Robbery
Section 309 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 deals with robbery. In all robbery there is either theft or extortion. The Act came into force on 01 Jul 2024.
(1) In all robbery there is either theft or extortion.
(2) Theft is robbery if, in order to the committing of the theft, or in committing the theft, or in carrying away or attempting to carry away property obtained by the 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 of instant hurt, or of instant wrongful restraint.
(3) Extortion is robbery if the offender, at the time of committing the extortion, is in the presence of the person put in fear, and commits the extortion by putting that person in fear of instant death, of instant hurt, or of instant wrongful restraint to that person or to some other person, and, by so putting in fear, induces the person so put in fear then and there to deliver up the thing extorted.
Explanation.—The offender is said to be present if he is sufficiently near to put the other person in fear of instant death, of instant hurt, or of instant wrongful restraint.
Illustrations.
(a) 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.
(b) A meets Z on the high road, shows a pistol, and demands Z’s purse. Z, in consequence, surrenders his purse. Here A has extorted the purse from Z by putting him in fear of instant hurt, and being at the time of committing the extortion in his presence. A has therefore committed robbery.
(c) A meets Z and Z’s child on the high road. A takes the child, and threatens to fling it down a precipice, unless Z delivers his purse. Z, in consequence, delivers his purse. Here A has extorted the purse from Z, by causing Z to be in fear of instant hurt to the child who is there present. A has therefore committed robbery on Z.
(d) A obtains property from Z by saying—"Your child is in the hands of my gang, and will be put to death unless you send us ten thousand rupees". This is extortion, and punishable as such; but it is not robbery, unless Z is put in fear of the instant death of his child.
(4) Whoever commits robbery shall be punished with rigorous imprisonment for a term which may extend to ten years, and shall also be liable to fine; and, if the robbery be committed on the highway between sunset and sunrise, the imprisonment may be extended to fourteen years.
(5) Whoever attempts to commit robbery shall be punished with rigorous imprisonment for a term which may extend to seven years, and shall also be liable to fine.
(6) If any person, in committing or in attempting to commit robbery, voluntarily causes hurt, such person, and any other person jointly concerned in committing or attempting to commit such robbery, 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.
Section 309, The Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 (Act 45 of 2023).
Replaces a provision of the Indian Penal Code
IPC 390 Robbery Text carried over almost unchanged 95%
Measured by comparing the text of the two provisions, not taken from an official correspondence table — there is no machine-readable one. See both texts side by side before relying on it.
Both regimes are live. The repealed enactment still governs what happened while it was in force. We never redirect one to the other.
Cross-references
Extracted from the operative text of the enactments themselves. Every destination below exists in our corpus.
Referred to by 5
How this offence is classified
From the First Schedule to the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, which classifies every offence under the Sanhita. Cognizable means a police officer may arrest without warrant; bailable means bail is a matter of right rather than of the court's discretion. This section is classified 4 ways.
| Offence | Punishment | Cognizable | Bailable | Triable by |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Robbery. | Rigorous imprisonment for 10 years and fine. | Cognizable. | Non-bailable. | Magistrate of the first class. |
| If robbery committed on highway between sunset and sunrise. | Rigorous imprisonment for 14 years. | Cognizable. | Non-bailable. | Magistrate of the first class. |
| Attempt to commit robbery. | Rigorous imprisonment for 7 years and fine. | Cognizable. | Non-bailable. | Magistrate of the first class. |
| Causing hurt. | Imprisonment for life, or rigorous imprisonment for 10 years and fine. | Cognizable. | Non-bailable. | Magistrate of the first class. |
Related judgements & precedents
These are some judgments that construed this section, and hold precedence value. They hold authority on how to read, interpret and use this section.
-
Mohamed Ali v. State
Decided under Indian Penal Code 392, which this section replaces. The court did not have this Act before it.
Court's Decision & Legal Precedent
Judgment of Main Case order-9.pdf 2009-03-17. Body date MARCH 17, 2009 matches the order index (DATE-CHECK verify warning from filename reuse, not a wrong document). Crl A 482/2009. Sinha/Sharma. Dacoity under IPC 395 needs five persons; when co-accused are acquitted the remaining accused cannot be convicted of 395 and the conviction is altered to robbery under 392. Ashfaq's famous 392 PDF remains HTTP 500 on its own CNR. Map 395 and 392; do not pad 397.
On this section: Successor of IPC 392 (mapping.csv near-identical, score 0.8703). The residual-robbery alteration carries to BNS 309.
