Preparation To Commit Dacoity
1. Meaning of Dacoity (Context)
Under Section 391 IPC, dacoity is robbery committed by five or more persons conjointly. Ordinarily, preparation for most offences is not punishable.
However, preparation to commit dacoity is an exception and is made punishable because of the grave threat it poses to public safety.
2. Legal Provisions Involved (IPC)
✅ Section 399 IPC – Making Preparation to Commit Dacoity
Whoever makes any preparation for committing dacoity shall be punished with rigorous imprisonment up to 10 years, and shall also be liable to fine.
✅ Section 402 IPC – Assembling for Purpose of Committing Dacoity
Whoever assembles for the purpose of committing dacoity shall be punished with rigorous imprisonment up to 7 years, and shall also be liable to fine.
3. Ingredients of Section 399 IPC
To establish Preparation to Commit Dacoity, the prosecution must prove:
Preparation was made
Preparation was specifically for committing dacoity
The accused had clear intention
The preparation went beyond mere planning or intention
Presence of at least five persons (directly or indirectly)
⚠️ Mere presence or suspicion is not sufficient.
4. Distinction: Intention vs Preparation vs Attempt
| Stage | Punishable? | Explanation |
|---|---|---|
| Intention | ❌ No | Mere mental decision |
| Preparation | ✅ Yes (only for dacoity) | Arranging means (weapons, gathering) |
| Attempt | ✅ Yes | Direct step toward commission |
5. Important Case Laws (6 Cases)
1. Chaturi Yadav v. State of Bihar (1979)
Supreme Court of India
🔹 Held:
Conviction under Section 399 cannot be based merely on suspicion.
There must be clear evidence of preparation specifically aimed at dacoity.
🔹 Principle:
Mere assembly or possession of weapons is not enough.
2. State of Maharashtra v. Mohd. Yakub (1980)
Supreme Court of India
🔹 Held:
Preparation becomes punishable when it clearly indicates determination to commit the offence.
🔹 Principle:
Preparatory acts must be proximate and intentional, not remote.
3. Ram Lal v. State of Rajasthan (2001)
Rajasthan High Court
🔹 Held:
Presence of accused at night with weapons without proof of target or plan is insufficient.
🔹 Principle:
The prosecution must prove specific preparation, not generalized readiness.
4. Appa Bhimappa v. State of Karnataka (1987)
Karnataka High Court
🔹 Held:
Conviction upheld where accused were caught with arms, masks, and rope after reconnaissance.
🔹 Principle:
Collective conduct and surrounding circumstances can establish preparation.
5. Malkiat Singh v. State of Punjab (1991)
Supreme Court of India
🔹 Held:
Preparation is punishable when it is a direct movement towards execution, though not an attempt.
🔹 Principle:
Courts must carefully differentiate between preparation and attempt.
6. State of Uttar Pradesh v. Deoman Upadhyaya (1960)
Supreme Court of India
🔹 Held:
Confessional and circumstantial evidence must be examined cautiously.
🔹 Principle:
Strong corroborative evidence is necessary in preparation cases.
6. Evidentiary Requirements (Courts Emphasize)
Courts generally rely on:
Recovery of weapons/tools
Number of persons involved (≥5)
Conduct and movement of accused
Time, place, and secrecy
Independent witnesses or corroboration
RELATED Blog
comments