Attempt to commit robbery or dacoity when armed with deadly weapon
Section 398 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 deals with attempt to commit robbery or dacoity when armed with deadly weapon. If, at the time of attempting to commit robbery or dacoity, the offender is armed with any deadly weapon, 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 Repealed by section 358 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 (45 of 2023) with effect from 1 July 2024, but conduct before that date is still charged, tried and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 attempting to commit robbery or dacoity, the offender is armed with any deadly weapon, the imprisonment with which such offender shall be punished shall not be less than seven years.
Section 398, The Indian Penal Code, 1860 (Act 45 of 1860).
Now in the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita
BNS 312 Attempt to commit robbery or dacoity when armed with deadly weapon 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 The repealed enactment still governs what happened while it was in force.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.
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.
-
Arun vs State by Inspector of Police, T. Nadu
Court's Decision & Legal Precedent
Mere presence of an accused at the scene of crime without any overt act or evidence of prior meeting of minds cannot establish common intention under Section 34 IPC for vicarious liability of murder. The prosecution must prove that the accused shared a common intention with the principal offender either through pre-arrangement or by clear evidence of understanding developed at the spur of moment. In the absence of such evidence, the accused is liable only for their individual act, not for the act of the principal offender. An appellate court should not reverse an acquittal judgment unless there is compelling evidence that the trial court's view was unreasonable, as double presumption of innocence favours the acquitted accused.
On this section: Attempt to commit dacoity; appellant convicted by trial court but acquitted by High Court
-
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 - charge against petitioner in FIR No. 22 of 2016
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.
-
… punishable under sections 395, 302 r.w. 34 of Indian Penal Code, Section 376(2)(g), 307 r.w. 34 of Indian Penal Code, Sections 396, 397 r.w. 395 and Sec. 398 of Indian Penal Code. - 2. The offence punishable under section 397 r.w. 395 of Indian Penal Code is proved. It includes offences punishable under sections 395 and 398 of Indian Penal Code, so no separate punishments are given for the same. - 3. The Accused Nos. 1 to 6 are convicted for the offence punishable under section 302 r.w. 34 of Indian Penal Code. They are sentenced to death for the offence punishable under section 302 r.w. 34 of Indian Penal Code. It is directed that …
Questions about Section 398
What have the courts held on Section 398 of the Indian Penal Code?
Arun vs State by Inspector of Police, T. Nadu (11 Dec 2008) is the leading judgment on this section among those set out below: Attempt to commit dacoity; appellant convicted by trial court but acquitted by High Court. Another 1 judgment on this section is set out below, 1 of them from the Supreme Court. They run from 2008 to 2020.
How do I find court cases under Section 398 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 398, section 398 IPC, section 398 of the Indian Penal Code. People searching for it also type ipc 398a and ipc 398 4. Each opens the full list of orders on eCourtsIndia, where it can be narrowed by court, year and outcome. 2 reported judgments on this section are set out on this page, beginning with Arun vs State by Inspector of Police, T. Nadu (11 Dec 2008).
What should I read with Section 398 of the Indian Penal Code, and has it changed?
4 other provisions in this corpus refer back to it. For anything done on or after 1 July 2024 the provision to read is BNS 312 (Attempt to commit robbery or dacoity when armed with deadly weapon), which replaced it; conduct before that date is still charged, tried and appealed under this section.
When did Section 398 of the Indian Penal Code come into force?
Section 398 of the Indian Penal Code, cited as IPC 398, 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.