- Published on
KembaraXtra - Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita - Section 310: Dacoity
Q1. What does Section 310 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita deal with?
Answer:
Section 310 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 (BNS) deals comprehensively with the offence of dacoity.
Dacoity is essentially an aggravated form of robbery distinguished principally by the number of persons acting conjointly.
Where five or more persons conjointly commit or attempt to commit robbery—or where the persons committing or attempting robbery together with persons present and aiding them amount to five or more—every such person is said to commit dacoity.
Section 310 covers several stages and forms of the offence:
- Section 310(1) — Definition of dacoity;
- Section 310(2) — Punishment for committing dacoity;
- Section 310(3) — Dacoity accompanied by murder;
- Section 310(4) — Preparation for committing dacoity;
- Section 310(5) — Assembly for the purpose of committing dacoity; and
- Section 310(6) — Belonging to a gang habitually associated with committing dacoity.
The provision therefore extends considerably beyond the completed offence.
Q2. What is the basic concept of dacoity?
Answer:
Dacoity is closely connected with robbery.
The central distinction is the involvement of five or more persons.
A robbery committed or attempted conjointly by five or more persons becomes dacoity.
Therefore, the basic formula is:
Robbery + five or more persons acting conjointly = Dacoity
The number of persons is an essential element and not merely an aggravating circumstance.
Q3. How does Section 310(1) define dacoity?
Answer:
Dacoity occurs when:
- Five or more persons conjointly commit robbery; or
- Five or more persons conjointly attempt to commit robbery; or
- The total number of:
- Persons conjointly committing or attempting robbery; and
- Persons present and aiding such commission or attempt
amounts to five or more.
Every person who commits, attempts or aids in such circumstances is said to commit dacoity.
Q4. What are the essential ingredients of dacoity?
Answer:
The essential ingredients are:
- There must be five or more persons.
- They must commit or attempt to commit robbery.
- They must act conjointly.
- Persons present and aiding may be counted together with the principal offenders.
- The combined number must be at least five.
- Every person committing, attempting or aiding in the conjoint transaction is treated as committing dacoity.
Memory Formula
5+ persons + conjoint action + robbery/attempt + participation or aid = Dacoity
Q5. Why is the requirement of “five or more persons” important?
Answer:
The numerical requirement is fundamental to the offence.
Without the required number of persons, the offence ordinarily cannot be classified as dacoity.
The difference between robbery and dacoity therefore depends significantly upon the number of persons conjointly participating.
Simple Rule
Fewer than five → may amount to robbery
Five or more → may amount to dacoity
However, the persons must also satisfy the other requirements of the provision, particularly conjoint participation.
Q6. Must all five persons physically take the property?
Answer:
No.
Section 310(1) expressly includes persons who are present and aiding the commission or attempted commission of robbery.
Therefore, the five persons need not all physically seize property.
For example, among five participants:
- Two may enter the premises;
- One may guard the entrance;
- One may restrain a victim; and
- One may assist in carrying away the property.
If they act conjointly in the robbery, their different roles do not prevent the transaction from constituting dacoity.
Q7. Can persons who aid the robbery be counted towards the minimum number of five?
Answer:
Yes.
The section expressly provides that persons present and aiding the commission or attempted commission may be counted together with those directly committing or attempting the robbery.
Thus, liability is not confined to the persons physically taking the property.
Q8. What does “conjointly” mean?
Answer:
The supplied comments explain “conjointly” as acting:
- In association;
- In union;
- In coordination; or
- Together towards the common criminal transaction.
It requires a connection between the participants and their conduct.
Five unrelated persons independently committing separate offences at the same location would not automatically constitute dacoity merely because there happen to be five of them.
Q9. Why is conjoint participation important?
Answer:
The numerical requirement alone is insufficient.
The five or more persons must be connected through their participation in the robbery or attempted robbery.
The law therefore requires both:
Number + conjoint action
Hence:
Five persons present ≠ automatically dacoity
but
Five persons conjointly committing/attempting/aiding robbery = dacoity
Q10. What role does dishonest intention play in conjoint participation?
