Voluntarily causing hurt in committing robbery
Section 394 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 deals with voluntarily causing hurt in committing robbery. 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 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 Repealed by section 358 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 (45 of 2023) with effect from 1 July 2024, but conduct before that date is still charged, tried and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.
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 394, The Indian Penal Code, 1860 (Act 45 of 1860).
Now in the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita
BNS 309 Robbery Close, with changes 80%
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 The repealed enactment still governs what happened while it was in force.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 11
- Code of Criminal Procedure s. 220 Trial for more than one offence
- 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 (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
- Haryana Good Conduct Prisoner (Temporary Release) Act, 2022, English Version s. 2
- Haryana Good Conduct Prisoners’ Temporary Release Act, 2022 (Haryana No. 15 of 2022) s. 2
- 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.
-
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 voluntary causing of hurt in committing or attempting to commit robbery; the primary offence for conviction; Court explained that this section applies to cases where during the course of robbery voluntary hurt is caused, and covers two classes of persons: those who actually cause hurt and those who are jointly concerned in commission of robbery
-
Sanichar Sahni vs State of Bihar
Court's Decision & Legal Precedent
A person can be convicted of criminal conspiracy under Section 120-B IPC even if co-accused are not charged under the same section, provided: (a) there is credible evidence proving the accused conspired with others to commit an illegal act; (b) the accused was given fair notice and opportunity to defend against the conspiracy charge; (c) no actual prejudice resulting in failure of justice has been caused to the accused by any defect in charge framing; and (d) the conviction is supported by evidence led at trial. Defects in charge framing are not fatal to conviction unless the accused establishes real prejudice and demonstrates he did not receive a fair trial or understand the case against him.
On this section: Covers dacoity or criminal intimidation with intent to commit theft. Applied to Munilal Sahni for involvement in looting the victim's money bag.
-
Sudheer Singh @ Sudheer vs State of A. P
Court's Decision & Legal Precedent
An appellate judgment in a criminal case that presents facts but fails to analyze evidence of witnesses and provide substantive reasoning for upholding conviction is deficient and violates principles of proper appellate review, warranting remand by a higher appellate court for proper reconsideration of the case.
On this section: Dacoity charge - conviction imposed for theft involving violence and causing injury, sentencing A-1 to 10 years rigorous imprisonment and Rs. 5,000 fine
-
Khokan Giri @ Madhab vs State of West Bengal
Court's Decision & Legal Precedent
Although Section 133 of the Indian Evidence Act permits conviction based on uncorroborated accomplice testimony and such conviction is not illegal per se, as a matter of judicial practice it is almost always unsafe to convict based on accomplice evidence alone. Section 114 Illustration (b) requires that an accomplice be corroborated in material particulars. Such corroboration must: (a) come from independent sources, (b) not be from another accomplice, and (c) connect the accused with the crime. In the present case, the High Court correctly examined extensive independent corroborative evidence - including eyewitness accounts, physical evidence (fingerprints, recovered stolen goods, property of appellant), forensic and medical reports, and expert opinions - that collectively established the appellant's participation in the murder beyond reasonable doubt. Therefore, the conviction was safe and legally sound despite primary reliance on approver's evidence.
On this section: Applied for the robbery/dacoity element; the four accused stole cash, gold ornaments, and valuables from the Navalkha flat; Khokan sentenced to 10 years RI for this
-
Shailendra Pratap vs State of U. P
Court's Decision & Legal Precedent
An appellate court would not be justified in interfering with an order of acquittal unless the same is found to be perverse. A reasonable view taken by a trial court while recording acquittal cannot be reversed by a higher court merely because a different or stricter view of the evidence is possible.
On this section: Dacoity - charge under which appellant No. 1 was convicted by High Court; Supreme Court set aside this conviction
-
Har Singh vs State of Uttarakhand
Court's Decision & Legal Precedent
Circumstantial evidence, when it forms an unbroken chain establishing a complete and consistent account of events that points exclusively to the guilt of the accused, is sufficient for conviction in criminal cases even in the absence of direct eyewitness testimony to the actual commission of the offense. The recovery of the body of a deceased at the instance of an accused person, when accepted by the trial and appellate courts, constitutes strong circumstantial evidence of that person's involvement in the crime. Last seen together doctrine, motive, prior assault, and post-mortem findings, when taken together with body recovery, establish an unbreakable chain of circumstances leading to conviction for murder.
On this section: Dacoity - applied for the taking away of money (Rs.800/-) won by the deceased in gambling, which was the alleged motive for the crime
-
Bijaya Khatei vs State of Orissa
Court's Decision & Legal Precedent
An accused charged under Section 394 IPC may be granted bail by the High Court if the petitioner establishes permanent residence in the jurisdiction, the investigation has been completed, and the nature of the allegations, while serious, does not warrant continued detention. The court shall impose such terms and conditions as deemed just and proper to ensure the accused's appearance at trial.
