DAMODARAM SANJIVAYYA NATIONAL LAW UNIVERSITY
SABBAVARAM, VISAKHAPATNAM, A.P, INDIA
TOPIC:
SIGNIFICANCE OF THE WORD ‘CONJOINTLY’ IN DACOITY
CRIMINAL LAW-II
Mr. S. SURYA PRAKASH
SUBMITTED BY
ASHIRBAD SAHOO
2019082
SEMESTER IV
Page | 1
ACKNOWLEDGEMENT
I have taken efforts in this project. However, it would not have been possible without the kind support and help of many individuals. I would like
to extend my sincere thanks to all of them. I am highly indebted to Mr. S.SURYA PRAKASH Sir for his guidance and constant supervision as
well as for providing necessary information regarding the project & also for their support in completing the project.I would like to express my
gratitude towards my family and friends for their kind co-operation and encouragement, which help me in completion of this project. My thanks
and appreciations also go to my friends in developing the project and people who have willingly helped me out with their abilities.
ASHIRBAD SAHOO
19LLB082
Page | 2
Contents
ACKNOWLEDGEMENT.....................................................................................................................................................................................2
INTRODUCTION:.....................................................................................................................................................................................................6
Sec. 391- Dacoity:...................................................................................................................................................................................................6
B. Punishment for dacoity.....................................................................................................................................................................................6
C. Burden of proof..................................................................................................................................................................................................6
D. Dacoity with murder:........................................................................................................................................................................................7
E. Robbery or dacoity, with attempt to cause death or grievous hurt:.............................................................................................................8
F. Attempt to commit robbery or dacoity when armed with deadly weapon...................................................................................................8
G. Making preparation to commit dacoity:.........................................................................................................................................................9
Conjointly commit or attempt to commit:.........................................................................................................................................................10
CONCLUSION:........................................................................................................................................................................................................10
BIBLIOGRAPHY....................................................................................................................................................................................................11
Page | 3
Abstract
“The project will explore the concept of dacoity and elucidate the different ingredients of dacoity. Section 396 of ipc defines dacoity as 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”.”
Objective of the study
1. To understand dacoity.
2. To differentiate between dacoity and robbery.
3. To understand the significance of the word conjointly in dacoity.
4. To know the punishment involved.
Scope of the study
The study is limited to the concept of dacoity.
Significance of the study
The study helps us to understand the concept of dacoity.
Literature review
In this project the student researcher has taken valuable information from various articles, journals, books and web sources.
Books – 1. The Criminal law by S.N.Mishra.
Web sources –1. www.lawctopus.com, - useful for accessing various judgements and statutes
2. www.lawteacher.net – useful for accessing various perspective and knowledge over a single topic
Research methodology
The student researcher has used doctrinal method of research for this project work. This research is a critical and explanatory study of the
concept of dacoity and differentiaite between dacoity and robbery.
Sources
The student researcher has collected valuable information from secondary sources like books, web sources, articles and journals.
Page | 4
INTRODUCTION:
“Section 391 defines “Dacoity”. It is a most heinous crime considered by the people all over the world. Where robbery is committed by five or
more persons, the offence committed is dacoity. It is one of the oldest forms of crimes in India and is committed purely for the purpose of
looting or extortion. Every dacoity is robbery. There is only slight difference between robbery and dacoity.”
Sec. 391- Dacoity:
“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.”
A. Ingredients of Sec. 391:
“1. Where robbery is committed by five or more persons, the offence is dacoity: - 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 1, 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.”
“2. Even if their attempt is failed, it is also considered as dacoity: - 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.”
“3. “Conjointly commit or attempt to commit”: - 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.”
CASE- 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.”
CASE- Saktu vs. State of U.P.3
“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.”
