Offenses Against Human Body

Murder And Culpable Homicide

Culpable Homicide
Homicide is a latin phrase. “Homa” means human body “Cide” means cutting into pieces.
Homicide therefore literally means cutting of a human body into pieces. Homicide is the
highest order of bodily injury that can be inflicted on a human body. Homicide may be lawful
or unlawful. Every homicide is not unlawful. Lawful homicide is to be distinguished from
unlawful homicide.

m
Lawful homicide

o
In case of lawful homicide person causing death is either justified or excused from liability. In

c
respect of right of private defence extending to causing of death under sections 100, 103, 106

intention or knowledge there is excuse from criminal liability.

rs .
are justified homicides. While death caused by accident, wherein there is no criminal

Unlawful homicide

k e
When death is caused with the intention or knowledge to cause death, then homicide is

n
classified as unlawful homicide. These cases are:

•
•
•
Murder - Section 300

p a
Culpable homicide - Section 299

r
Rash and negligent- section 300A

o
• Suicide: Section 305-306

T
Section 299 defines culpable homicide which is a wider offence than that of mu “Whoever
causes death,
(a)by doing an act with the intention of causing death
(b)with the intention of causing such bodily injury as is likely to cause death,
(c)with the knowledge that he is likely by such act to cause death, commits the of culpable
homicide.”
Essential Ingredients 5I1E
tr-5D3K9I3E8C
8N5Q1T• There must be a death of a person;
tr-5M3S9Q3Q
• The death must have been caused by an act of another person;
• The act must be done:
• with the intention of causing death; or
• with the intention of causing such bodily injury as is likely to cause death; or
• With knowledge that such act is likely to cause death.
9Q3Q8N5Q1T
tr-5M3S

Explanations To Section 299

• A person who causes bodily injury to another who is laboring under a disorder,
disease or bodily infirmity, and thereby accelerates the death of that other, shall be
deemed to have caused his death.
 This explanation lays down that the accused will be guilty of culpable homicide if he, by his
act, knowingly accelerated the death of the victim who was already laboring under a disease
or disorder. Of course, he must have known about the victim’s condition and then must have
accelerated his death. The victim’s death would be, of course, certain, but he must have
knowingly accelerated it.

• Where death is caused by bodily injury, the person who causes such bodily injury
shall be deemed to have caused the death, although by resorting to proper remedies
and skillful Treatment the death might have been prevented.

The effect of this explanation is that the offender cannot say- "No doubt I cause an injury to
the deceased but did not get to dress the phone properly not did he go to a skilled doctor. Had
he done, so he would not have died.” Such a difference is untenable by virtue of this
explanation.

• The causing of the death of a child in the mother’s womb is not homicide. But it may
amount to culpable homicide to cause the death of a living child, if any part of that

m
child has been brought forth, though the child may not have breathed or been
completely born.

c o
Causing the death of a child just born in law is as serious offence as an offence of causing the

.
death of a full grown human being. The life of a child while it remains within the womb is a

rs
part of the Mother's life and not a separate and distinct existence. But as soon as any part of
the child has been brought forth from the womb, the child is regarded as a living human being

k e
and to cause his death will amount to culpable homicide.
English law on this particular point is different. Under the English law, the child should have
been completely immersed where as to attract section 299 it is sufficient if any part of the

r an
child has come out of its mother's womb.

o p
Causing another’s death by mistake (Section 301)
This provision states that, “If a person, by doing anything which he intends or knows to be

T
likely to cause death, commits culpable homicide by causing the death of any person, whose
death he neither intends nor knows himself to be likely to cause, the culpable homicide
committed by the offender is of the description of which it would have been if he had caused
the death of the person whose death he intended or knew himself to be likely to cause”.

This provision embodies the doctrine of transferred malice or trans-migration of motive as

developed under English Law. It includes cases wherein the result or injury is causes which
were not intended earlier. For example, A counsels B to poison his wife. B accordingly
obtains poison from A and gives it to his wife in a roasted apple. The wife gives it to a child
of B, not knowingly it was poison,
5I1Ewhich eats it and dies. B has committed murder, though he
tr-5D3K9I3E8C
3S9Q3Q8N
did
5Q not
1T intend to kill the child.
tr-5M
Section 304 creates no offence but prescribe punishment for culpable homicide not amounting
to murder and draws a distinct in the penalty being inflicted on the basis of gravity and nature
of offence namely;

• tr-5M
When the
3S9Q3Q act1Twould have amounted to murder but for its having fallen within one of
8N5Q
the exceptions 1 to 5 of section 300, IPC: imprisonment for life or imprisonment of
either description for a term which may extend to 10 years and fine also.
• In those cases when there is knowledge that death will be likely result but intention to
cause death of bodily injury is absent: Imprisonment up to 10 years or fine.

