Punishment for dacoity
Section 395 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 deals with punishment for dacoity. Whoever commits dacoity 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. 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 Repealed by section 358 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 (45 of 2023) with effect from 1 July 2024, but conduct before that date is still charged, tried and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 dacoity 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 395, The Indian Penal Code, 1860 (Act 45 of 1860).
Now in the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita
BNS 310 Dacoity 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 The repealed enactment still governs what happened while it was in force.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 10
- Andhra Pradesh Prevention of Dangerous Activities of Boot-Leggers, Dacoits, Goondas, Immoral Traffic Offenders and Land-Grabbers Act s. 2 Definitions
- 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. 484 Repeal and savings
- Code of Criminal Procedure (Amendment) Act s. 12 Amendment of section 82
- Crpc 1973 s. 82 Proclamation for person absconding
- Crpc 1973 s. 439 Special powers of High Court or Court of Session regarding bail
- Crpc 1973 s. 484 Repeal and savings
- Telangana Prevention of Dangerous Activities of Boot-leggers, Dacoits, Drug-Offenders, Goondas, Immoral Traffic Offenders Land-Grabbers, Spurious Seed Offenders, Insecticide Offenders, Fertiliser Offenders, Food Adulteration Offenders, Fake Document Offenders, Scheduled Commodities Offenders, Forest Offenders, Gaming Offenders, Sexual Offenders, Explosive Substances Offenders, Arms Offenders, Cyber Crime Offenders and White Collar or Financial Offenders Act s. 17
- 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: Dacoity under s.395 needs five persons; acquittal of co-accused leaves the remaining accused outside 395 (Mohamed Ali).
-
State(tr)central Bureau of Investigation vs Shri Kalyan Singh(former Cm of Up)
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: Dacoity - Applied to charges against kar sewaks involved in the demolition.
-
Haji Mahboob Ahmad vs Kalyan Singh
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: Dacoity - applied to charges against Kar Sewaks for the organized nature of the demolition
-
Sukhraj Singh vs Sanjiv Kumar @ Gora
Court's Decision & Legal Precedent
The conviction of Sanjiv Kumar under Sections 395, 450, and 342 IPC is legally sustainable as it is supported by credible prosecution evidence including eyewitness testimony, documentary evidence, and investigative findings; the separate acquittal or relief granted to a co-offender in a different proceeding does not invalidate the conviction of another accused if the evidence against that accused is independently reliable and credible; sentencing for criminal offences must balance the need for just punishment with proportionality between the offence and penalty, considering the impact on society and the victim, and mere passage of time since the incident without exceptional circumstances does not warrant further sentence reduction beyond what the trial and appellate courts have determined.
On this section: Dacoity - conviction upheld for robbery committed with the use of criminal force, affirming the serious nature of the offence
-
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: Armed dacoity charge - A-2 was charged but acquitted by trial court
-
Shajahan@shaje@shahul Hameed@basha@thoka vs The State Rep. by the Additional Deputy Superintendent of Police and Chief Investigating Officer
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; defined as five or more persons committing robbery
-
Uday Ram vs State (nct) of Delhi
Court's Decision & Legal Precedent
Where a delay in registration of FIR is satisfactorily explained by extraordinary circumstances such as communal riots, police inaction despite complaints, and subsequent direction by an inquiry committee, such delay does not by itself vitiate the prosecution case. Conviction can be sustained on circumstantial evidence (including affidavits before official committees, witness testimony, documentary evidence like invoices and commercial records, civil court decrees, and evidence of long-term illegal occupation) even in the absence of direct ocular testimony to the crime. However, in sentencing, the Court has discretion to show leniency based on compelling personal circumstances such as advanced age, when the fundamental conviction is sustainable.
On this section: Dacoity - Charged but not convicted; part of original charges
-
Ashi Devi vs State (nct of Delhi)
Court's Decision & Legal Precedent
The conviction of persons for theft and criminal trespass committed during communal riots can be sustained on the basis of circumstantial evidence, even in the absence of direct eyewitness testimony, when the circumstances are coherent, consistent, and conclusively establish guilt. The delay in registration of FIR caused by the riot situation and subsequent administrative inquiry processes is reasonably explained and does not, by itself, invalidate a conviction. In sentencing, the court may exercise discretion to reduce imprisonment for elderly appellants who have already undergone a substantial portion of the sentence, particularly where humanitarian considerations warrant such mitigation.