-
Ram Prakash Chaddha vs The State of Uttar Pradesh
Decided under Indian Penal Code 392, which this section replaces. The court did not have this Act before it.
Court's Decision & Legal Precedent
At the stage of considering discharge application under Section 227 Cr.PC, the court must confine its consideration to 'the record of the case and the documents submitted therewith' (prosecution materials only) and determine whether a prima facie case exists based on grave suspicion emerging from such materials. Mere suspicion, supposition, or conjecture not founded on materials on record cannot justify framing charges. In cases of criminal conspiracy, there must be at least an allegation of agreement between conspirators; absent such allegation or evidence of agreement in prosecution materials, charges of conspiracy cannot be framed merely on basis of suspicious circumstances. The court is not a mere post office of prosecution but must exercise independent judicial mind to protect accused from frivolous prosecution, especially at pre-trial stage.
On this section: Punishment for dacoity/robbery; used in original robbery case (Crime No. 351/1993) filed by appellant
-
State of H. P vs Nirmala Devi
Decided under Indian Penal Code 392, which this section replaces. The court did not have this Act before it.
Court's Decision & Legal Precedent
When the Indian Penal Code provides for punishment with imprisonment 'and shall also be liable to fine' for serious offences, both imprisonment and fine are mandatory and imperative. The appellate court's power under Section 386(b)(iii) of the Criminal Procedure Code to alter the nature or extent of sentence must be exercised in accordance with the statutory scheme of punishment in the IPC and cannot be used to eliminate imprisonment entirely and substitute it with fine alone, even when mitigating circumstances such as the accused being a woman with dependent children are present. For heinous crimes against society, the deterrence theory becomes paramount, and the principle of proportionality requires that punishment be commensurate with the gravity of the offence.
On this section: Punishment for robbery - provides for rigorous imprisonment for a term extending to 10 years (or 14 years for highway robbery between sunset and sunrise) and shall also be liable to fine. Court held that imprisonment is mandatory and cannot be substituted by fine alone.
-
B. A. Umesh vs Regr. Gen. High Court of Karnataka
Decided under Indian Penal Code 392, which this section replaces. The court did not have this Act before it.
Court's Decision & Legal Precedent
In a case involving rape followed by murder of a defenseless widow, combined with robbery, where the convict is a former police official with a history of seven prior convictions spanning multiple serious crimes, escape from judicial custody, commission of another crime within days of the present crime, and demonstrated lack of reformation potential and future dangerousness to society, the cumulative aggravating circumstances satisfy the 'rarest of rare' test established in Bachan Singh v. State of Punjab and justify capital punishment as the appropriate sentence. The young age of the offender, non-premeditation, or leaving a child victim alive do not constitute sufficient mitigating circumstances to outweigh these grave aggravating factors. Furthermore, Section 235(2) Cr.P.C. does not mandate a separate hearing date on sentence if the accused has been adequately heard on the question of sentence by the trial court and appellate courts.
On this section: Applied for conviction of robbery; sentence of ten years rigorous imprisonment with fine of Rs. 25,000 awarded
-
Benson vs State of Kerala
Decided under Indian Penal Code 392, which this section replaces. The court did not have this Act before it.
Court's Decision & Legal Precedent
When a person is convicted of multiple offences arising from crimes committed on the same day and the sentences imposed are relatively short in duration, the court has discretionary power under Section 427(1) of the Criminal Procedure Code to direct that the subsequent sentences run concurrently with a sentence already being served, provided such discretion is exercised judicially considering the nature and number of offences. The benefit of concurrent sentencing may be restricted to substantive sentences while default sentences and fine sentences continue to run consecutively.
On this section: Offence of dacoity - applied in cases CC 533/04 and CC 529/04
-
Benson vs State of Kerala
Decided under Indian Penal Code 392, which this section replaces. The court did not have this Act before it.
Court's Decision & Legal Precedent
When a person is convicted in multiple cases for offences committed on the same day, and each case is separately tried and sentenced consecutively, the Supreme Court, exercising its discretionary power under Section 427(1) Code of Criminal Procedure, can direct that the substantive sentences in such cases shall run concurrently with the earliest sentence already operative. This discretion must be exercised on judicial grounds considering the nature of offences, the date of commission, and the aggregate sentence burden, rather than in a mechanical manner. However, such direction for concurrent running applies only to substantive sentences of imprisonment and does not extend to sentences imposed in default of payment of fines, which continue to run consecutively to ensure compliance with financial obligations imposed by courts.