Answer:
According to the supplied comments, those conjointly participating, committing, attempting or aiding must possess the relevant dishonest intention and intentionally coordinate their conduct towards the commission of the robbery or dacoity.
Mere accidental presence is therefore insufficient.
The person must intentionally participate in or aid the criminal transaction.
Q11. What principle was established in Re Muppanna Appanna?
Answer:
In Re Muppanna Appanna, AIR 1948 Mad 96, a group of five persons attacked members of a family.
According to the supplied comments:
- One accused broke open the door;
- Three stood outside guarding;
- Two entered the house;
- Members assisted in removing boxes; and
- Two eventually left with the boxes.
The court treated the acts of causing hurt, guarding, entering and removing property as parts of the same conjoint transaction.
Because all participated or assisted one another in the dacoity, they were held liable.
Principle
Different participants may perform different roles.
What matters is that they act conjointly in furtherance of the dacoity.
Q12. What did Ram Shanker Singh v. State of Uttar Pradesh establish about the number of offenders?
Answer:
In Ram Shanker Singh v. State of Uttar Pradesh, AIR 1956 SC 441, there were six accused persons and no allegation or evidence suggesting that any additional unidentified persons participated.
Three of the six were acquitted for lack of evidence.
According to the supplied comments, this left only three persons whose participation was established.
The court therefore could not sustain liability for dacoity because the necessary number of five persons was not established.
The remaining offenders were instead punishable for robbery.
Principle
Where the prosecution case identifies a fixed group and acquittals reduce the proved number below five, with no evidence of additional participants, the essential numerical requirement for dacoity may fail.
Q13. Does acquittal of some accused always destroy a conviction for dacoity?
Answer:
No.
The important question is whether the evidence still establishes that five or more persons actually participated in the dacoity, even though all of them may not have been identified or convicted.
This distinction is demonstrated by the supplied cases of Saktu and Raj Kumar.
Q14. What principle was established in Saktu v. State of Uttar Pradesh?
Answer:
In Saktu v. State of Uttar Pradesh, AIR 1973 SC 760, the evidence established that a larger group was involved in the dacoity, although some participants were unidentified and others were not ultimately convicted.
The supplied comments state that the evidence nevertheless proved the participation of more than five persons.
Accordingly, those whose participation was established could still be convicted for dacoity.
Principle
It is not necessary that all five or more offenders must ultimately be identified and convicted, provided the evidence establishes that five or more persons participated in the dacoity.
Q15. What principle was stated in Raj Kumar v. State of Uttaranchal?
Answer:
In Raj Kumar v. State of Uttaranchal, AIR 2008 SC 3248, the supplied comments explain that even where fewer than five persons are ultimately convicted, a conviction for dacoity may still be sustained if the evidence clearly establishes that five or more persons participated.
Some offenders may remain:
- Unidentified;
- Untraced; or
- Unconvicted because their identities cannot be sufficiently established.
Therefore, conviction of fewer than five persons—even potentially a single identified participant—may be possible where the participation of a total of five or more persons in the dacoity is independently established.
However, without such a finding, fewer than five persons cannot ordinarily be convicted for dacoity.
Q16. What is the combined principle from Ram Shanker Singh, Saktu and Raj Kumar?
Answer:
These cases can be remembered together.
Ram Shanker Singh
Only a fixed number was alleged, and acquittals reduced the proved participants below five.
Result → dacoity requirement failed.
Saktu
Evidence established more than five participants even though not all could be identified or convicted.
Result → dacoity conviction could survive.
Raj Kumar
Fewer than five persons may ultimately be convicted if the court is satisfied that five or more persons actually participated.
Memory Rule
Five convictions are not always necessary.
Five participants are necessary.
Q17. What is the punishment for committing dacoity under Section 310(2)?
Answer:
A person who commits dacoity may be punished with:
- Imprisonment for life; or
- Rigorous imprisonment up to ten years; and
- Fine.
Q18. Which IPC provision corresponds to Section 310(2)?
Answer:
According to the supplied comments:
Section 310(2) BNS → Section 395 IPC
The language remains unchanged and the provision has been retained as it is.