On this section: Petitioner is implicated in offence punishable under Section 394 IPC (robbery or dacoity). The court considered the nature of this serious allegation in determining bail eligibility.
-
Binod Padhan vs State of Orissa
Court's Decision & Legal Precedent
An accused charged with a serious offense under Section 394 IPC may be granted bail by the High Court if the accused has permanent residence in the jurisdiction, the case is at an early stage of proceedings, and the materials on record support the conclusion that the accused is not a flight risk and poses no immediate danger to society. The High Court may direct the trial court to release the accused on such terms and conditions as the trial court deems appropriate.
On this section: The petitioner is implicated in an offense punishable under Section 394 IPC (dacoity or theft), which is a serious criminal offense. This section was cited to establish the nature and gravity of the charges against the petitioner.
-
Ramesh Kukar @ Mahesh vs State
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 dacoity - applied for the robbery of the victim's gold earrings with violence
-
Kala Singh @ Naresh vs State
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 dacoity (robbery with violence) - Applied to convict all accused; court reduced life sentence to 10 years for male accused
-
Vinay vs State
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: Voluntarily causing hurt in committing robbery.
-
Nazeema vs State of Kerala
Court's Decision & Legal Precedent
For the offence of robbery under Section 390 IPC to be established, the prosecution must prove either theft or extortion as a constituent element, and must also prove that the offender caused or attempted to cause hurt, death, wrongful restraint, or fear thereof in the course of committing the theft or extortion. When an accused is acquitted of the constituent offences (theft and administering poison/causing hurt), the derivative offence of robbery cannot be established against the same accused based on the same evidence, as the essential ingredients required for robbery are not proven. Logical consistency requires that if the foundational elements of an offence are not established, the derivative offence built upon those elements cannot be sustained.
On this section: Punishment for robbery. The court reversed the conviction under this section as the essential ingredients of robbery were not established.
-
Pothala Venkataramana vs The State of Andhra Pradesh
Court's Decision & Legal Precedent
The High Court cannot undertake assessment of evidence in a petition under Section 482 CrPC. The power to quash criminal proceedings under Section 482 CrPC is limited to cases where proceedings are clearly without jurisdiction or constitute an abuse of process, and cannot be exercised on the basis of merit-based arguments or evidence assessment, which are matters for the trial court. Where a triable case exists based on the prosecution's allegations, the proceedings should not be quashed.
On this section: Dacoity - the primary charge against the petitioner and co-accused
-
Azeem vs State of U.p.
Court's Decision & Legal Precedent
An accused who has absconded but subsequently surrendered, when facing a serious but non-heinous offence, may be granted bail if the court considers the nature of the offence, the applicant's willingness to face trial (demonstrated by surrender), the prolonged incarceration, the pandemic situation affecting jail conditions, and the fundamental right to personal liberty under Article 21, provided stringent conditions are imposed to ensure trial court appearance and prevent witness intimidation or further criminal activity.
On this section: Defines the offence of dacoity/robbery for which Azeem was accused; used to determine the nature and gravity of the offence for bail consideration
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 Delhi. The High Court …
-
… Bench Gwalior in Criminal Revision No. 314 of 2007 confirming the order dated 12.03.2007 passed by the XIth Additional Sessions Judge, Gwalior, framing charges against the appellant for the offences punishable under Digitally signed by SATISH KUMAR YADAV Date: 2018.12.17 12:19:22 IST Reason: Signature Not Verified Sections 394 and 460 of the Indian Penal Code (for short 'the IPC'), and alternatively under Sections 302 and 397, IPC along with Sections 25 (1B) (a) and 27 of the Arms Act in S.T. No. 156/99, is called in question in this appeal. 2. The First Information Report came to be lodged against three persons alleging the offence …
Questions about Section 394
What have the courts held on Section 394 of the Indian Penal Code?
Aslam @ Deewan vs State of Rajasthan (25 Sep 2008) is the leading judgment on this section among those set out below: Defines voluntary causing of hurt in committing or attempting to commit robbery; the primary offence for conviction; Court explained that this section applies to cases where during the course of robbery voluntary hurt is caused, and covers two classes of persons: those who actually cause hurt and those who are jointly concerned in commission of robbery. Another 13 judgments on this section are set out below, 6 of them from the Supreme Court. They run from 2003 to 2023.
How do I find court cases under Section 394 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 394, section 394 IPC, section 394 of the Indian Penal Code. People searching for it also type ipc 394 in bns and ipc 394 punishment. Each opens the full list of orders on eCourtsIndia, where it can be narrowed by court, year and outcome. 14 reported judgments on this section are set out on this page, beginning with Aslam @ Deewan vs State of Rajasthan (25 Sep 2008).
What should I read with Section 394 of the Indian Penal Code, and has it changed?
11 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 394 of the Indian Penal Code come into force?
Section 394 of the Indian Penal Code, cited as IPC 394, 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.