Criminal Law

Robbery and Dacoity

Study Robbery and Dacoity with clear BNS rules, essential ingredients, leading cases, examples and concise exam-ready revision for law students.

By Advocate Aditya Sharma7 min read

Quick answer

Robbery is aggravated theft or extortion involving specified instant violence or fear, while dacoity is robbery committed or attempted conjointly by five or more persons.

Rule and essential ingredients

Robbery is aggravated theft or extortion involving specified instant violence or fear, while dacoity is robbery committed or attempted conjointly by five or more persons. Begin with the statutory language. Criminal liability follows only when the prosecution proves each required ingredient beyond reasonable doubt, subject to any applicable exception or statutory presumption.

Theft as robbery

Violence, attempted violence or fear of instant death, hurt or wrongful restraint must be used for committing theft, carrying property away or overcoming resistance.

Extortion as robbery

The offender must be present and induce immediate delivery through fear of instant death, hurt or wrongful restraint.

Five-person dacoity

Five or more persons must conjointly commit, attempt or aid the robbery in the manner stated by Section 310.

Application, limits and proof

A strong answer does not stop at a definition. It identifies the contested ingredient, compares the evidence with the statutory threshold and explains why nearby offences or defences do or do not apply.

Timing connection

Violence occurring after an unrelated completed theft is not automatically robbery; it must connect to taking, carrying away or resistance.

Aggravated forms

Attempt to cause death or grievous hurt and being armed with a deadly weapon carry separate minimum consequences.

Landmark cases

Learn the facts, the rule and why the case matters. The citation alone will not strengthen an answer.

Phool Kumar v. Delhi Administration

(1975) 1 SCC 797

Held: A deadly weapon displayed to terrorise a victim during robbery can attract the aggravated provision.

Use in an answer: Use this authority to explain the controlling test for robbery and dacoity, then apply that test to the problem facts.

Shyam Behari v. State of Uttar Pradesh

AIR 1957 SC 320

Held: A participant may be liable for dacoity-related homicide where killing occurs in conjoint commission of the dacoity.

Use in an answer: Use this authority to explain the controlling test for robbery and dacoity, then apply that test to the problem facts.

How to write this answer in an exam

  1. Open with the relevant BNS provision and its purpose.
  2. List the ingredients in the order in which they must be proved.
  3. Apply conduct, circumstances and mens rea separately.
  4. Address the closest distinction, defence or aggravated form.
  5. Conclude on liability and punishment without assuming disputed facts.

Quick revision

  • Robbery is aggravated theft or extortion involving specified instant violence or fear, while dacoity is robbery committed or attempted conjointly by five or more persons.
  • Violence, attempted violence or fear of instant death, hurt or wrongful restraint must be used for committing theft, carrying property away or overcoming resistance.
  • The offender must be present and induce immediate delivery through fear of instant death, hurt or wrongful restraint.
  • Violence occurring after an unrelated completed theft is not automatically robbery; it must connect to taking, carrying away or resistance.
  • The prosecution ordinarily bears the burden of proving every ingredient beyond reasonable doubt.

Test yourself

  1. What is the central legal test for robbery and dacoity?
  2. Which fact establishes the required mental element?
  3. What nearby rule is most likely to be confused with this topic?

Frequently asked questions

What should an answer on robbery and dacoity prove first?

Start with the charged BNS provision and the conduct it prohibits. Then prove the required circumstances and mental state separately before discussing punishment or a defence.

Are older IPC judgments still useful after BNS?

Yes, where the BNS language and principle remain materially similar. The current BNS text must lead, and an older case should not override a changed definition, ingredient or punishment.

Sources and further reading