Q19. What does Section 310(3) deal with?
Answer:
Section 310(3) deals with dacoity accompanied by murder.
If any one of five or more persons conjointly committing dacoity commits murder in so committing the dacoity, every one of those persons becomes liable to the punishment prescribed by subsection (3).
This is a particularly serious form of dacoity.
Q20. What is the punishment for dacoity with murder under Section 310(3)?
Answer:
Every person covered by Section 310(3) may be punished with:
- Death; or
- Imprisonment for life; or
- Rigorous imprisonment for a term not less than ten years; and
- Fine.
Therefore, where rigorous imprisonment is imposed under this alternative, the BNS establishes a minimum of ten years.
Q21. What change has the BNS made to punishment for dacoity with murder?
Answer:
According to the supplied comments:
Section 310(3) BNS → Section 396 IPC
The language remains substantially unchanged, but an important punishment change has been introduced.
Previously, there was no minimum threshold for the alternative term of rigorous imprisonment.
Under the BNS:
Rigorous imprisonment shall not be less than 10 years.
This is an important examination point.
Q22. Must every dacoit personally commit the murder under Section 310(3)?
Answer:
No.
The provision states that if any one of the five or more persons conjointly committing dacoity commits murder in so committing the dacoity, every one of those persons becomes liable under subsection (3).
Thus, the provision extends liability to the persons conjointly committing the dacoity when the murder satisfies the statutory connection with that transaction.
Q23. What does “in so committing dacoity” mean?
Answer:
The murder must be sufficiently connected with the commission of the dacoity.
According to the supplied comments, whether the murder occurred in the course of the dacoity is a question of fact.
The court must determine whether the murder and dacoity formed part of the same transaction.
Q24. What factors may determine whether murder was committed during dacoity?
Answer:
According to the supplied comments, relevant considerations may include:
- The point at which the murder occurred;
- The time interval between the dacoity and murder;
- The physical distance between the place of dacoity and place of murder;
- Whether the offenders had already abandoned the dacoity;
- Whether they were still engaged in the criminal transaction; and
- Whether the murder and dacoity formed part of one continuing transaction.
The ultimate question is whether the murder was sufficiently connected with the dacoity.
Q25. What principle was discussed in Shyam Behari v. State of U.P.?
Answer:
In Shyam Behari v. State of U.P., AIR 1957 SC 320, the supplied comments describe offenders who entered a residence intending to commit robbery.
Their effort failed when neighbours gathered.
The offenders fled without obtaining the property.
Villagers pursued them. After crossing a ditch, one of the offenders was caught, and another offender shot and killed a villager.
According to the supplied comments, the Court treated the shooting as a separate transaction from the dacoity because the dacoity transaction had already ended when the offenders fled without booty.
Consequently, the case did not fall within dacoity with murder under the corresponding provision. The accused responsible for the killing was instead convicted for murder.
Principle
A murder does not automatically become “dacoity with murder” merely because the offenders had earlier been involved in dacoity.
There must be a sufficient transactional connection.
Q26. What is the central rule concerning dacoity with murder?
Answer:
The rule may be remembered as:
Dacoity + murder forming part of same transaction = Section 310(3)
But:
Dacoity completed/abandoned + separate later murder = Section 310(3) may not apply
The factual connection between the two acts is therefore critical.
Q27. What does Section 310(4) punish?
Answer:
Section 310(4) punishes preparation for committing dacoity.
A person who makes preparation for committing dacoity may be punished even though the dacoity has not yet reached the stage of attempt or completion.
Q28. Why is Section 310(4) significant in criminal law?
Answer:
As a general principle, mere preparation for an offence is often not punished unless the law specifically provides otherwise.
Dacoity is treated differently because of its serious threat to public safety.
Section 310(4) therefore expressly makes preparation for dacoity punishable.
This means the law intervenes at an earlier stage because of the seriousness of the contemplated offence.
Q29. What must be established for preparation for dacoity?
Answer:
It must be established that the acts relied upon were genuinely preparations for committing dacoity.
Mere possession of ordinary objects or suspicious conduct would not automatically establish the offence.