Murder
 The word murder has been derived from the Germanic word, “Mortna” which means secret
killing. The offence of murder is an aggravated form of culpable homicide.

This section can be divided into certain parts. The first parts states the conditions wherein
culpable homicide is murder-

• If the act by which the death is caused is done with the intention of causing death: A
question of intention is always a matter of fact. Where the accused gave repeated
knife blows to the victim resulting in his death, it was held that the intention was to
kill.
• If it is done with the intention of causing such bodily injury as the offender knows to
be likely to cause the death of the person to whom the harm is caused: The expression
“intention to cause bodily injury as is likely to cause death” merely means an
intention to cause a particular injury which injury is, or turns out to be, one likely to
cause death. It is neither the death itself which is intended nor the effect of the injury.
Eg, A person inflicting a violent blow on the head of his victim with a lethal weapon
such as an iron-stone must be presumed to intend to cause such injury as h knew was

•
likely to cause death.

o m
If it is done with the intention of causing bodily injury to any person and the bodily
injury intended to be inflicted is sufficient in the ordinary course of nature to cause

c
.
death: In this clause, there are two parts, under the first part, it has to be shown that

rs
there was an intention on the part of the accused to inflict the particular injury found
on the body of the deceased i.e. the injury caused was not unintentional or accidental.

e
The second part requires that the bodily injury intended to be inflicted was sufficient
in the ordinary course of nature to cause death. When both these parts are satisfied,

•
then the offence is under Sec. 300.

n k
If the person committing the act knows that it is so imminently dangerous that it

a
must, in all probability, cause death or such bodily injury as is likely to cause death,

r
and commits such act without any excuse for incurring the risk of causing death or
such injury: Unlike the first three clauses of Sec. 300, intention is not an essential

o p
ingredient of this clause. The 4th clause contemplates the doing of an imminently
dangerous act in general, and not the doing of any bodily harm to any particular
individual.This clause cannot be applied until it is clear that clauses 1, 2 and 3 of the

•
•
T
section each and all of them fail to suit the circumstances.

Essential Ingredients of the provision

There must be a death of a person by the act of other person:

There act must be done with:
• intention to cause death; or
• intention of causing such bodily injury, knowing that the injury caused, is likely to
cause death; or
• intention of tr-
causing bodily
5D3K9I3E8C5I
1E injury sufficient in the ordinary course of nature, to cause

tr-5M3S9Q3Q
8N5Q1T death: or
• knowledge that the act is so imminently dangerous that in all probability, it will cause
death or such bodily injury as is likely to cause death
• Such act should be done without any justification;

Exceptions: 8N5Q1T
tr-5M3S9Q3Q
Culpable homicide is not murder if the case falls under any of the 5 exceptions as given in
Sec. 300 of the Act

Difference between murder and Culpable homicide

The genus is culpable homicide, and the species is murder. All culpable homicides are
murders, but not all culpable homicides are murders. So the distinction is between culpable
 homicide that amounts to murder and culpable homicide that does not amount to murder. The
sole distinction between culpable homicide and murder is the degree of purpose and
knowledge involved. The case would be classified as murder if there was a high level of
purpose and knowledge. The case would be classified as responsible homicide if there was a
lesser degree of purpose or knowledge. As a result, establishing categorical demarcations
between culpable homicide and murder is challenging.

The three aspects that is intention to cause death, bodily injury and knowledge are thereby
depocted in this

Factor Difference

Intention Clause (a) of Section 299 and clause (1) of Section 300 are the same. It is
to cause culpable homicide under Section 299 if death is caused by an act done with
death the goal of causing death (a). Unless one of the exceptions applies, it also
amounts to murder under cl (1) of Section 300.