On this section: Dacoity - charged but conviction under this section not confirmed by trial court
-
Easi Mohd. Alam @ Alam vs State of Haryana
Court's Decision & Legal Precedent
When a government employee who has been dismissed is fully exonerated through judicial acquittal and reinstated, the principle of 'No Work-No Pay' does not apply to deny him back wages and service benefits for the period of dismissal. An employee who is willing to work but prevented from working by the employer due to wrongful dismissal is entitled to full pay, allowances, and all consequential benefits as if he had continuously worked, and the period of dismissal must be treated as a duty period for all purposes including grant of increments and fixation of pay. This principle applies even when the dismissal was based on criminal conviction later set aside, and the employee's pursuit of legal remedies does not constitute fault attributable to him.
On this section: Sections under which the original accused (Tahir) was charged in FIR No. 427
-
Sagar vs Union Territory
Court's Decision & Legal Precedent
A prisoner with an extensive criminal history involving multiple serious offences (dacoity, robbery, theft, forgery, and drug-related crimes) cannot be granted parole merely on the grounds of meeting family members or performing conjugal rights, particularly when the parole authority has reasonably determined that releasing such a prisoner would pose a potential danger to society.
On this section: Dacoity - FIR No. 534 of 2015 against petitioner
-
Pramveer @ Sonu vs State of Rajasthan through Pp
Court's Decision & Legal Precedent
When an accused has been in custody for an extended period (over two years), the prosecution's investigation has resulted in an initial untraced report, and the accused has been acquitted in other criminal cases, it is just and expedient to grant regular bail subject to trial court satisfaction, without prejudging the merits of the case.
On this section: Offence of dacoity; charge against petitioner in connection with tanker robbery
-
Mithilesh Kati& ANR. vs State of Bihar
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 - the primary offense charged against the petitioners
-
Jitendra Nat @ Din Dayal Nat @ Dayal Nat vs The State of Bihar
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—cited as one of the charges in the first case registered for the same occurrence
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.
-
… After completion of investigation, the aforementioned seven accused persons were charged of having committed various offences including those punishable under Sections 109, 120B, 394, 395, 396, 449 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 ('IPC', for short). The prosecution, in support of its case, principally relied upon the testimonies of PWs 1 to 5 who identified Accused Nos. 1 to 6 to be the assailants. All the witnesses, however, stated that Accused No. 7 was not present as a member of the assembly. In …
-
… 2018.05.17 18:04:56 IST Reason: Signature Not Verified The eleven appellants herein, out of the fifteen persons who faced trial, are variously convicted under the provisions of the Criminal Appeal No. 701 of 2012 with Ors. Page 1 of 50 Indian Penal Code (IPC) for committing offences punishable under Sections 364A, 34, 395 and 412 of the IPC, hereby call into question the confirmation of their conviction by the High Court by the common impugned judgment and order dated March 30, 2010, which was rendered in a batch of appeals. Ensuing from their conviction on the above-mentioned charges, the appellants and others similarly situated …
Questions about Section 395
What have the courts held on Section 395 of the Indian Penal Code?
Mohamed Ali v. State (17 Mar 2009) is the leading judgment on this section among those set out below: Dacoity under s.395 needs five persons; acquittal of co-accused leaves the remaining accused outside 395 (Mohamed Ali). Another 12 judgments on this section are set out below, 8 of them from the Supreme Court. They run from 2008 to 2022.
How do I find court cases under Section 395 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 395, section 395 IPC, section 395 of the Indian Penal Code. People searching for it also type ipc 395 397 and ipc 395 in bns. Each opens the full list of orders on eCourtsIndia, where it can be narrowed by court, year and outcome. 13 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 395 of the Indian Penal Code, and has it changed?
10 other provisions in this corpus refer back to it. For anything done on or after 1 July 2024 the provision to read is BNS 310 (Dacoity), which replaced it; conduct before that date is still charged, tried and appealed under this section.
When did Section 395 of the Indian Penal Code come into force?
Section 395 of the Indian Penal Code, cited as IPC 395, 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.