Dacoity with murder
Section 396 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 deals with dacoity with murder. If any one of five or more persons, who are conjointly committing dacoity, commits murder in so committing dacoity, every one of those persons shall be punished with death, or [imprisonment for life], or 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 Repealed by section 358 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 (45 of 2023) with effect from 1 July 2024, but conduct before that date is still charged, tried and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.
If any one of five or more persons, who are conjointly committing dacoity, commits murder in so committing dacoity, every one of those persons shall be punished with death, or [imprisonment for life], or rigorous imprisonment for a term which may extend to ten years, and shall also be liable to fine.
Section 396, The Indian Penal Code, 1860 (Act 45 of 1860).
Now in the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita
BNS 310 Dacoity Close, with changes 84%
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 The repealed enactment still governs what happened while it was in force.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 7
- Andhra Pradesh Children Act s. 11 No joint trial of child and adult
- Code of Criminal Procedure Act s. 82 Proclamation for person absconding
- 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
- Telangana Children Act s. 91
- 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.
-
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: Dacoity with murder - if any of five or more dacoits commits murder, all are punishable with death, life imprisonment or 10-year imprisonment. Primary offence charged against appellant. Court held murder is expressly incorporated into this section
-
Garadi Madduleti vs State of A.p.
Court's Decision & Legal Precedent
The ratio decidendi of this judgment is: (1) Dacoity under Section 391 IPC requires proof that five or more persons conjointly committed or attempted to commit a robbery. If the evidence establishes that fewer than five persons participated, conviction under Section 396 IPC (dacoity with murder) cannot be sustained, even if other evidence suggests additional persons' involvement. (2) In criminal cases involving identification of strangers in night-time offences, a single eyewitness testimony can form the basis of conviction if it is unimpeachable, true, and trustworthy. (3) A properly conducted test identification parade by a Magistrate, where the witness correctly identifies the accused on multiple occasions, can corroborate and strengthen eyewitness testimony. (4) Delay in identification and trial, even spanning 15 years, does not necessarily discredit a witness's testimony if the witness's memory has been tested through a properly conducted identification parade and the witness has no motive to falsely implicate the accused. (5) Mere recovery of stolen or dacoit property from an accused person cannot by itself lead to an irresistible conclusion that the person participated in the commission of the offence; such recovery could indicate the person is a receiver of stolen property.
On this section: Dacoity with murder - cited to establish the ingredients of this offence: (1) commission of dacoity, (2) one of the dacoits committed murder, (3) murder committed in the commission of dacoity. The court held that since dacoity was not established (fewer than five persons), conviction under this section could not be sustained.
-
Syed Akram vs State Of Karnataka By Jigani Police
Court's Decision & Legal Precedent
In cases involving dacoity with murder (Section 396 IPC), the gravity of the offence is high, and a prima facie nexus established through recovery/seizure of items related to the conspiracy is sufficient to disentitle an accused from bail under Section 439 CrPC.
On this section: Applied to establish that all members of a dacoity team are liable if murder is committed.
-
Abhijit Kumar @ Ashtan @ Astam vs The State of Bihar
Court's Decision & Legal Precedent
Conviction based on identification evidence cannot be sustained where the witness expresses uncertainty regarding the identity of the accused during court testimony and where there is no other corroborative evidence linking the accused to the crime.
On this section: Murder in dacoity; the charge for which death sentence was awarded.
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 their …
-
… They are sentenced to suffer R.I. for a period of 7 years each with fine of Rs.200/- each. In default of payment of fine to suffer further R.I. for 1 month each. - 7. The Accused Nos. 1 to 6 are convicted for the offence punishable under section 396 of Indian Penal Code. And they are sentenced to suffer R.I. for 10 years each with fine of Rs.200/- each. In default of payment of fine to suffer further R.I. for 1 month each. - 8. The Accused Nos. 1 to 6 are acquitted of the offence punishable under section 135 of Bombay Police Act. - 9. All the sentences to run …
-
… The Court in the said Judgment held as under: "15. It is, however, unnecessary to do so because in the facts and circumstances of the present case the Appellants is liable to be convicted of the offence under Section 302 Indian Penal Code without anything more. The charge under Section 396, Indian Penal Code comprised of two ingredients:- (1) the commission of the dacoity, and (2) the commission of the murder in so committing the dacoity. The first ingredient was proved without any doubt and was not challenged by the learned Counsel for the Appellants. The second ingredient also was proved in any …
Questions about Section 396
What have the courts held on Section 396 of the Indian Penal Code?
Rafiq Ahmed @ Rafi vs State of U. P (04 Aug 2011) is the leading judgment on this section among those set out below: Dacoity with murder - if any of five or more dacoits commits murder, all are punishable with death, life imprisonment or 10-year imprisonment. Primary offence charged against appellant. Court held murder is expressly incorporated into this section. Another 3 judgments on this section are set out below, 1 of them from the Supreme Court. They run from 2010 to 2023.
How do I find court cases under Section 396 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 396, section 396 IPC, section 396 of the Indian Penal Code. People searching for it also type ipc 396 in bns and ipc 396 punishment in hindi. Each opens the full list of orders on eCourtsIndia, where it can be narrowed by court, year and outcome. 4 reported judgments on this section are set out on this page, beginning with Rafiq Ahmed @ Rafi vs State of U. P (04 Aug 2011).
What should I read with Section 396 of the Indian Penal Code, and has it changed?
7 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 396 of the Indian Penal Code come into force?
Section 396 of the Indian Penal Code, cited as IPC 396, 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.