Intention
to cause

o m
Both Section 299 clause (b) and Section 300 clauses 2 and 3 deal with the

c
purpose to inflict physical damage that is likely to result in death. In terms

.
bodly of Section 299(b), it simply states that if death is caused by an act

rs
injury committed with the goal of causing physical damage likely to cause death,
it is considered a culpable homicide. While clause (2) of Section 300 states

e
that an act must be done with the goal of inflicting bodily damage that is

k
likely to result in death, it also states that the deliberate causation of bodily
injury must be accompanied by the knowledge that the bodily injury is

n
likely to result in death. The term ‘likely’ in Section 299(b) refers to a

a
simple possibility or likelihood that the harm may result in death. However,

r
the word ‘likely’ in clause (2) of Section 300 conveys, to some extent, death

p
certainty. This is explained in illustration (b) to Section 300. It implies that
the accused has some unique knowledge of the deceased’s state, such as any

To ailment he may be suffering from, and that this information adds certainty
to the fact that the bodily damage would result in death. The sole difference
between the meanings of the words ‘likely’ in Sections 299(b) and 300(2) is
the degree of likelihood.

In the case of clause (3) of Section 300, the purpose to inflict bodily
damage is accompanied by the certainty that such physical injury is
sufficient to cause death in the regular course of nature. The word
‘sufficient’ in the regular course of nature to cause death, like the phrase
‘likely’ in Section5I299,
tr-5D3K9I3E8C
1E imputes the certainty of death to a higher extent (b).
tr-5M3S9Q3Q
8N5Q1T Thus, the essential difference between death under Sections 299(b) and
300(2) and (3) is that under Section 299(b), the bodily injury caused is less
likely to result in death, whereas under Section 300(2) and (3), the bodily
injury caused is more likely to result in death.

8N5Q1T
tr-5M3S9Q3Q
Knowledge Sections 299(c) and 300(4) deal with situations in which the accused has
information that the act is likely to result in death. The need for knowledge
under Section 300(4) is a very high degree of risk of death, similar to the
preceding Sections. This high probability of death is indicated in the
clause’s final Section, which states that the act must be so immediately
dangerous that it will almost certainly result in death or bodily injury that is
 likely to result in death, and that the act must be performed without any
justification for taking the risk. Both clause (c) of Section 299 and clause
(4) of 300 apply to circumstances in which the accused has no intention of
causing death or bodily damage but is aware that the act is basically
dangerous. The degree of risk to human life determines whether the conduct
is murder or culpable homicide. It is culpable homicide if death is a
potential outcome; it is murder if death is the most likely outcome.

In the landmark judgment of State of AP. v. Rayavarappu Punnaya (1977), the Apex Court
created a comparison table to grasp the key differences between them

The first case to deal with the difference was R v Govinda

Exceptions to Offence of Murder

m
Exceptions to Sec. 300 of the IPC reduce the offence of murder to that of culpable homicide

o
not amounting to murder. The five exceptions specified in this section are specialexceptions

c
in addition to the generalexceptions mentioned in Chapter IV. The special exceptions are - (1)

premeditation and heat of passion, and, (5) Consent.

rs .
Provocation, (2) Right of private defence, (3) Exercise of legal powers, (4) Absence of

Exception 1: Provocation

k e
Culpable homicide is not murder if the offender, whilst deprived of the power of self- control

an
by grave and sudden provocation, causes the death of the person who gave the provocation or
causes the death of any other person by mistake or accident.

r
p
The above exception is subject to the following provisos
First - That the provocation is not sought or voluntarily provoked by the offender as an

o
excuse for killing or doing harm to any person.

T
Second - That the provocation is not given by anything done in obedience to the law or by a
public servant in the lawful exercise of the powers of such public servant.

Third - That the provocation is not given by anything done in the lawful exercise of the right
of private defence.

Essential ingredients of the exception

• The provocation must be both grave and sudden and should not be from the side of
the accused.tr-5D3K9I3E8C5I1E
tr-5M3S9Q3Q
8N 5Q 1T• The provocation must be such as would deprive any reasonableman (and not a hasty
or hot-tempered or unusually excitable person) of his power of self-control over
himself.
• The act of killing must be done under the immediate impulse of provocation. It must
be distinguished from provocation which inspires an actual intention to kill.
• The offender
8N5Q1Tmust not have reflected, deliberated or cooled, between the provocation
tr-5M3S9Q3Q
and the mortal stroke. However, the mental background created by the previous act of
the victim may be taken into consideration for ascertaining whether the subsequent
act caused grave and sudden provocation.
• The offender must have caused the death of the person who gave the provocation or
that of any other person by mistake or accident.
 Mere words or gestures or confession are enough in some cases to cause grave and sudden
provocation (However, under English law, it is not so) (KM. Nanavativ State of
MaharashtraAIR 1962 SC 605).

Where an accused sees is wife in company with her lover and kills her, he must be held to be
acted under grave and sudden provocation (Fatta v Emperor, 30 Cr. L.J. 481).

