Robbery, or dacoity, with attempt to cause death or grievous hurt
Section 311 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 deals with 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. The Act came into force on 01 Jul 2024.
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.
Section 311, The Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 (Act 45 of 2023).
Replaces a provision of the Indian Penal Code
IPC 397 Robbery or dacoity, with attempt to cause death or grievous hurt Text carried over almost unchanged 100%
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 The repealed enactment still governs what happened while it was in force.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.
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.
| Offence | Punishment | Cognizable | Bailable | Triable by |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Robbery or dacoity, with attempt to cause death or grievous hurt. | Imprisonment for not less than 7 years. | Cognizable. | Non-bailable. | Court of Session. |
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.
-
Ram Ratan v. State of Madhya Pradesh
Decided under Indian Penal Code 397, which this section replaces. The court did not have this Act before it.
Court's Decision & Legal Precedent
Judgement of Main Case order-18.pdf 2021-12-17. Crl A 1333/2018. Bopanna J. reportable, digitally signed 2021.12.17. DATE-CHECK flagged an earlier date (false positive); the PDF is the named 17 Dec 2021 reportable. Isolates IPC 397: whether a firearm was 'used' (pointed at the chest during robbery) versus merely carried; cites Ashfaq (2004) 3 SCC 116. Map ipc 397 + BNS 311 successor (near-identical 1). Do not pad ipc 392 (already filled).
On this section: Successor of IPC 397 (mapping.csv near-identical, score 1). The use-of-deadly-weapon holding carries to BNS 311.
-
State(tr)central Bureau of Investigation vs Shri Kalyan Singh(former Cm of Up)
Decided under Indian Penal Code 397, which this section replaces. The court did not have this Act before it.
Court's Decision & Legal Precedent
The Supreme Court of India has the power under Article 142 of the Constitution to transfer criminal proceedings from one Special Court to another Special Court under the same High Court jurisdiction to achieve complete justice and remedy procedural defects, provided such transfer does not violate mandatory substantive provisions of law. In cases involving crimes that shake the secular fabric of the Constitution and where procedural defects have prevented a unified trial of accused persons charged with criminal conspiracy in the course of the same transaction, the Supreme Court can exercise this power to consolidate fragmented proceedings and ensure that all accused are tried together for the conspiracy charge, even if some had been previously discharged from separate proceedings. The absence of a non-obstante clause in the relevant statutory provision (Section 11(1) proviso of the Criminal Procedure Code) distinguishes this case from situations where such a clause exists, and therefore the transfer does not violate the fundamental right to appeal under Article 21 of the Constitution.
On this section: Robbery - Applied to charges.
-
Haji Mahboob Ahmad vs Kalyan Singh
Decided under Indian Penal Code 397, which this section replaces. The court did not have this Act before it.
Court's Decision & Legal Precedent
The Supreme Court of India has the constitutional power under Article 142 to transfer criminal proceedings from one court to another to remedy procedural defects and ensure complete justice, even when the High Court has statutory power under Section 407 of the Criminal Procedure Code to do so. This power can be exercised when crimes that shake the secular fabric of the Constitution have allegedly been committed and the accused persons have not been brought to book largely because of procedural defects and the conduct of the investigating agency. The transfer does not violate Article 21 of the Constitution because the procedure established by law itself contemplates such transfers under Section 407 of the Criminal Procedure Code, and the absence of a non-obstante clause in Section 11(1) proviso of the Criminal Procedure Code distinguishes this case from cases where substantive rights are infringed. Additionally, criminal conspiracy charges already contained in a joint charge sheet cannot be separated from the accused persons by discharging them, and all offences committed in the course of the same transaction to accomplish a conspiracy must be tried jointly.
On this section: Robbery or dacoity with attempt to cause death or grievous hurt - applied to charges against Kar Sewaks
-
State, by Inspector, Tamil Nadu vs Sait @ Krishnakumar
Decided under Indian Penal Code 397, 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 in conjunction with Section 392 regarding dacoity with attempt to cause death or grievous hurt; conviction upheld for respondent A-1 by trial court
-
State of Rajasthan vs Gulab Singh
Decided under Indian Penal Code 397, which this section replaces. The court did not have this Act before it.
