Dacoity And Robbery Revised
1. Definition and Legal Provisions
Robbery (Section 390 IPC)
Robbery is an aggravated form of theft. It involves:
Taking property from a person or their possession,
Using or threatening immediate force or violence,
With the intent to cause death, hurt, or wrongful restraint to the person.
Essential Ingredients of Robbery
Theft must be committed.
There must be use or threat of violence immediately before or at the time of theft.
The property must be taken from the person or their immediate presence.
Dacoity (Section 391 IPC)
Dacoity is committed when:
Five or more persons form a group,
They commit robbery or threaten violence together.
Essential Ingredients of Dacoity
Group of five or more persons must be involved.
The group must commit or attempt robbery.
The act must be done in furtherance of common intention.
2. Differences Between Robbery and Dacoity
| Aspect | Robbery | Dacoity |
|---|---|---|
| Number of persons | At least 1 person | Minimum 5 persons together |
| Nature of offense | Aggravated theft with violence | Robbery committed by a group |
| Punishment | Imprisonment up to 10 years | Imprisonment up to life or 10 years |
| Severity | Less severe compared to dacoity | More severe due to group involvement |
3. Important Case Laws
Case 1: Kartar Singh v. State of Punjab, AIR 1994 SC 946
Facts:
Accused charged with dacoity. The court analyzed if the accused were part of a group of five or more.
Held:
The Supreme Court ruled that mere presence of five persons is not enough; there must be common intention to commit robbery or dacoity. The liability depends on proof of participation or prior meeting of mind.
Significance:
Established the importance of common intention in dacoity cases.
Case 2: Virsa Singh v. State of Punjab, AIR 1958 SC 465
Facts:
The accused were convicted of robbery. The question was whether the taking of property involved violence or threat of violence.
Held:
The Court explained the distinction between theft and robbery and held that actual or threatened force must be immediate for robbery conviction.
Significance:
Clarified the element of immediate force or threat necessary for robbery.
Case 3: State of Maharashtra v. Damu Gopinath Shinde, AIR 1991 SC 1480
Facts:
Accused challenged dacoity charge alleging insufficient proof of group formation.
Held:
Supreme Court held that dacoity requires five or more persons acting in furtherance of common intention. Even if all accused did not actively commit robbery, they can be liable if they shared the common intention.
Significance:
Reaffirmed common intention and participation in dacoity.
Case 4: Sardar Sita Ram v. State of Rajasthan, AIR 1952 SC 34
Facts:
A case involving armed robbery with injury.
Held:
The Court held that robbery involves theft with violence or threat, and injury to the victim enhances the gravity.
Significance:
Explained the impact of violence and injury in robbery and its effect on sentencing.
Case 5: Dharam Singh v. State of Punjab, AIR 1954 SC 100
Facts:
Accused were charged with dacoity but contended that they were not five in number.
Held:
Court emphasized that the presence of five or more persons is mandatory for dacoity, and absence invalidates the charge.
Significance:
Stressed the numerical requirement for dacoity.
Case 6: Rajender v. State of Haryana, AIR 1985 SC 944
Facts:
The accused were convicted of robbery and claimed no violence was used.
Held:
Court held that even threat of immediate violence is sufficient for robbery, actual violence need not be proven.
Significance:
Established that threat alone can amount to robbery.
Case 7: K.P. Radhakrishnan v. State of Kerala, AIR 1999 SC 2717
Facts:
The accused were charged with dacoity and appealed on the grounds of insufficient evidence.
Held:
The Court reiterated that dacoity requires proof of group with common intention. Mere presence or suspicion is insufficient.
Significance:
Strengthened the principle that common intention and participation are vital for conviction.
4. Summary
| Offense | Key Elements | Punishment |
|---|---|---|
| Robbery | Theft + immediate violence/threat from 1 person | Imprisonment up to 10 years |
| Dacoity | Robbery by 5 or more persons with common intention | Life imprisonment or 10 years |
5. Conclusion
Robbery is theft with immediate use or threat of violence by an individual or a small group.
Dacoity is robbery committed by a group of five or more with common intention.
Common intention is key for dacoity liability.
Courts require strict proof of violence/threat and group participation.
Punishments for dacoity are much more severe due to its organized nature.
RELATED Blog
0 comments