Illustrations

a. A shoots Z with the intention of killing him. Z dies in consequence. A commits murder.

b. A, knowing that Z is laboring under such a disease that a blow is likely to cause his death,
strikes him with the intention of causing bodily injury. Z dies in consequence of the blow. A
is guilty of murder, although the blow might not have been sufficient in the ordinary course of
nature to cause the death of a person in a sound state of health. But if A, not knowing that Z is
laboring under any disease, gives him such a blow as would not in the ordinary course of
nature kill a person in a sound state of health, here A, although he may intend to cause bodily

the ordinary course of nature would cause death.

c o m
injury, is not guilty of murder, if he did not intend to cause death, or such bodily injury as in

.
(c) A intentionally gives Z a sword-cut or club-wound sufficient to cause the death of a man

rs
in the ordinary course of nature. Z dies in consequence. Here, A is guilty of murder, although
he may not have intended to cause Z's death.

k e
(d) A without any excuse fires a loaded cannon into a crowd of persons and kills one of them.
A is guilty of murder, although he may not have had a premeditated design to kill any

n
particular individual.

r a
Exception 2: Right of Private Defence

p
“Culpable homicide is not murder if the offender, in the exercise in good faith of the right of

o
private defence of person or property, exceeds the power given to him by law and causes the
death of the person against whom he is exercising such right of defence without

T
premeditation, and without any intention of doing more than is necessary for the purpose of
such defence.”

This exception deals with death caused by the excessive exercise of the right of private
defence, provided the accused caused the death of a person without premeditation and when
the accused caused the death of a person he had no intention of doing more harm than was
necessary for the purpose of defence.
Illustration: Z attempts to horsewhip A, not in such a manner as to cause grievous hurt to A.
A draws out a pistol. Z persists in the assault. A believing in good faith that he can by no
5I1E
tr-5D3K9I3E8C
8Nother
5Q 1T means prevent himself from being horsewhipped shoots Z dead. A has not committed
tr-5M3S9Q3Q
murder, but only culpable homicide.
Exception 3: Public Servant exceeding his powers
The ingredients of this exception are:
1T
3S9Q3Q8N5Q
5M
• tr- The person accused must be a public servant.
• He must believe in good faith that the act which resulted in the death was lawful and
necessary for the due discharge of his duties.
• He must bear no ill-will to the deceased.

Exception 4: Sudden Fight

 “Culpable homicide is not murder if it is committed

• without premeditation
• in a sudden fight
• in the heat of passion upon a sudden quarrel and
• Without the offender having taken undue advantage or acted in a cruel or unusual
manner.”

Pandurang v State of MaharashtraAIR 1978 SC 1082, Where, on a sudden quarrel, a person

in the heat of the moment picks up a weapon which is handy and causes injuries, one of which
proves fatal, he would be entitled to the benefit of this Exception provided he has not acted
cruelly. Where the deceased was an old man and was innocent intervenerwho was asking the
parties not to quarrel, there was no justification for the appellant to have given such a serious
injury (a blow by iron bar on the head) to him resulting in his death. Moreover, the appellant
acted in a cruel manner.

Exception 5: Death by Consent

o m
Culpable homicide is not murder when the person whose death is caused, being the age of
eighteen years, suffers death or takes the risk of death with his own consent.” In order to bring

c
.
the offence under exception 5, the consent by the deceased must be given unconditionally and

rs
without any reservation.

Illustrations: A, by instigation, voluntarily causes, Z, a person under eighteen years of age to

death; A has therefore abetted murder.

k e
commit suicide. Here, on account of Z's youth, he was incapable of giving consent to his own

n
A doctor pleading consent to an operation which proved fatal must prove that the patient

a
accepted the risk and was fully aware of it. Where the accused because of successive failures

r
in examinations decided to end his life and informed the wife of his decision, and the wife

p
asked him to first kill her and then kill himself, and the accused killed his wife but was
arrested before he could kill himself, it was held that the cases covered by Exception 5

o
(Dasarathv State of BiharAIR 1958 Pat 190).

