Law and You > Criminal Laws > Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 > Chapter XVII > Dacoity under BNS (Ss. 310 to 313)
Dacoity is one of the gravest forms of robbery recognized under Indian criminal law, reflecting organized and violent criminal activity. The difference between robbery and dacoity lies only in the number of offenders and as such there is no other difference. Enshrined under Section 310 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 (BNS), dacoity is legally defined as a robbery committed by five or more persons acting together. Unlike simple theft or robbery, dacoity poses a significant threat to public order and safety due to its collective nature and often violent execution. This article delves into the concept of dacoity as defined in the BNS, explores its essential elements, and examines the legal provisions and landmark judgments that shape its interpretation and punishment.
Comparative Study BNS and IPC
| Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 | Indian Penal Code, 1860 | Change |
| S. 310(1) | S. 391 | IPC Section is included as sub-section in BNS sans heading. No other change. |
| S. 310(2) | S. 395 | IPC Section is included as sub-section in BNS sans heading. No other change. |
| S. 310(3) | S. 396 | IPC section is included as sub-section in BNS sans heading. Minimum mandatory punishment of imprisonment is “shall not be less than ten years”. |
| S. 310(4) | S. 399 | IPC Section is included as a sub-section in BNS sans heading. |
| S. 310(5) | S. 402 | The IPC section is included as sub-section in BNS, sans heading. Words “at any time after the passing of this Act, shall” is removed. |
| S. 310(6) | S. 400 | The IPC section is included as sub-section in BNS, sans heading. Words “at any time after the passing of this Act, shall” is removed. |
| S. 311 | S. 397 | No Change |
| S. 312 | S. 398 | No Change |
| S. 313 | S. 401 | The word ‘thieves’ is replaced by “robbers” in the heading. The words “at any time after the passing of this Act, shall” “at wandering or other ”and “for the purpose of” are excluded. |
S. 310 BNS:
Dacoity:
(1) 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 90 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.
(2) 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.
(3) 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 shall not be less than ten years, and shall also be liable to fine.
(4) 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.
(5) Whoever is 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.
(6) Whoever belongs 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.
Defining Dcaoity (S. 310(1) BNS):
Essential Ingredients of Dacoity:
- The offence of robbery is committed or attempted by five or more persons (Thus the offence should have all the ingredients of theft as robbery or extortion as robbery);
- All such persons are acting conjointly;
- 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;
- then, every person so committing, attempting or aiding, is said to commit dacoity.
The essentials of the offence of dacoity are that the theft should be perpetrated by means either of actual violence or of threatened violence. The threatened violence may be implied in the conduct and character of the mob.
Conjoint Act:
The word ‘conjointly’ is the most important word bearing on the liability of persons accused of an offence of dacoity. While it may be true to say that common intention is no part of the offence of dacoity, the word ‘conjointly’ used in this Section, manifestly refers to united or concerted action of the persons participating in the transaction. If individual acts of persons cannot reasonably be referred to a united or concerted action of such persons, there cannot be any question of any conviction for dacoity of the group of persons concerned. Mere presence of the accused amongst the robbers is not sufficient. The accused must be shown to have conjointly committed robbery or aided such commission. Though it is true that they also serve in commission of dacoity who stand and wait to facilitate, assist or come in aid to the dacoits if need be, innocent bystanders cannot be dubbed as dacoits. Some act or omission must be there from which one can reach a judicious conclusion that the bystander was a member of the gang of dacoits.
In Allaudin & Ors. v. State (N.C.T. Of Delhi), Delhi High Court judgment dated February 04, 2016 case, the Delhi High Court observed that the use of word “conjointly” in Section 391 IPC (S. 310(1) BNS) indicates that five robbers act with knowledge and consent and in aid of one another or pursuant to an agreement or understanding, i.e., unitedly. Thus, in most of dacoities, the robbers would be acting with a common object to loot with use of violence. At least in some cases of dacoities, the robbers act and use force in pursuance of their common intention and in all cases they act in prosecution of a common object. The word “conjointly” means uniform intention along with unified or united or concerted action. This word, because of its deep rooted meaning, has been deliberately preferred over the word “jointly”.
Involvement of Five or More Persons:
For committing dacoity the number of persons committing robbery must be five or more.
In Ram Shankar Singh v. State of Uttar Pradesh, AIR 1956 SC 441 case, six people were charged with committing dacoity. Three out of the six people were acquitted. The charges framed did not indicate that along with the six people there were other unknown persons with them, who had committed dacoity. The charges were that the six people, who were placed on trial, were the persons who had committed dacoity. Since three persons were acquitted, there were only three other persons left as the persons involved with the crime. The Supreme Court held that the three persons could be convicted only to the lesser offence of robbery under Section 392 and not for dacoity under Section 395 of IPC.