Court's Decision & Legal Precedent
Medical evidence of multiple ante-mortem injuries established by post-mortem examination report and doctor's testimony cannot be disregarded or contradicted by a prosecutor's weak agreement. Alteration of murder conviction to attempt to murder conviction by an appellate court must be grounded in substantive analysis of evidence, not arbitrary characterization of injuries as 'mechanical' or 'non-mechanical'. The conviction under Section 302 read with Section 34 IPC is sustainable when medical evidence establishes ante-mortem injuries and their causal connection to death.
On this section: Punishment for dacoity - original trial court convicted under this section
-
Mukesh @ Billu vs State of Haryana
Decided under Indian Penal Code 397, which this section replaces. The court did not have this Act before it.
Court's Decision & Legal Precedent
To prove criminal conspiracy under Section 120-B of the Indian Penal Code, the prosecution must lead specific evidence establishing an agreement between the accused persons regarding the commission of an illegal act. Mere disclosure statements to police, when denied by the accused and unsubstantiated by independent corroborating evidence or specific facts about where, when, and how the conspiracy was formed, are insufficient to sustain a conviction for criminal conspiracy. The existence of an agreement must be clearly established through credible evidence.
On this section: Dacoity with attempt to cause death or grievous hurt - co-accused Manjeet and Bijender were sentenced under this section for using a pistol during dacoity; High Court reduced this sentence from 10 years to 7 years
-
Shajahan@shaje@shahul Hameed@basha@thoka vs The State Rep. by the Additional Deputy Superintendent of Police and Chief Investigating Officer
Decided under Indian Penal Code 397, which this section replaces. The court did not have this Act before it.
Court's Decision & Legal Precedent
Where evidence of harboring under Section 212 IPC depends on witness testimony that the escaped prisoner came to and resided at a specific location, and the owner of that location and other witnesses explicitly deny this allegation without contradiction from the prosecution, the harboring charge cannot be sustained even if conspiracy is otherwise proved, as the charge of harboring requires clear positive evidence of the specific act of harboring and cannot rest on mere presumption or conspiracy alone.
On this section: Dacoity with attempt to cause death or grievous hurt
-
Ramesh Kukar @ Mahesh vs State
Decided under Indian Penal Code 397, which this section replaces. The court did not have this Act before it.
Court's Decision & Legal Precedent
Life imprisonment under Sections 394 and 459 IPC should not be awarded as a matter of course but only when there are strong and compelling circumstances. Courts must record special reasons and consider mitigating factors, particularly the age and reformative potential of young offenders, before imposing life imprisonment instead of the available option of rigorous imprisonment up to 10 years. The sentence of life imprisonment, being a substitute for the colonial-era 'transportation for life', is an agonizing reminder of dark colonial history and should be imposed circumspectly.
On this section: Punishment for robbery - applied as an alternative to dacoity charges
-
Kala Singh @ Naresh vs State
Decided under Indian Penal Code 397, which this section replaces. The court did not have this Act before it.
Court's Decision & Legal Precedent
Life imprisonment under Sections 394 and 459 IPC should not be awarded as a matter of course but only in exceptional circumstances where there are strong and compelling reasons, and the court must record special reasons for imposing life imprisonment in preference to imprisonment up to 10 years. The reformative theory of punishment demands that when courts have options of awarding two sets of imprisonment with one harsher than the other, if the court decides to impose the graver sentence, it must record plausible reasons. Additionally, conviction must be based on reliable evidence; evidence of chance witnesses identifying an accused when the primary victim did not name that person is insufficient to establish guilt, particularly when such witnesses admit they did not know the accused before the incident.
On this section: Punishment for attempt to commit dacoity - Applied to convict the three male accused
-
Vinay vs State
Decided under Indian Penal Code 397, which this section replaces. The court did not have this Act before it.
Court's Decision & Legal Precedent
The non-production or non-recovery of the weapon of offense does not preclude a conviction under Section 397 of the Indian Penal Code if the testimony of the eye-witnesses and corroborative medical evidence convincingly establish that a deadly weapon was wielded and used during the commission of the robbery.
On this section: Robbery, or dacoity, with attempt to cause death or grievous hurt by using a deadly weapon.