T
Punishment for Murder (section 302)
Section 302 prescribes for murder shall be punishable with death or imprisonment for life and
also fine. This provision prescribes an alternative punishment of either death or imprisonment
for life with fine if an accused is found guilty of murder. The constitutional validity was
challenged in case of Jagmohan Singh v. State of Uttar Pradesh, AIR 1973 SC 947, on being
violate of Article 14,19 and 21 of the Constitution of India. Court held it valid and not being
constitutionally valid and not being unreasonable. The decision was reaffirmed in Bachan
Singh v. State of Punjab, AIR 1980
5I1E SC 898 and observed that to be reasonable and an
tr-5D3K9I3E8C
8Nalternative
5Q 1T punishment for murder under Section 302. Court laid down the rarest of the rare
tr-5M3S9Q3Q
test for death sentence. The concept of death sentence was expanded in Machi Singh v. State
of Punjab, AIR 1983 SC 957.

Some of the landmark cases wherein death sentence has been granted,

• tr-5M 3S9Q3Q8N5Q
Nathuram 1T
Godse v. Crown, AIR 1949 East Punj 321 (Assassination of messenger of
peace Mahatma Gandhi)
• Kehar Singh v. Delhi Administration, AIR 1995 Sc 1387 (Indira Gandhi Murder case)
• State of Maharastra v. Sukhdeo Singh, AIR 1992 SC 2100.
 OFFENCES AGAINST PROPERTY
Chapter XXI consists of offences against property which includes provisions from Section 378
to 462 which can be divided into main groups:
a. Offences dealing with deprivation of property: Section 378-424
b. Offences dealing with damage to property: Section 424-440
c. Offences dealing with violation of rights to property in order to the commission of some
other offences: Section 441-461

OFFENCES DEALING WITH DEPRIVATION OF PROPERTY

THEFT
Section 378 states that, “Whoever, intending to take dishonestly any movable property out of
the possession of any person without that person’s consent, moves that property in order to
such taking, is said to commit theft”.

ESSENTIAL INGREDIENTS

c o m
To constitute theft the following ingredients are required;
1.

rs
The accused must have a dishonest intention to take the property.
.
2.
3.
The property must be movable.

k e
The property must be taken out of the possession of another person.

n
4. It must result in wrongful gain by one and wrongful loss to another.

a
5. The property must be moved in order of such taking.
6.

Punishment for theft (Section 379)

p r
The person out of whose possession, property is moved has not consented.

To
The provision lies down that whoever commits theft shall be punished with imprisonment of
either description for a term which may extend to three years, or with fine, or with both.

Aggravated forms of theft (section 380-382)

The following three are the aggravated forms of theft:
➢ Theft in any building, tr-5D3K 9I3E
tent 5I1E
or8Cvessel, used as human dwelling or for custody of property:
8N 5Q 1T
tr-5M3S9Q3Q Sec. 380.

➢ Theft by clerk or servant of property in possession of his master: Section 381.

➢ Theft after preparation made for causing death, or hurt or restraint or fear of death, etc.
to any person in order to the committing of such theft, or the effecting of escape
3Q8N5Q1T
tr-5M3S9Qor
afterwards, the retaining of property taking by theft: Section 382.

EXTORTION
The offence of extortion is intermediary between the offence of theft and robbery. The offence
of extortion is carried out by overpowering the will of the owner. Delivery of property by the
 person put in fear is the essence of the offence of extortion. In other words to constitute the
offence of extortion there must be fear and delivery of property. The offence under this section
is cognizable, non-bailable, non-compoundable and triable by any Magistrate.

Section 383 states that, “Whoever intentionally puts any person in fear of any injury to that
person, or to any other, and thereby dishonestly induces the person so put in fear to deliver
to any person any property or valuable security, or anything signed or sealed which may be
converted into a valuable security, commits “extortion”.

Essential Ingredients
1. A person must intentionally puts any person in fear of injury.
2. Such fear of injury is to that person or to any other closed one.
3. Such injury should be to induces the person so put in fear to deliver to any person:
[a)
[b)
[c)
Any property: or
Valuable security: or

c o m
Anything signed and sealed which may converted into a valuable security

rs .
The punishment prescribed for extortion is provided under Section 384 which states that
whoever commits extortion shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a
term which may extend to three years, or with fine, or with both.

k e
The chief elements of extortion (‘Black mail’) are the intentional putting of a person in fear of

r an
injury to himself or another and dishonestly inducing the person so put in fear to deliver to any
person any property or valuable security.
Illustrations

o p
(a) A threatens to publish a defamatory libel concerning Z unless Z gives him money. He
thus induces Z to give him money. A has committed extortion
(b)