It is not necessary that the force or menace should be displayed by any overt act. It cannot avail the accused to say, or reduce the gravity of their offence, that no actual hurt was caused as no one dared to resist the overwhelming show of force, which was sufficient to terrify, and did in fact terrify, those whose business it was to protect the property. In a case of dacoity the circumstances that the inmates of the house, seeing the large number of dacoits, do not offer any resistance and no force or violence is required or used does not reduce the dacoity to theft.
In Shyam Behari v. State of U.P., AIR 1957 SC 320 case, where the appellant had been charged inter alia with having committed an offence under Section 396, Indian Penal Code (S. 310 BNS), along with other persons committed dacoity in the house. However, they failed in their attempt because of the hue and cry raised by the residents. All the residents of the village and the neighbouring village arrived at the scene. The accused along with his companions ran away from the house without collecting the booty. When they were running away, murder was committed by one of the members. The Supreme Court held that if the victims do not offer resistance and no force or violence is used, this does not reduce the offence of dacoity to theft. The appeal of the appellants was dismissed by the High Court and the death sentence passed by the Learned Sessions Judge was confirmed upon them.
Punishment for Dacoity (S. 310(2) BNS):
The offence of dacoity under S. 310(1) BNs is punishable by imprisonment for life, or with rigorous imprisonment for a term which may extend to ten years, and shall also be liable to fine.
Classification of Offence:
Cognizable, Non-bailable, and triable by Court of Session.
Punishment for Preparation for Committing Dacoity (S. 310(4) BNS):
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 Malkiat Singh v. State of Punjab, AIR 1970 SC 713. Case, the Supreme Court observed that preparation refers to devising or arranging of means necessary for commission of offence.
In Karam Dass v. State, AIR 1952 Punj 249 the Punjab and Haryana High Court said that preparation implies that a design or plan for committing dacoity has been drawn up and the preparation is in pursuance of such design.
Classification of Offence:
Cognizable, Non-bailable, and triable by Court of Session.
Punishment for Assembling for Purpose of Committing Dacoity (S. 310(5) BNS):
Whoever is 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.
Though the ingredients of offences under both Sections 310(4) and 310(5) are same, the only difference between the two is that while under Section 310(2) mere assemblage without preparation is enough
Classification of Offence:
Cognizable, Non-bailable, and triable by Court of Session.
In Samunder Singh v. Sttae of W.B., AIR 1965 Cal 598 case, the Calcutta High Court observed that Section 391 IPC (S. 310(1) BNS) shows that the other two stages, namely, the stage of attempting to commit, and the stage of actual commission of robbery, have been treated alike and come within the definition. There may well be a stage when there is only an agreement to commit dacoity; if there is proof of the agreement the offence of conspiracy punishable under Section 120B IPC (S. 61(2) BNS) is complete.
Punishment for Belonging to a Gang of Dacoites (S. 310(6) BNS):
Whoever belongs 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.
Classification of Offence:
Cognizable, Non-bailable, and triable by Court of Session.
Aggravated Forms of Robbery and Docoity:
Punishment for Dacoity with Murder (S. 310(3) BNS):
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 shall not be less than ten years, and shall also be liable to fine.
Classification of Offence:
Cognizable, Non-bailable, and triable by Court of Session.
Note that every member involved in the offence is getting punished equally. In providing this Sub-Section the object the Legislature seems to be that the penalty of death or imprisonment for life may be inflicted on a person convicted of taking part in a dacoity in the course of which a murder is committed, even though there is nothing to show that he himself committed the murder or that he abetted it. It declares that the liability of other persons is co-extensive with that of the actual murderer, and, for this purpose, all that is required to be proved is that they should have been “conjointly committing” the dacoity and any death caused by a dacoit in the course of the dacoity would be murder, and is attributed to all of them. The death need not be proved against anyone of the dacoits in particular so long as death is the result of cumulative effect of the violence used by the gang. It is similar to situation under Section 190 BNS read with Section 189(1), where there is liability of every member of unlawful assembly for an offence committed in prosecution of common object.
In Queen Empress v. Umrao Singh, (1894) 16 ALL 437 case, the Allahabad High Court ruled that in order to support a conviction under Section 396 IPC it was necessary to establish, not only that the accused had committed dacoity conjointly with others, but it must also be shown that the murder had been committed in his presence. Rajasthan High Court Cited this Case Law
In Queen Empress v. Teja (1895) 17 ALL 86 case, it was held that when, in the commission of a dacoity, a murder is committed, it matters not whether the particular dacoit was inside the house where the dacoity is committed, 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.
If a person concerned in a dacoity unintentionally commits murder he is liable to punishment under Section 310(3) BNS. But he cannot be separately tried under 103(1) BNS.
In Rafiq Ahmed @ Rafi v. State of U.P., AIR 2011 SC 3114 case, the appellant was charged for an offence under Section 396 IPC and without reformulation/alteration of the charge, the appellant was convicted for an offence under Section 302 IPC by the trial court. Before the Supreme Court, it was his counsel‘s argument that his client was deprived of a fair opportunity of defence and Section 302 IPC being a graver offence than an offence punishable under Section 396 of the IPC, as such the entire trial and conviction of the appellant is vitiated in law. The Supreme Court observed that ingredients of Section 302, IPC, become an integral part of offences punishable under Section 396. Murder under Section 396 will have same connotation, meaning and ingredients as are contemplated under Section 302 of IPC. The Supreme Court upheld the conviction of appellant under Section 302 (even though charge was not framed, and all his companions had been acquitted from charge of dacoity).
