115803
• https://www.thehindu.com/books/books-reviews/the-lore-of-thuggee-and-how-the-
british-ended-its-reign/article6435967.ece
• www.lawcommissionofindia.nic.in

27 | P a g e