SUBMITTED BY : SHAGUN

VISHWANATH
BALLB[SEMESTER 3]
1020202148

SUBMITTED TO:DR RUCHI SAPHIA

ASSOCIATE PROFESOR OF LAW OF CRIMES
HPNLU

1
 ACKNOWLEDGEMENT
I would like to state that I m greatly thankful to the guide of my assignment Dr.
Ruchi Saphia(Associate Professor of Law of Crimes ) and the Himachal
Pradesh National Law University, Shimla for helping me throughout my
venture. I would be indeed failing my duty if I forget to mention my peers,
family and the once who supported me throughout the completion of the
following assignment. If it wasn’t for them I wouldn’t have been able to
complete my assignment. It is solely the result of the combined effort that the
taken up work has been a success.

SHAGUN VISHWANATH
BALLB
3 SEMESTER
1020202148

2
 ROBBERY
Robbery is theft achieved by savagery or the danger of brutality. In contrast to
burglary or theft, the wrongdoing of burglary quite often requires the presence
of an undermined casualty with substantial mischief. Assuming that a weapon is
utilized, or the casualty experiences a physical issue, the burglary might be
charged as "equipped" or "bothered" theft.
For instance, Diane sneaks up on Jesse, requesting Jesse's cash while squeezing
a plastic item into his back. Jesse surrenders his wallet. This would be charged
as a burglary. In the event that Diane utilized a real weapon, or Jesse was
harmed, the wrongdoing probably would be raised to equipped burglary or
disturbed theft. This article gives an outline of how states characterize and
charge theft, and how and why it would be charged at the government level.

The Elements of a Robbery

The laws of each state might characterize burglary in to some degree various
ways, yet every definition will contain similar essential components. Theft
comprises of:
Taking with goal to take (in certain states, the wrongdoing of burglary can be
charged whether or not the taking or robbery is fruitful)
The property of others Without wanting to By brutality or danger of power
against an individual (a few rules require the danger to be inevitable)
The component of power sits at the center of the wrongdoing of burglary. The
circumstance of the power matters, as well. For instance, assuming a hoodlum
utilizes savagery just when endeavoring to run away from the area, the charges
would incorporate burglary and maybe attack, yet not really theft.
The utilization or danger of power can be slight. Assuming that a modest
quantity of brutality or terrorizing is sufficient to pressure somebody to turn
over property, then, at that point, a burglary has happened. Actual contrasts
between the looter and the person in question (size, age, inability) would be
considered in the investigation.
A hoodlum doesn't really have to utilize extraordinary power to submit a theft.
A typical handbag grabbing is a genuine illustration of how rules change from
one locale to another. A few states, like New Jersey, require the utilization of
power to be one that builds the risk for the person in question. In different

3
states, similar to Maine, juries can presume that the power used to get the tote
could fulfill the utilization of power component of the wrongdoing.

ROBBERY ACCORDING TO IPC

Robbery is the felonious taking of personal property in the possession of

another, from his person or immediate presence, and against his will,
accomplished by means of force or fear. (Enacted 1872.)
Segment 390 of IPC, 1860 arrangements with the offense of Robbery. It
characterizes burglary as one or the other robbery or coercion. Burglary is theft
if, to the submitting of the robbery, or in submitting the burglary, or in diverting
or endeavoring to divert property acquired by the robbery, the wrongdoer, for
that end, deliberately causes or endeavors to cause to any individual demise or
hurt or illegitimate restriction, or dread of moment passing or of moment hurt,
or of moment unjust limitation.
While, Extortion is theft if the guilty party, at the hour of submitting the
blackmail, is within the sight of the individual put in dread, and submits the
coercion by placing that individual in dread of moment passing, of moment
hurt, or of moment illegitimate limitation to that individual or to another
individual, and, by so placing in dread, initiates the individual, so put in dread
without even a second's pause to convey up the thing coerced. Sec. 392
arrangements with the discipline for theft. Segment 394 of the IPC recommends
the discipline for willfully causing hurt while submitting or endeavoring to
submit theft.
Segment 397 of the IPC endorses the discipline for causing horrifying hurt or
endeavoring to make demise or shocking hurt any individual whatsoever season
of submitting theft while Section 398 of the IPC recommends the discipline
assuming the guilty party is equipped with any dangerous weapon while
endeavoring to submit burglary. Burglary is an exasperated type of one or the
other robbery or blackmail.
The initial expressions of Section 390, IPC, show that there can't be any
burglary, in case there is no robbery or coercion. Both in robbery and coercion,
contemptibility is a fundamental fixing. Thus, assuming that there is no
component of untrustworthiness in a demonstration, there can be no offense of
burglary or coercion and therefore there can't be an offense of theft.