S. 311 BNS:
Robbery, or Dacoity, with Attempt to Cause Death or Grievous Hurt:
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.
Classification of Offence:
Cognizable, Non-bailable, and triable by Court of Session.
S. 312 BNS:
Attempt to Commit Robbery or Dacoity when Armed with Deadly Weapon:
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.
Classification of Offence:
Cognizable, Non-bailable, and triable by Court of Session.
In Ashfaq v. State (Govt. of NCT of Delhi), AIR 2004 SC 1253 case; the Supreme Court held that if the weapon carried by the offender is well within the vision of the victim and sufficient enough to create terror in his mind, it is sufficient to satisfy the requirement of use of deadly weapon. It is not necessary to show further that any hurt was caused by the use of weapon.
It is to be noted that, it is only in cases of very grave offences that the legislature fixes a minimum sentence to be imposed on the accused (example, dowry death and rape), generally penal sections under IPC provide for the maximum limit of punishment giving discretion to the judge to decide the sentence in accordance with the facts and circumstances of each case. In case of Ss. 311 and 312 minimum sentence is prescribed as punishment.
S. 313 BNS:
Punishment for Belonging to Gang of Robbers, etc.:
Whoever belongs to any gang of persons associated in habitually committing theft or robbery, and not being a gang of dacoits, shall be punished with rigorous imprisonment for a term which may extend to seven years, and shall also be liable to fine.
Classification of Offence:
Cognizable, Non-bailable, and triable by Court of Session.
The term “belong” refers to something more than mere casual connection. It refers to those persons who habitually associate with a gang of dacoits and actively assist them in their operations. The term “gang” refers to any group or company of persons who go about together or act in concert.
Distinguishing between Robbery and Dacoity:
| Robbery | Dacoity |
| Robbery is defined under S. 309(1) BNS. | Dacoity is defined under S. 310(1) BNS. |
| Robbery can be defined as a criminal act where theft or extortion occurs, accompanied by the use or threat of violence, harm, or wrongful restraint to compel a person to give up their property or belongings. | Dacoity is a robbery committed by 5 or more persons. |
| It is aggravated form of theft or extortion. | It is aggravated form of robbery. |
| Robbery can be committed by a single offender as well as multiple offenders. | Dacoity can be performed by 5 or more persons. |
| Robbery can run from minor physical intimidation to extreme violence. | The presence of an organized gang increases the potential for grievous harm or public danger. |
| Robbery, though serious, is regarded as a minor crime as compared to dacoity except for extraordinary reasons (like highway robbery after dusk, which attracts greater punishment). | The law considers a group of five or more individuals to be more dangerous and capable of causing greater harm than an individual or a smaller group. |
| In robbery, individual responsibility will be assessed with regard to the individual actions of the offenders | The law considers the entire group as a single team, and it presumes that all members of that group aimed to commit a common crime. |
| A person who commits the offense of robbery shall be punished with rigorous imprisonment for a maximum term of 10 years. If such robbery was committed on a highway between sunset and sunrise, the imprisonment may extend to 14 years. | A person who commits dacoity shall be punished with imprisonment for life, or with rigorous imprisonment of 10 years with fine. Any one of five or more persons who while committing dacoity, commits murder, shall be punished with death, or imprisonment for life, or rigorous imprisonment for a term not less than ten years, with fine. |
| Example: A threatens B to kill him if he doesn’t deliver him the gold ornaments he possesses. B, under the fear of death, delivers him the ornaments. Here, A has committed the offense of robbery as B has delivered him ornaments under fear. | Example: A gang of eight men armed with weapons enter a jewel shop and loots jewellery while threatening the employees and the customers present there with a pistol in their hands. This is the offense of dacoity because here robbery is committed by more than five people |
Conclusion:
Dacoity, as defined under Section 310(1) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023, represents a serious and organized criminal offense that endangers the safety, security, and peace of society. What distinguishes dacoity from other property crimes is not just the element of force or theft, but the collective participation of five or more individuals with a common criminal intention. This organized aspect makes dacoity particularly threatening and demands stringent legal intervention.
Judicial interpretation over the years has reinforced the need for strict punishment while ensuring that the rights of the accused are protected. Courts have consistently held that mere presence at the scene with the intent to participate in the act, even without active involvement, can constitute liability under dacoity laws. In essence, dacoity is not just a legal term—it is a representation of a collective threat to law and order. Effective enforcement, timely trials, and awareness are crucial in curbing this menace. Strengthening intelligence and community policing can also act as preventive tools.
For More Articles on the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 Click Here