On this section: Punishment for dacoity - cited in some of the related cases before the prison authority
-
Rafiq Ahmed @ Rafi vs State of U. P
Decided under Indian Penal Code 392, which this section replaces. The court did not have this Act before it.
Court's Decision & Legal Precedent
When an accused is charged with dacoity-with-murder under Section 396 IPC, the ingredient of murder defined under Section 300 IPC is expressly incorporated into Section 396 by specific statutory language. Therefore, if the evidence establishes that the accused committed murder but does not establish the dacoity component, the accused can be convicted for murder under Section 302 IPC without a specific charge for Section 302, provided: (a) the accused had notice that murder was an allegation against him through the Section 396 charge and Section 313 examination where facts were put to him; (b) he had full opportunity to defend himself; (c) no prejudice resulted to his right to fair trial, presumption of innocence, or the prosecution's burden to prove guilt beyond reasonable doubt; and (d) the ingredients of murder under Section 300 IPC are satisfied by the evidence. The principle of cognate offences permits such conviction when the graver offence (dacoity-with-murder) incorporates the essential elements of the lesser offence (murder) by express statutory language, and the accused suffered no failure of justice.
On this section: Defines robbery and its punishment. Applied to show punishment structure for robbery simpliciter
-
Raj Kumar @ Raju vs State(nct of Delhi)
Decided under Indian Penal Code 392, which this section replaces. The court did not have this Act before it.
Court's Decision & Legal Precedent
Possession of stolen ornaments of a deceased person recovered from an accused, even if unexplained and even though the accused was present in the house prior to the crime, does not conclusively prove the charge of murder under Section 302 IPC unless there is specific evidence establishing that the theft and murder occurred as part of the same transaction. The presumption under Section 114 Illustration (a) Evidence Act, 1872 applies only to presumption of theft or receipt of stolen property, not to murder. A gap in time between when the accused was last seen leaving the premises and when the crime was discovered creates a significant margin during which the crime could have been committed by someone other than the accused. Circumstantial evidence must form an unbroken chain leading to the conclusion that the accused, and no one else, committed the offence.
On this section: Punishment for dacoity/robbery; conviction upheld by Supreme Court as the proper charge based on proven circumstances of theft
-
Benson vs State of Kerala
Decided under Indian Penal Code 392, which this section replaces. The court did not have this Act before it.
Court's Decision & Legal Precedent
When a person has been convicted and sentenced to separate terms of imprisonment for multiple offences committed on the same date, the appellate or revisional court may exercise its discretion under Section 427(1) CrPC to direct that such sentences run concurrently with an operative sentence, provided that the nature of the offences, the fact situation, the quantum of sentences, and the timing of the underlying acts warrant such a direction. The exercise of discretion must be based on judicial reasoning and consideration of the specific circumstances, not on mechanical application of rules. However, the benefit of concurrent running shall be confined to substantive sentences; sentences of fine and default sentences shall continue to run consecutively unless otherwise directed.
On this section: Offence of dacoity/robbery - mentioned in prison records for earlier crimes (CC 533/04, 529/04) but not directly analyzed
-
Benson vs State of Kerala
Decided under Indian Penal Code 392, which this section replaces. The court did not have this Act before it.
Court's Decision & Legal Precedent
When a person is convicted in multiple cases for offences committed on the same day, the Supreme Court has discretionary power under Section 427(1) of the Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 to direct that the substantive sentences in such cases shall run concurrently with an operative sentence, provided the court applies judicial discretion based on the nature of offences and the relevant fact situation, considering factors such as the date of commission of offences, the quantum of sentences imposed, and the overall circumstances. However, such discretion is limited to substantive sentences; fine sentences and sentences in default of payment of fines shall continue to run consecutively.
On this section: Punishment for dacoity; cited in the prison communication regarding some of the appellant's other convictions not directly subject to this appeal.
-
Madhu vs State of Kerala
Decided under Indian Penal Code 392, which this section replaces. The court did not have this Act before it.
Court's Decision & Legal Precedent
When Circumstantial Evidence Is The Sole Basis For Conviction In A Criminal Case, The Prosecution Must Establish A Complete Unbroken Chain Of Events Leading To The Only Inescapable Conclusion That The Accused Committed The Crime. If The Main Evidence Relied Upon (Confessional Statements) Is Inadmissible Because It Did Not Lead To Discovery Of Unknown Facts (As The Public Already Knew The Location Before The Confessions), And The Supporting Circumstantial Evidence (Eyewitness Testimony, Motive Inconsistencies, Medical Findings) Is Contradictory, Weak, Or Unreliable, The Conviction Cannot Stand. In Such Cases, The Accused Must Be Acquitted As The Prosecution Failed To Meet The Burden Of Proof Beyond Reasonable Doubt.