4
Likewise, expulsion of versatile property from the ownership of one more is a
fundamental component to establish an offense of robbery. Assuming this
component is missing, then, at that point, there is no burglary and thus, there
will be no theft by the same token. In this manner, to confirm whether or not a
specific demonstration would add up to a burglary, one needs to initially build
up that the offense has fundamental elements of burglary or blackmail, since
burglary is only a disturbed type of robbery and coercion.

Burglary or blackmail or endeavor to submit any of the two is an unavoidable

element for theft. Burglary becomes burglary, if, to work with the submitting of
robbery or in endeavoring to divert the taken property, the guilty party (for
example the thief)voluntarily causes or endeavors to cause demise, hurt or
unfair restriction or dread of moment passing, moment hurt or moment
improper limitation.

Segment 390, IPC, characterizes the offense of burglary. Theft in like manner
language means to deny their very own individual property. The head
recognizing component in burglary, robbery, and coercion is the presence of
fast approaching trepidation of savagery. In all burglary there is either robbery
or coercion.

The pith of offense of burglary is that the wrongdoer, for submitting robbery or
for diverting or endeavoring to divert the plundered property, intentionally
causes or endeavors to cause demise or hurt or unjust restriction.

The fundamental elements for the offense of burglary are:

At the point when burglary becomes theft:
That blamed all together for submitting robbery; or
In submitting robbery; or
In diverting or endeavor to divert the property acquired by the burglary,
deliberately causes or endeavor to cause to that individual or to any individual
demise, hurt or unjust limitation or of moment passing, hurt or improper
restriction

5
 When theft is robbery — Theft is “robbery” if, in order to the committing of the
theft, or in committing the theft, or in carrying 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.

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 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.

DACOITY
Section 391 - Dacoity is an aggravated form of robbery which is committed by
five or more than five persons. These persons should be involved in either
committing. Attempting to commit, or in aiding the commission of a robbery.
The essential ingredients of dacoity are:
There should be Five or more than five persons;
6
These persons should conjointly commit or attempt to commit robbery;
They should have dishonest intentions.
In the case of Raj Kumar @ Raju v State of Uttaranchal AIR 2008 SCC 709,
the Supreme Court has reiterated that for the commission of the offence of
dacoity a minimum of five persons is an essential ingredient of dacoity and s
396 does not come into play if persons convicted for committing dacoity
happened to be less than five. In the case of Ram Baran vs. Emperor 1983 15
ALL 299, a large number of people under the influence of religious sentiments
attacked and deprived a group of Muslim people of their cattle. The court held
that it was dacoity as it was committed by 5 and more people.
If a murder is committed during dacoity, all the persons involved 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.
It is not necessary that murder should be committed in the presence of all. It is
not even necessary that murder should have been within the previous
contemplation of the perpetrators of the crime. The essence of an offence under
this section is murder committed in the commission of dacoity. However, if the
dacoits were forced to retreat without collecting any booty, the offence of
dacoity would be completed as soon as they left the house of occurrence and
took to their heels. And if one of the dacoits kill someone of the persons chasing
them, then only the actual murderer will be liable under s 302 of IPC and others
will be liable under s395 of IPC. Shyam Behari v State of Uttar Pradesh AIR
1957 SC 320 In Laliya v State of Rajasthan AIR 1967 Raj 134, for conviction
under this section court must pay attention to these rules: · whether the dacoits
retreated without plunder and the murder was committed while retreating · the
interval between the attempt of dacoity and the commission of the murder · the
distance between the places where the attempt at dacoity was committed and the
murder was committed · whether the dacoits abandoned all the booty and the
lapse of an interval between the abandonment of the booty and the commission
of the murder
Difference between “Robbery” and “Dacoity
Where five or more persons had committed or attempted to commit a robbery,
it is called dacoity A robbery is committed by one to four persons and having
the ingredients of S. 389 is a robbery.
When five or more persons conjointly commit or attempt to commit a robbery
or where the whole number of persons conjointly committing or attempting to
commit a robbery, and persons present and aiding such commission or attempt
7
amount to five or more, every person so committing, attempting or aiding is
called “Dacoity”.
The main difference between robbery and dacoity is the number of the accused
participated in the offence.
Dacoity:
1. Section 391 defines “Dacoity”.
2. Dacoity is the aggravated form of Robbery.
3. The main difference between Robbery and Dacoity is number of participants
in committing wrong. In an offence of dacoity, there must be five or more
persons.
4. Dacoity is most serious and heinous offence than robbery.
5. 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.
6. 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
7. Punishment: Imprisonment for life or with rigorous imprisonment for a term
which may extend to ten years, and also fine. (Sec. 395) In the aggravated forms
of Dacoity the punishment is more severe. 8.
Illustrations: Barendra Kumar Ghose case, State of H.P. vs. Jagar Singh case,
etc.
Robbery:
1. Sec. 390 defines “Robbery”.
2. Robbery includes either theft or extortion.
3. No minimum number of participants is prescribed in Robbery. Robbery may
be committed by one person to four persons.
4. Robbery is lesser offence than dacoity.
5. In robbery, the real wrong-doer is only punished.