B. Punishment for dacoity:
“Sec. 395 imposes punishment imprisonment for life or with rigorous imprisonment for a term which may extend to ten years and also be liable
to fine. In a case, nine persons had participated out of which only four were convicted by the High Court and remaining were discharged, in
these circumstances conviction of only one cannot be justified because in a dacoity at least five persons are required 4 In a case the appellants
were alleged to have committed dacoity in relation to certain railway property. No direct evidence was available. Only a truck as standing near
the railway track on which 63 pieces of C.S.T. 9, plates were found and when asked by policemen to stop, the truck inmates refused to stop. It
was held that the prosecution case must fail because; firstly, the fact that what was being carried by the truck were the stolen goods belonging to
the railway was not established. Secondly, stoppage of truck by policeman and resistance offered by the inmates of the truck cannot by a piece of
evidence of dacoity.5”
C. Burden of proof:
“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. As a matter of fact, it is very difficult to identify the accused in the offence of dacoity.
The prosecution must establish-
(i) that five or more persons jointly committed the offence;
1
Om Prakash v state of Rajasthan, AIR 1998 SC 1220
2
State of H.P. vs. Jagar Singh (1989 CrLJ 12 H.P.)
3
Saktu vs. State of U.P. (AIR 1973 SC 760)
4
Ram Lakhan v. State of U.P., 1983 Cri. L.j. 691 (S.C.)
5
D.C. Sidha Ganesh and others v. State of Maharashtra, 1984 Cri. L.J. 193 (S.C)
Page | 5
(ii) that one or more of the attempted or committed to commit robbery
(iii) that others were present and aiding such commission or attempt. If the dacoity is committed by unknown persons, wearing veils in the dark
nights it is highly difficult to establish their identity. Without identity of the accused, the Courts could not impose punishment. However, there
are three kinds of evidence generally available in robbery or dacoity. First occasion, when the offenders are caught red-handed on the spot by the
villagers. It is somewhat difficult in majority dacoities. The reason is that the villagers or residents do not wear the weapons. The accused wear
deadly weapons and attack the complainants with courage and preplant.”
“Second occasion, when the wrong-doers are arrested in some other cases and they disclose their previous offences during the interrogation and
investigation by the police in other cases.”
“Third occasion arises when the offender or offenders sell the stolen property after dacoity in another place. Such property and those accused are
red-handedly caught.”
CASE- Barendra Kumar Ghosh vs. King Emperor6
“The accused formed a group and did dacoity. One of them murdered the inmate. The trial Court punished all the members of the dacoity. The
High Court imposed punishment only on the member who murdered and acquitted the remaining members. The Supreme Court held that the
High Court erred in acquitting the remaining members. It held that under Section 396 read with Sees. 302, 32 and 149, when a member of an
unlawful assembly murders, all the members of that unlawful assembly shall be imposed with the same punishment.”
D. Dacoity with murder:
“According to Section 396, 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.”
CASE- Kalika Tiwari vs. State of Bihar7
CASE- Shyam Behari v. state of Uttar Pradesh on 5 October, 1956
“Facts of the case-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 appellants 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 held that 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 section396 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
require to be established by the preoccupation is that the murder had been committed while committed dacoity are also equally liable for the
murder under this section.”
(1) when prosecution failed to establish any nexus between death and commission of dacoity charger under section 396 will fail.
CASE- Wakil Singh state of Bihar, (1981) BLJ 462
“The fact of the case arose out of a dacoity said to have been committed in the house of the complainant, PW-Darbari Sao on the night of 24th
May, 1965 at about 8.45 P.M. some unknown persons including the appellants entered the house, assaulted inmates, killed one of them and
looted away properties worth thousands of rupees. There is no clear evidence to show that the deceased Kameshwer Sao was actually killed by
one of the dacoits in the course of the dacoity. Although his dead body was found but the prosecution has not been able to establish any nexus
between his death and the commission of the dacoity or even his injuries. In these circumstances it is obvious that charge under Section 396 must
fail.”
