Tuesday, May 28, 2024

๐—๐˜‚๐—ฑ๐—ถ๐—ฐ๐—ถ๐—ฎ๐—น๐——๐—ฟ๐—ฒ๐—ฎ๐—บโ„ข

๐™ฐ๐™ต๐™ต๐™พ๐š๐™ณ๐™ฐ๐™ฑ๐™ป๐™ด & ๐™ฐ๐™ฒ๐™ฒ๐™ด๐š‚๐š‚๐™ธ๐™ฑ๐™ป๐™ด

IPCMODEL ANSWER

DACOITY

Explain briefly the offence of Dacoity given under section 391 of Indian Penal Code, 1860, and discuss how the offence of dacoity is different from the offence pf robbery.

According to the provisions of Indian Penal Code, 1860, the offence of theft, extortion, robbery and dacoity are interrelated and part of same genes. If an accused takes the property out of the possession of another person without his consent, then it is considered that an accused has committed the offence of theft whereas if an accused puts another person in the fear of injury and induces him dishonestly to deliver his property to an accused person then it is considered that an accused has committed the offence of extortion.

But robbery is an aggravated form of theft and extortion because in case of robbery an accused takes the property from another person by putting that person in the fear of instant death or instant hurt or instant wrongful restraint. In robbery there is a threat of instant death. So, it is generally said that robbery is an aggravated form of theft or extortion. On the other hand, dacoity is an aggravated form of Robbery.

According to section 391 of Indian Penal Code, 1860, if group of five or more persons commit robbery or attempt to commit robbery, then in such a case, all the members of that group can be held liable for having committed the offence of dacoity given under section 391 of Indian Penal Code, 1860.

Section 390 of Indian Penal Code, 1860, deals with the provisions of robbery and according to this section only one person can commit robbery whereas according to section 391 only five or more persons than five can commit the offence of dacoity. That is why, it is said that dacoity is an aggravated form of robbery because this offence is committed by group of persons with the aid of each other.

For example: – If group of four persons forcefully takes the property out of possession of another person then they all can be held liable for having committed the offence of robbery given under section 390 of Indian Penal Code, 1860 but if that group contains five or more members and all that members take the property out of possession of another person after causing hurt to that person, then in such a case, all that members will be held for having committed the offence of dacoity given under section 391 of Indian Penal Code, 1860.

The difference between first and second situation is that of members and presence of members determine whether they will be held liable for having committed the offence of robbery given under section 390 of Indian Penal Code, 1860 or of dacoity given under section 391 of Indian Penal Code, 1860.

In the leading case State of Maharashtra vs. Joseph Mingel Koli (Bom 1997), the Honโ€™ble Bombay High Court held that when robbery is either committed or an attempt to commit it is made by five or more persons then all such persons, who are present or aiding in its commission or in an attempt to commit it, would commit the offence of dacoity.

According to our Indian Legal System, there are four main stages of crime and these are: –
โ€ข Intention to commit a crime
โ€ข Preparation to commit a crime
โ€ข Attempt to commit a crime
โ€ข Commission of a crime

and according to this system the first and second stage of crime is not punishable. Basically, if a person prepares to commit a crime, then that person cannot be held liable for this act.

But actually, this is a general rule and there is an exception to rule and that exception has been given under section 399 of Indian Penal Code, 1860, which deals with the provisions of preparation to commit dacoity. According to this section, if any person prepares to commit dacoity then that person will be held liable for having committed the offence given under section 399 of Indian Penal Code, 1860.

Section 396 of Indian Penal Code, 1860, is an aggravated form of dacoity because this section deals with the provisions of dacoity with murder. According to section 396 of Indian Penal Code, 1860, if five or more persons commit or attempt to commit robbery and while committing robbery if any of the member commits murder of any other person, then in such a situation, it will be considered that the murder has been committed by all the members and all those members will be held liable for having committed the offence of dacoity with murder.

In the leading case of State vs. Sadhu Singh & ors. (Raj. 1972), the Honโ€™ble Rajasthan High Court held that while committing dacoity, if any one of the accused out of five or more accused commits murder, then all the accused will be held liable for having committed the offence of dacoity with murder given under section 396 of Indian Penal Code, 1860.

Moreover, in the leading case of Laliya vs. State of Rajasthan (Raj. 1966), the Honโ€™ble Rajasthan High Court held that whether murder committed by any of the accused out of five or more accused is a part of dacoity or not totally depends upon the circumstances of each case.

For example: – Five persons A, B, C, D and E entered into a Nationalized Bank to rob that bank and while committing dacoity, out of all those accused B shot the security guard of bank and caused his death and after committing dacoity they all rushed towards the railway station and when they all reached the railway station, D saw his old enemy and due to anger D killed that enemy and after that they all were arrested by the Police authorities.

In this case all the accused will be held liable for having committed the offence of dacoity and moreover for having committed the murder of security guard. They all will be held liable for having committed the murder of security guard according to the provisions of section 396 of Indian Penal Code, 1860. But for the murder of Dโ€™s enemy, only D will be held liable for having committed the offence of murder. Rest of the accused will not be held liable for having committed the murder of Dโ€™s enemy because that murder was not committed by D in order to commit dacoity. That is why, only D will be held liable for having committed his murder.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

error: Content is protected !!