8
 6. The offender of robbery should be present at the victim, and should create
fear of death.
7. Punishment: rigorous imprisonment upto ten years and also fine. If the
robbery is committed on the highway between sunset and sunrise, the
imprisonment may extend to fourteen years. (Sec 392)

1) When theft is robbery  - 

       Theft is "robbery" if, in order to the committing of the theft, or in

committing the theft, or in carrying 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.

2) 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 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.
Explanation -

      The offender is said to be present if he is sufficiently near to put the other

person in fear of instant death, of instant hurt, or of instant wrongful restraint.

Illustrations - 

     (a) A holds Z down, and fraudulently takes Z's money and jewels from 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.

     (b) 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
extortion in his presence. A has therefore committed robbery

9
Punishment for robbery - 

       Section 392 of the Indian Penal Code prescribes punishment for robbery.
According to said Section Whoever commits robbery shall be punished with
rigorous imprisonment 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.

Dacoity -

         According to Section 391 of the Indian Penal Code, 1680  when five or
more persons conjointly commit or attempt to commit a robbery, or where the
whole number of persons conjointly committing or attempting to commit a
robbery, and persons present and aiding such commission or attempt, amount to
five or more, every person so committing, attempting or aiding, is said to
commit "dacoity".

Punishment for dacoity - 

        According to Section 395 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.

Dacoity with murder - 

          As per Section 396 of the Indian Penal Code, 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.

When does the Robbery become Dacoity?

Section 391 of the IPC defines Dacoity. There is no difference between the
Robbery and Dacoity except the number of people committing the offence. If
the number of people while committing robbery is 5 or exceeds 5 then the same
amounts to dacoity. It must be noted that it is necessary to show that all the
persons had the common intention to commit robbery.

10
Possession of Stolen Property

Property is an important part of the law. Section 410 to Section 414 of the India

Penal Code talks about the concept of stolen property. Section 410 of the Indian
Penal code defines it as when a person transfers his/her property to another
person. It can happen by way of theft, extortion or robbery. It includes all kinds
of properties which a person can misappropriate for criminal breach of trust.

These kinds of instances related to property are known as stolen properties.

Section 410 of the Indian Penal Code also says that if a person transfers the
property by using any of the means given below that will be considered as
stolen property. These means are:

 Theft;
 Extortion;
 Robbery; 
 Criminal misappropriation;
 Criminal breach of trust.

Conjointly
The word conjointly means that the five or more persons have collectively or
unitedly committed robbery.

CASE LAWS

Rajasthan High Court

Laliya And Ors. vs State Of Rajasthan on 18 July, 1966
Equivalent citations: AIR 1967 Raj 134
Author: L Chhangani
11
Bench: L Chhangani

 This is a joint appeal by Laliya. Jaganriath, Jeewan, Chothia and Gheesa and is
directed against the order and judgment of the Sessions Judge. Alwar dated 27-
11-1965, convicting the first three, appellants for offence under Section
396, Indian Penal Code, and sentencing them to ten years' rigorous
imprisonment and a fine of Rs. 200; in default, one year's further rigorous
imprisonment, and the remaining two appellants for an offence under Section
411, Indian Penal Code, and sentencing them to three years' rigorous
imprisonment.
In Laliya v State of Rajasthan AIR 1967 Raj 134, for conviction under this
section court must pay attention to these rules: · whether the dacoits
retreatedwithout plunder and the murder was committed while retreating · the
interval between the attempt of dacoity and the commission of the murder · the
distance between the places where the attempt at dacoitywas committed and the
murder was committed · whether the dacoits abandoned all the booty and
thelapse of an interval between the abandonment of the booty and the
commission of the murder
In Queen Empress v. Umrao Singh, (1894) ILR 16 All 437 a Division Bench of
Allahabad High Court held that "to establish a liability to the punishment
provided in this section it is necessary to prove that the person said to be liable
was one of the persons who were conjoinlly committing dacoity and was
present when the act of murder in the dacoity was committed."