“Held- The trial court refused to act on the evidence of PW 2 also because this appellant was identified only before the committing court and not
before the Sessions Court. Thus, the only evidence against Wakil Singh consisted of PW (PROSECUTION WITNESS). In the instant case
mentioned that none of the witnesses in their earlier statements or in oral evidence gave any description of the dacoits whom they have alleged to
have identified in the dacoity, nor did the witnesses give any identification marks viz., stature of the accused or whether they were fat or thin or
6
Barendra Kumar Ghosh vs. King Emperor (AIR 1925 PC 1)
7
Kalika Tiwari vs. State of Bihar (1997 SC 445 SCC)
Page | 6
of a fair colour or of black colour. In absence of any such description, it will be impossible for us to convict any accused on the basis of a single
identification, in which case the reasonable possibility of mistake in identification cannot be excluded. The High Court however has chosen to
rely on the evidence of a single witness, completely over-looking the facts and circumstances. The High Court also ignored the fact. Since the
High Court was reversing an order of acquittal, it failed to take into consideration the fact that having regard to there being only one witness who
identified the accused concerned, the view taken by the trial court could not be said not to be reasonably possible. For these reasons, therefore,
we are clearly of the opinion that the appellant who had been identified by only one witness must be acquitted. Thus, fully satisfied that this was
not a case which called for the interference of the High Court against the order of the acquittal passed by the Sessions Judge. The appeal is
accordingly, allowed and the appellants acquitted of the charges framed against them. Krishnan Dan Singh who was on bail will now be
discharged from his bail bonds and other appellants are directed to be set at liberty forthwith. The witnesses identified the dacoits in test
identification had not given any description of the miscreants in their case diary statements. Only one witness was able to identify the accused
and this was a reasonable ground for non-acceptance of the evidence as possibility of mistake in identification could not be excluded. When the
presence of accused persons recoveries of different items of an incriminating nature from each of them are sufficient to establish that all of them
conjointly participated in the offence of dacoity with murder, therefore their conviction under section 396 is liable to be confirmed; K.M.
lbrahim alias Bava v. State of Karnataka,8 On considering special facts of the case. i.e. the age of accused and their status in life as also their
antecedents, Sentence of 10 years R.I in place of sentence of life imprisonment would meet the ends of justice.”
E. Robbery or dacoity, with attempt to cause death or grievous hurt:
“According to Section 397, 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, the imprisonment with which such offender shall be punished shall not be less
than seven years. This section does not create any substantive offence but only regulate the punishment already provided for robbery and
dacoity. This section fixes a minimum term of imprisonment when the commission of dacoity or robbery is accompanied with certain
aggravating circumstances, viz., use of deadly weapons or causing of grievous hurt or attempt to cause death or grievous hurt is present. Section
34 of the code has no application in the construction of this section. 9The accused himself must possess the deadly weapon. The liability is neither
co-extensive nor constructive as in Section 149.10”
CASE: Shravan Dashrath Dartange v. State of Maharashtra11
“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-“
(i) There can be no quarrel that knife is a deadly weapon within the meaning of section 397;
F. Attempt to commit robbery or dacoity when armed with deadly weapon : “According to Section 398, if, at the time of
attempting to commit robbery or dacoity, the offender is armed with any deadly weapon, the imprisonment with which such offender shall be
punished shall not be less than seven years. This section punishes the cases of attempt to commit robbery as distinguished from actual
accomplished robbery. It applies where the offenders are armed with deadly weapons though they do not use them in the attempt to rob or
commit robbery. It does not apply to other offenders who in combination with such person have committed robbery or dacoity.”
The essential of this section are as follows) An offence of robbery or dacoity must have been committed.
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: Phool Kumar v Delhi administration12
8
K.M.lbrahim alias Bava v. State of Karnataka, 2000 Cr LJ 197
9
Ali Mirza, (1923) 51 Cal. 265.
10
Hazara Singh, (1946) 25 Pat. 277
11
Shravan Dashrath Dartange v. State of Maharashtra, (1997)2 Crimes 47 (Bom)
12
Phool Kumar v Delhi administration on 13 March, 1975 AIR 1975 SC 905
Page | 7
“The facts of the case are that 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.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.”