-
Mithilesh Kati& ANR. vs State of Bihar
Decided under Indian Penal Code 397, which this section replaces. The court did not have this Act before it.
Court's Decision & Legal Precedent
In cases where the evidence against accused persons is weak and circumstantial, and particularly where the only evidence is their presence together at a location before the crime, bail should be granted with reasonable conditions and sureties to ensure court appearance, rather than continued detention. The court must balance the presumption of innocence against the need to ensure the accused's availability for trial.
On this section: Dacoity with attempt to cause death or grievous hurt - alternative charge against the petitioners
-
Jitendra Nat @ Din Dayal Nat @ Dayal Nat vs The State of Bihar
Decided under Indian Penal Code 397, which this section replaces. The court did not have this Act before it.
Court's Decision & Legal Precedent
When an accused is charged with serious offences including dacoity and illegal firearm possession arising from the same occurrence, and has already been granted bail in a related case, the High Court may grant bail in the present case with appropriate sureties and conditions, balancing the principles of individual liberty, presumption of innocence, and public interest, provided that the bail conditions are stringent enough to ensure the accused's appearance in court and compliance with legal obligations.
On this section: Dacoity with attempt to cause death or grievous hurt—cited as one of the charges in the first case
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.
-
… PETITION, COMING ON FOR ORDERS, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR JUSTICE S VISHWAJITH SHETTY ORAL ORDER Accused No. 2 in Crime No.459/2024 registered by Bagepalli Police Station, Chikkaballapura District, for the offenses punishable under Sections 140(2) and 311 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023, ('BNS' for short), is before this Court under Section 483 of Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, ('BNSS' for short) seeking regular bail. 2. Heard the learned counsel appearing for the parties. 3. FIR in Crime No.459/2024 was registered by Bagepalli Police Station, …
-
… THIS CRL.P, COMING ON FOR ORDERS, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR JUSTICE S VISHWAJITH SHETTY ORAL ORDER Accused Nos.2 and 3 in Crime No.25/2025 registered by Hallymysore Police Station, Hassan District, for the offence punishable under Section 311 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 (for short, 'BNS') are before this Court under Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (for short 'BNSS') seeking regular bail. 2. Heard the learned counsels for the parties. 3. FIR in Crime No.25/2025 was registered by Hallymysore Police Station, Hassan …
-
… Md Ziaul Quamar, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. N.N. Tiwari, learned APP for the State. Perused the case diary. > 2. The petitioner seeks bail in connection with Dariyapur P.S. Case No. 459 of 2024 instituted for the offence under Sections 309(1) & 311 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023. > 3. Prosecution case in short is that while informant was on his way, he was accosted with three unknown, who on the point of pistol have snatched Rs. 1,200/- and documents. 4. It has been submitted on behalf of the petitioner that the petitioner is in custody …
Questions about Section 311
What have the courts held on Section 311 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita?
Ram Ratan v. State of Madhya Pradesh (17 Dec 2021) is the leading judgment on this section among those set out below, though it was decided under IPC 397, which this section replaced -- the court never mentioned this Act: Successor of IPC 397 (mapping.csv near-identical, score 1). The use-of-deadly-weapon holding carries to BNS 311. Another 11 judgments on this section are set out below, 7 of them from the Supreme Court. They run from 2008 to 2022.
Is Section 311 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita bailable?
Non-bailable, under the First Schedule to the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023.
Is Section 311 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 Court of Session.
How do I find court cases under Section 311 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 311, section 311 BNS, section 311 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita. People searching for it also type bns 311 in ipc. Each opens the full list of orders on eCourtsIndia, where it can be narrowed by court, year and outcome. 12 reported judgments on this section are set out on this page, beginning with Ram Ratan v. State of Madhya Pradesh (17 Dec 2021).
What should I read with Section 311 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, and has it changed?
3 other provisions in this corpus refer back to it. It carries forward IPC 397 (Robbery or dacoity, with attempt to cause death or grievous hurt), so the judgments decided under that provision are the case law on this one.
When did Section 311 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita come into force?
Section 311 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, cited as BNS 311, 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 15 Oct 2026. This page is not a substitute for legal advice.