Punishment for robbery
Section 392 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 deals with punishment for robbery. 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; The Act came into force on 01 Jan 1862. Repealed by section 358 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 (45 of 2023) with effect from 1 July 2024, but conduct before that date is still charged, tried and appealed under it.
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.
Section 392, The Indian Penal Code, 1860 (Act 45 of 1860).
Now in the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita
BNS 309 Robbery Text carried over almost unchanged 87%
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 The repealed enactment still governs what happened while it was in force.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 12
- Code of Criminal Procedure s. 220 Trial for more than one offence
- Code of Criminal Procedure s. 484 Repeal and savings
- Code of Criminal Procedure Act s. 82 Proclamation for person absconding
- Code of Criminal Procedure Act s. 220 Trial for more than one offence
- Code of Criminal Procedure Act s. 484 Repeal and savings
- Code of Criminal Procedure (Amendment) Act s. 12 Amendment of section 82
- Code of Criminal Procedure s. 220 Trial for more than one offence
- Crpc 1973 s. 82 Proclamation for person absconding
- Crpc 1973 s. 220 Trial for more than one offence
- Crpc 1973 s. 439 Special powers of High Court or Court of Session regarding bail
- Crpc 1973 s. 484 Repeal and savings
- Uttar Pradesh Dacoity Affected Areas Act s. 30
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
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: When co-accused in a 395 charge are acquitted, the remaining accused's conviction is altered to robbery under s.392 (Mohamed Ali).
-
Ram Prakash Chaddha vs The State of Uttar Pradesh
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
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
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
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
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
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)
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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.
-
… The total fine of Rs.25,000/-, if recovered, shall be given to the family of the deceased Pappu as compensation under Section 357 Cr.P.C. Further the convict is sentenced to Rigorous Imprisonment for a period of Five years and fine of Rs. 2,000/- for the offence under Section 392 read with Section 394 Indian Penal Code. In default of payment of fine the convict shall further undergo Simple Imprisonment for a period of one week." 12. The appellant convict being aggrieved by the judgment of conviction and order on sentence passed by the Trial Court went in appeal before the High Court of …
-
… Anna Mammen wife of late Mr. T. Mammen, pursuant to hatching a conspiracy and have been convicted under Section 120-B of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 [" IPC "] besides Section 302 IPC read with Section 120-B IPC and Section 392 IPC read with Section 120-B IPC. The appellants have also been held guilty of being found in possession of the stolen property which was derived from the robbery and have been convicted for committing offences punishable under Section 411 IPC. 2. The …
Questions about Section 392
What have the courts held on Section 392 of the Indian Penal Code?
Mohamed Ali v. State (17 Mar 2009) is the leading judgment on this section among those set out below: When co-accused in a 395 charge are acquitted, the remaining accused's conviction is altered to robbery under s.392 (Mohamed Ali). Another 15 judgments on this section are set out below, 13 of them from the Supreme Court. They run from 2008 to 2025.
How do I find court cases under Section 392 of the Indian Penal Code?
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: IPC 392, section 392 IPC, section 392 of the Indian Penal Code. People searching for it also type ipc 392 in bns and ipc 392 in hindi punishment. 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 392 of the Indian Penal Code, and has it changed?
12 other provisions in this corpus refer back to it. For anything done on or after 1 July 2024 the provision to read is BNS 309 (Robbery), which replaced it; conduct before that date is still charged, tried and appealed under this section.
When did Section 392 of the Indian Penal Code come into force?
Section 392 of the Indian Penal Code, cited as IPC 392, came into force on 01 Jan 1862, having been enacted on 06 Oct 1860. It is no longer in force.
Other sections of this Act
- 499. Defamation1512 words
- 464. Making a false document1223 words
- 300. Murder1172 words
- 378. Theft980 words
- 108. Abettor745 words
- 403. Dishonest misappropriation of property727 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. Recovered from the consolidated text published by India Code (item 7b7d4fe6-206b-4e33-81f1-b98b018acaf6). This page is not a substitute for legal advice.