In Emperor v. Chandar, (1906) 3 Cri LJ 294. It was held:

"Where after the commission of a dacoity, in which however the dacoits, being
interrupted by the villagers, did not get any plunder, the dacoits were attempting
to escape, and one or more of them in order to facilitate the escape attacked and
killed one of the pursuing parly, it was held that Section 396 of the Indian Penal
Code, did not apply, but only the person or persons actually taking part in the
killing were liable therefor."

In Sitaram v. Emperor, AIR 1925 Oudh 723 the principle of law was laid down
as follows:

"A dacoity, begins as soon as there is an attempt, to commit robbery. A shot

fired in order to keep off the rescue party, and allow the theft to be committed,
is an act committed in committing dacoity."

According to this case the murder need not have been committed for the
specific purpose of obtaining property by theft.

12
The dictum laid down in (1894) ILR 16 All 437 came up for consideration
before a Division Bench of the Allahabad High Court in Queen Empress v.
Teja, (1895) ILR 17 All 86. The learned Judges referred to the two statements
made in the earlier case and observed as follows:

"If those two statements to which we have referred are to be taken as of general
application, we entirely dissent from their correctness as statements of law......
in our opinion it matters not, when in the commission of a dacoity a murder is
committed, whether the particular dacoit charged under Section 396 was inside
the house or outside the house, or whether the murder was committed inside or
outside the house, so long only as the murder was committed in the commission
of that dacoity."

S.Baskaran vs The Superintendent Of Police on 11 December, 2006

Grave misconduct in having associated with 7 anti-social elements including PC

265 Meenakshisundaram and Gr.I.PC 778 Paneerselvam and robbed of the cash
Rs.4,00,000/- on 7.6.2005 at 21.00 hrs at Mind Street, NSC Bose Road
Junction, Elephent Gate P.S. Limits, Chennai from one Ashok Kumar (33/2005)
S/o.Ponnalagu of Madurai Tamil Nadu Jewellery Mart who were to purchase
Jewels from Surana Jewellers. Ashok Kumar raised hue and cry. On hearing the
noise police party on night rounds rushed to the spot and secured all of them
and TATA Sumo van TN-02-Y-4599 and registered a case in Elephant Gate PS
in Cr.No.447u/s.341, 323, 506(i), 392, 395 IPC
n Chaturi Yadav v State of Bihar AIR 1979 SC 1412, 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. 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.

Md Imamuddin & Anr. vs. State of Bihar 

In this case, the plea was to reduce the punishment for dacoity. Some of them
were accused to commit dacoity in a running train. They were sentenced to
undergo rigorous imprisonment for seven years and two years for respective
offences. The accused remained in custody for a substantial amount of time,
about 50 per cent of the punishment. Their punishment was reduced to half and
which they have already passed the time in imprisonment

Conclusion
13
To sum up, there is not much difference between the Robbery and Dacoity
except the number of people involved in the commission of the crime. If the
number of people involved in the commission of robbery is five or more then
the same will amount to Dacoity. Thus, the one point of difference between the
two is the number of people involved.

[1] The Indian Penal Code, 1860, Section 390.

[2] Ratanlal & Dhirajlal, ed. 35, 975.

[3] (2008) 3 SCC 94.

The concept of Robbery and Dacoity according to the Indian Penal Code, 1860.
But in order to understand Robbery and dacoity, one needs to understand the
concept of theft and extortion. So, in this article before going to robbery and
dacoity, theft and extortion has been explained with the relevant examples and
relevant case laws. These are important to understand because these terms may
seem to be similar but they are different in its legal application. They are often
used interchangeably. This article gives an overview of all these concepts
keeping in view and according to the Indian Penal Code, 1860.

BIBLIOGRAPHY

https://www.indianbarassociation.org/dacoity-under-ipc/#:~:text=There%20is
%20no%20difference%20between,in%20the%20number%20of
%20offenders.&text=On%20a%20plain%20reading%20of,or%20attempt%20to
%20commit%20robbery.

14
 https://lawtimesjournal.in/dacoity-and-its-punishments/

https://www.srdlawnotes.com/2017/06/dacoity-section-391-of-indian-penal-
code.html

15
16