G. Making preparation to commit dacoity:
“According to Section 399, 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. This section punishes preparation which consists in devising or arranging means
necessary for the commission of an offence. Only 3 cases of preparation are punishable in the code:”
1. Preparation to wage war against the Government of India. (S. 122)
2. Preparation to commit depredation on territories of a power at peace with the
Government of India (S.126)
3. Preparation to commit dacoity.(S.399)
CASE: Malkiat Singh v. state of Punjab13
It is held that the preparation in devising or arranging the means or measures necessary for the commission of the offence. On the other hand, an
attempt to commit
H. Punishment for belonging to gang of dacoits:
“According to Section 400, 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, or with rigorous imprisonment for a term which may extend to ten
years, and shall also be liable to fine. This section punishes those who associate with habitual gangs of dacoits. Its object is to break gangs of
dacoits. The fact that women lived with dacoits as their wives or mistresses is not enough to prove that they belonged to a gang of dacoits. It is
essential to prove that the women themselves were associated with the husband or protectors for the purpose of themselves habitually
committing dacoities.14The expression ‘belong’ implies something more than casual association for the purpose of committing one or two
dacoities by a person who was ordinarily lived by honest means. It refers to those persons who habitually associate with a gang of dacoits and
actively assist them in their operations. But if a person of a bad pasts record participation the commission of dacoity even on one occasion in
association with a well-known gang of habitual gang dacoits knowing them to be such a gang it may reasonably be inferred that he belongs to a
gang unless there is some other material on record to justify an interference that the association was of a casual nature.15”
I. Punishment for belonging to gang of thieves:
“According to Section 401, 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 punishes those who constitute a gang of thieves or
robbers. It is not necessary to prove that each individual member of the gang has habitually committed theft or has committed any particular theft
in company with the other members.16 being a member of the gang is enough for punishment.”
J. Assembling for purpose of committing dacoity:
“According to Section 402, whoever, at any time after the passing of this Act, shall be one of five or more persons 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: Chaturi Yadav v. State of Bihar17
13
Malkiat Singh v. state of Punjab AIR 1970 SC 713
14
Yella, (1896) Unreported Cr. C. 863.
15
Bhama Shaw, A.I.R. 1956 Cal. 195.
16
Beia, (1914) P.R. No. 13 of 1914
17
Chaturi Yadav v State of Bihar AIR 1979 SC 1412
Page | 8
“The fact of the case is that 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. The court held that 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.”
Difference between Robbery and Dacoity.
“The offence of robbery is defined in section 390 IPC and as is clear from a perusal of the said section that 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.”
(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 whereas 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 whereas 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)Position in Highway:
If robbery is committed on the highway, the imprisonment may be extended to fourteen years whereas the fact that the dacoity is committed on
the highway does not change the position or punishment.
Conjointly commit or attempt to commit:
“To constitute Dacoity, there must not only be five or more persons but they must work co-jointly to commit or attempt to commit. The word
‘conjointly’ means united or in association. All the five persons should act in a concerted manner participating in the transaction. For example, a
group of 5 persons enters a house and beat up the family sleeping outside. One accused broke open the door, three of the accused went inside and
the other two kept guard outside. All the accused help remove the boxes and later, two of the accused carry away two boxes. It was held that the
beating, the guarding and the robbery were all part of some transaction and all the accused acted conjointly. They were all held to be guilty of
committing Dacoity u/s 391 and 395 IPC.”
CONCLUSION:
“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.”
Page | 9
BIBLIOGRAPHY
https://bnblegal.com/article/dacoity/#:~:text=Conjointly%20commit%20or%20attempt%20to%20commit%3A,means%20united%20or%20in
%20association.&text=They%20were%20all%20held%20to,s%20391%20and%20395%20IPC.
https://www.indianbarassociation.org/dacoity-under-ipc/
https://lawcorner.in/define-robbery-and-dacoity-when-does-the-robbery-become-dacoity/
https://blog.ipleaders.in/robbery-and-dacoity/
http://lawtimesjournal.in/difference-between-robbery-and-dacoity/
Page | 10
