Robbery or dacoity, with attempt to cause death or grievous hurt
Section 397 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 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, so 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 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 Repealed by section 358 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 (45 of 2023) with effect from 1 July 2024, but conduct before that date is still charged, tried and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, at the time of committing robbery or dacoity, the offender uses any deadly weapon, or causes grievous hurt to any person, so 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 397, The Indian Penal Code, 1860 (Act 45 of 1860).
Now in the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita
BNS 311 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 The repealed enactment still governs what happened while it was in force.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.
Referred to by 6
- 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
- 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.
-
Ram Ratan v. State of Madhya Pradesh
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: IPC 397 is attracted when a deadly weapon is used in robbery, including pointing a firearm at the victim (Ram Ratan).
-
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: Robbery - Applied to charges.
-
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: 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
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
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
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
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
-
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: Robbery, or dacoity, with attempt to cause death or grievous hurt by using a deadly weapon.
-
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 robbery - applied as an alternative to dacoity charges
-
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 attempt to commit dacoity - Applied to convict the three male accused
-
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 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
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.
-
… The order of sentence as awarded to the appellant convict herein by the Trial Court is reproduced as under:- "The convict Mukesh Singh is sentenced to Rigorous Imprisonment for life and fine for a sum of Rs.25,000/- for the offence under Section 397 read with 302 Indian Penal Code. In default of payment of fine the convict shall further undergo Simple Imprisonment for a period of three months. 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 …
-
… 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 of murder and robbery. A chargesheet was filed against seven persons, including the accused. The …
Questions about Section 397
What have the courts held on Section 397 of the Indian Penal Code?
Ram Ratan v. State of Madhya Pradesh (17 Dec 2021) is the leading judgment on this section among those set out below: IPC 397 is attracted when a deadly weapon is used in robbery, including pointing a firearm at the victim (Ram Ratan). Another 11 judgments on this section are set out below, 7 of them from the Supreme Court. They run from 2008 to 2022.
How do I find court cases under Section 397 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 397, section 397 IPC, section 397 of the Indian Penal Code. People searching for it also type ipc 397 punishment and ipc 397 in bns. 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 397 of the Indian Penal Code, and has it changed?
6 other provisions in this corpus refer back to it. For anything done on or after 1 July 2024 the provision to read is BNS 311 (Robbery, or dacoity, with attempt to cause death or grievous hurt), which replaced it; conduct before that date is still charged, tried and appealed under this section.
When did Section 397 of the Indian Penal Code come into force?
Section 397 of the Indian Penal Code, cited as IPC 397, 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.