On this section: Punishment For Punishment For Dacoity/Robbery - Charge Against Accused For Alleged Theft Of Gold Ornaments - Court Found Doubt About Whether Ornaments Were Actually Stolen
-
State, by Inspector, Tamil Nadu vs Sait @ Krishnakumar
Decided under Indian Penal Code 392, which this section replaces. The court did not have this Act before it.
Court's Decision & Legal Precedent
When eyewitness identification evidence is the primary basis for conviction and such witnesses have been exposed to accused's photograph in media prior to formal identification parade, the court must carefully scrutinize the credibility of such evidence. Evidence which lacks natural credibility, where a witness delays in coming forward despite claiming to have witnessed a critical event, and evidence that is at variance with other testimonies, may be disbelieved. The Supreme Court will not interfere with a High Court's acquittal if the High Court's analysis of evidence, finding it not cogent and credible, represents a reasonable view possible to be taken.
On this section: Applied to dacoity charges against all four accused in the original trial
-
Aslam @ Deewan vs State of Rajasthan
Decided under Indian Penal Code 392, which this section replaces. The court did not have this Act before it.
Court's Decision & Legal Precedent
The ratio decidendi of this judgment is that: (1) Under Section 394 IPC, both those who actually cause hurt during robbery and those who are jointly concerned in the commission of robbery become liable even without knowledge of the likelihood of hurt or reasonable belief in its probability; (2) When a test identification parade is properly conducted by a Judicial Magistrate in the presence of the injured witness and police, and the accused are identified, such identification is valid and admissible evidence to prove guilt; (3) Recovery of stolen articles and weapons in pursuance of information given by accused under Section 27 Evidence Act corroborates the prosecution case and strengthens the evidence against the accused; (4) The minimum sentence of ten years RI prescribed under Section 394 IPC must be imposed, especially in cases where the accused are habitual offenders, and length of custody suffered cannot be ground to reduce the sentence.
On this section: Defines punishment for punishment during robbery; applies as the foundation for the higher offence under Section 394
-
Bablu Chauhan vs State Of Haryana
Decided under Indian Penal Code 392, which this section replaces. The court did not have this Act before it.
Court's Decision & Legal Precedent
The appointing authority has the discretion to deny appointment to a selected candidate if criminal cases are registered after selection and the nature of those cases, combined with the candidate's antecedents, demonstrates unsuitability for the post. Acquittal on technical grounds does not automatically entitle a candidate to appointment if the character assessment reveals serious criminal involvement involving moral turpitude. The law must be applied on the facts of each case individually, and the distinction between honorable acquittal and acquittal on technical grounds is material.
On this section: Robbery offence cited as involving moral turpitude; the appellant was acquitted thrice under this section but the court held that the nature of the offence and repeat registration of cases demonstrates unsuitability for police constable position
-
Mohd Abdul Gaffer @ Mohd Gaffer vs The State of Telangana
Decided under Indian Penal Code 392, which this section replaces. The court did not have this Act before it.
Court's Decision & Legal Precedent
Where a person is convicted in two or more separate cases for different transactions with different crime numbers and decided by different judgments, the normal principle is that sentences shall run consecutively unless the court specifically directs otherwise under Section 427 CrPC. Such discretionary direction requires sound judicial reasoning based on the nature of offence and facts of the case. A habitual offender with multiple convictions is not entitled to concurrent sentencing as a matter of right. The High Court in exercise of revisional jurisdiction under Sections 397 and 401 CrPC will not interfere with well-considered judgments of lower courts based on sound appreciation of facts and law unless there is compelling reason or illegality.
On this section: Punishment for dacoity - Applied in two of the petitioner's other cases (Cr.No.203 of 2016 and Cr.No.159 of 2016) resulting in 3 years imprisonment each.
-
Gurcharan Singh @ Billa vs State of Punjab
Decided under Indian Penal Code 392, which this section replaces. The court did not have this Act before it.