T
A threatens Z that he will keep Z’s child in wrongful confinement unless i will sign
and deliver to A a promissory note binding Z to pay certain money to A. Z signs and
delivers the note. A has committed extortion.
(c) A, by putting Z in fear of grievous hurt, dishonestly induces Z to sign o affix his seal to
a blank paper and deliver it to A. Z signs and delivers tb paper to A. Here, as the paper
so signed may be converted into a valuable security, A has committed extortion.
Sec. 385: Putting person in fear
tr-5D of8Cinjury
3K9I3E 5I1E in order to commit extortion
9Q3Q 8N 5Q 1T
tr- Whereas under Sec. 384, a person is punishable for “extortion” if he puts any person in fear of
5M3S

injury and thereby dishonestly induces him to deliver any property, Sec. 385 pimishes the very
act of putting or the attempting to put any person in fear of any injury for the above purpose.
ROBBERY 8N5Q1T
tr-5M3S9Q3Q

Robbery in common language means to deprive a person to his or her property. The essence of
the offence of robbery is that the offender, for committing theft or for carrying away or
attempting to carry away the looted property , voluntary causes cr attempts to cause death, or
hurt or wrongful restraint. The offence under this section is cognizable, non-bailable, non-
 compoundable and triable by Magistrate of the first Class.

Robbery is an aggravated form of either theft or extortion or of both. According to Sec. 390,
‘theft’ is ‘robbery’ if -
(i) in order to the committing of theft, or

(ii) in committing theft, or

(iii) in carrying away, or attempting to carry away property obtained by 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 hurt, or wrongful restraint.

ILLUSTRATIONS
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.

o m
The essence of the offence of robbery is the presence of imminent fear or violence. The

c
expression “for that end” indicates that death, hurt, or wrongful restraint is caused “in order to

rs .
the committing of theft, or in committing theft, or in carrying away property obtained by theft”.
Thus, violence may be caused either before, or during or after committing theft but it must be
caused for any of the ends stated above.
Section 390 can be analyzed in a nutshell thus-

k e
n
Robbery {Theft + violence or fear of instant violence or Extortion + offender present

Punishment for Robbery (Sec. 392)

p a
+ fear of instant violence + immediate delivery}

r
The punishment for robbery is imprisonment for 10 years and fine. In case of attempt to

1.
To
commit robbery, it is imprisonment for 7 years and fine.
Essential Ingredients
Robbery is either:
[a) Theft; or
(b) Extortion
2. Theft is robbery if:
(a) The offender voluntarily causes or attempts to cause to any Person,-
[i) Death, or
[ii) Hurt, ortr-5D3K9I3E8C5I
1E
8N 5Q 1T
tr-5M3S9Q3Q [iii) Wrongful restraint, or
[iv) Fear of instant death or instant hurt or instant wrongful Restraint;
(b)The act mentioned as above must be done:
(i) In order to the commission of the theft, or
8N5Q1T
In3Qcommitting the theft, or
(ii)3S9Q
tr-5M

(iii) In carrying away or attempting to carry away any Property obtained by theft.
3. Extortion is robbery if:
i) At the time of committing extortion the offender is in Presence of the person put
in fear.
 ii) The offender commits extortion by putting that person in fear of instant death, hurt,
or wrongful restraint:
[a) To that person, or
[b) To some other person.
[iii) By so putting such person in fear, the offender induces The person so put in fear
then and there to deliver the thing extorted.

DACOITY (SECTION 391)

The section states that, ”When five or more persons conjointly commit or attempt to commit a
robbery, or where the whole number o: 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 of aiding, is said to commit “dacoity".

Essential Ingredients
1. The accused commit or attempt to commit robbery.

c o m
Persons committing or attempting to commit robbery and persons present and

.
2.

rs
aiding must not be less than five.
3. All such persons should act conjointly.

Punishment for Dacoity

k e
n
The punishment for dacoity is imprisonment for life, or imprisonment for 10 years and fine. In

a
case of dacoity with murder, it is death, or life-imprisonment, or imprisonment for 10 years and
fine.

r
o p
If the offender uses any deadly weapon at the time of committing robbery or dacoity or causes
or attempts to cause death or grievous hurt to any person, he shall be punished with
imprisonment for 7 years (Sec. 397). A similar punishment is provided for where the offender

T
attempts to commit robbery or dacoity when armed with a deadly weapon (Sec. 398).

Dacoity = 5 persons attempting to commit robbery or 5 persons committing robbery or 1 person

committing robbery and 4 persons present and aiding in its commission or 1 person attempting
robbery and 4 persons present and aiding the attempt.

5I1E
tr-5D3K9I3E8C
8N5Q1T
tr-5M3S9Q3Q

8N5Q1T
tr-5M3S9Q3Q