Court's Decision & Legal Precedent
In cases involving non-heinous offences of a predominantly private nature where the parties have genuinely compromised after conviction and the victim has willingly consented to the nullification of criminal proceedings, the High Court can exercise its inherent jurisdiction under Section 482 CrPC to quash the criminal proceedings and set aside the conviction and sentence, provided the court exercises such discretion with rectitude, keeping in view the circumstances surrounding the incident, the fashion in which the compromise has been arrived at, and the nature and seriousness of the offence. The touchstone for exercising this extraordinary power is to secure the ends of justice. However, grave or serious offences involving moral turpitude or having a harmful effect on the social and moral fabric of society cannot be compounded or quashed through compromise.
On this section: Punishment for dacoity; cited as a non-compoundable offence
The holding above is the ratio decidendi as extracted from the judgment by eCourts India, reproduced unaltered — it is a rendering of the court's reasoning, not a substitute for its words. Read the order itself before relying on it.
Judgments citing this section
These may be obiter dicta or a precedent, for you to study. These are the judgments where this section is quoted.
-
… No.140 of 2025 on the file of the respondent police. https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ORDER : The Court made the following order :- The petitioner / accused, who was arrested and remanded to judicial custody on 28.04.2025 for the offences under Sections 332(a) and 309(6) of Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 @ Section 332(b) of Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023, in Crime No.140 of 2025 on the file of the respondent police, seeks bail. 2. The case of the prosecution is that the petitioner and other accused persons trespassed into the house of the defacto complainant and stolen a sum of …
-
… Crime No.140 of 2025 on the file of the respondent police. https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ORDER : The Court made the following order :- The petitioner / accused, who was arrested and remanded to judicial custody on 28.04.2025 for the offences under Sections 332(a) and 309(6) of Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 @ Section 332(b) of Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023, in Crime No.140 of 2025 on the file of the respondent police, seeks bail. 2. The case of the prosecution is that the petitioner and other accused persons trespassed into the house of the defacto complainant and stolen a sum of …
-
… Bishambhar Shatri, A.P.P. | Order No. 02/Dated: 03rd June, 2025 --------- --------- Heard learned counsel for the parties. 2. The instant bail application has been preferred by the petitioners for grant of regular bail for the offences registered under Section 309(4) of Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS), 2023. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioners has submitted that the petitioners are innocent and have been falsely implicated in this case, only on the basis of confessional statement of petitioner no. 1. It is a case of simple quarrel between the two groups of young boys and …
Questions about Section 309
What have the courts held on Section 309 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita?
Mohamed Ali v. State (17 Mar 2009) is the leading judgment on this section among those set out below, though it was decided under IPC 392, which this section replaced -- the court never mentioned this Act: Successor of IPC 392 (mapping.csv near-identical, score 0.8703). The residual-robbery alteration carries to BNS 309. Another 15 judgments on this section are set out below, 13 of them from the Supreme Court. They run from 2008 to 2025.
Is Section 309 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita bailable?
Non-bailable, under the First Schedule to the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023.
Is Section 309 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita cognizable?
Cognizable. "Cognizable" means a police officer may arrest without warrant; "non-cognizable" that they may not. An offence under this section is triable by Magistrate of the first class.
How do I find court cases under Section 309 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita?
In judgments and charge sheets this section is written several ways, and each form finds a different set of orders. These search the full text of every order eCourtsIndia holds, best matches first: BNS 309, section 309 BNS, section 309 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita. People searching for it also type bns 309 4 in hindi and bns 309(6) in hindi. Each opens the full list of orders on eCourtsIndia, where it can be narrowed by court, year and outcome. 16 reported judgments on this section are set out on this page, beginning with Mohamed Ali v. State (17 Mar 2009).
What should I read with Section 309 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, and has it changed?
5 other provisions in this corpus refer back to it. It carries forward IPC 390 (Robbery), so the judgments decided under that provision are the case law on this one.
When did Section 309 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita come into force?
Section 309 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, cited as BNS 309, came into force on 01 Jul 2024, having been enacted on 25 Dec 2023. It is in force as at the date shown on this page.
Other sections of this Act
- 2. Definitions2199 words
- 356. Defamation1543 words
- 335. Making a false document1318 words
- 101. Murder1177 words
- 303. Theft1104 words
- 3. General explanations858 words
Source and method. Compiled from the enactments of Parliament and of the State legislatures as published on India Code, and republished together with commentary and other original matter under section 52(1)(q)(ii) of the Copyright Act, 1957. Structured, cross-referenced and maintained by eCourtsIndia. Text as in force on 14 Oct 2026. This page is not a substitute for legal advice.