The prosecution must connect the preparatory acts with the intended commission of dacoity.
The supplied comments recognise that this may be difficult to prove because the purpose behind the preparations must be established.
Q30. What is the punishment for preparation for dacoity?
Answer:
Under Section 310(4):
- Rigorous imprisonment may extend to ten years; and
- The offender shall also be liable to fine.
Q31. Which IPC provision corresponds to Section 310(4)?
Answer:
According to the supplied comments:
Section 310(4) BNS → Section 399 IPC
The language remains unchanged and the provision has been retained as it is.
Q32. What does Section 310(5) punish?
Answer:
Section 310(5) deals with assembly for the purpose of committing dacoity.
It provides that whoever is one of five or more persons assembled for the purpose of committing dacoity is punishable.
Thus, the law criminalises even the assembly stage when the required purpose is established.
Q33. What are the essential ingredients of assembly for dacoity?
Answer:
Two particularly important matters must be established:
- There must be five or more persons assembled; and
- Their assembly must be for the purpose of committing dacoity.
Both elements are essential.
Formula
5+ persons assembled + purpose of committing dacoity = Section 310(5)
Q34. Is mere assembly of five persons sufficient?
Answer:
No.
Five persons may lawfully assemble for countless innocent purposes.
The prosecution must establish that their assembly was specifically for the purpose of committing dacoity.
Therefore:
Five persons together ≠ Section 310(5)
Five persons together for dacoity = Section 310(5)
Q35. What is the punishment for assembly for dacoity?
Answer:
Under Section 310(5):
- Rigorous imprisonment may extend to seven years; and
- The offender shall also be liable to fine.
Q36. Which IPC provision corresponds to Section 310(5)?
Answer:
According to the supplied comments:
Section 310(5) BNS → Section 402 IPC
The substantive language remains unchanged, but the older phrase:
“at any time after passing of this Act, shall be”
has been replaced with the simpler word:
“is.”
This is essentially a drafting modernisation.
Q37. What does Section 310(6) deal with?
Answer:
Section 310(6) punishes a person who belongs to a gang of persons associated for the purpose of habitually committing dacoity.
The provision therefore targets organised and continuing criminal association.
It is not necessary under this subsection to focus only on one particular completed dacoity. The provision concerns membership in a gang organised for habitual dacoity.
Q38. What are the essential ingredients of Section 310(6)?
Answer:
According to the supplied comments, two principal matters must be established:
- There must exist a gang of persons associated for the purpose of habitually committing dacoity; and
- The accused must belong to that gang.
Thus:
Habitual dacoity gang + membership = Section 310(6)
Q39. Why is the word “habitually” important under Section 310(6)?
Answer:
The word “habitually” indicates continuing or repeated criminal activity.
The provision is therefore concerned with a gang associated for repeated commission of dacoity rather than merely a temporary group connected with one isolated incident.
The habitual nature of the gang is an essential feature of subsection (6).
Q40. Is mere association with a person who once committed dacoity sufficient?
Answer:
No.
The subsection requires membership in a gang associated for the purpose of habitually committing dacoity.
Mere friendship, acquaintance or accidental association with an offender does not by itself establish membership in such a gang.
Q41. What is the punishment for belonging to a gang of dacoits?
Answer:
Under Section 310(6), the offender may be punished with:
- Imprisonment for life; or
- Rigorous imprisonment up to ten years; and
- Fine.
Q42. Which IPC provision corresponds to Section 310(6)?
Answer:
According to the supplied comments:
Section 310(6) BNS → Section 400 IPC
The language remains substantially unchanged.
However, the older phrase:
“at any time after passing of this Act, shall belong”
has been replaced by:
“belongs.”
Again, this is primarily a simplification of the drafting.
Q43. Why is dacoity unusual in relation to the stages of crime?
Answer:
The supplied comments emphasise that dacoity is unusual because the law punishes conduct at several different stages.
Section 310 covers:
- Assembly for committing dacoity;
- Preparation for committing dacoity;
- Attempt to commit dacoity;
- Completed dacoity.
In addition, the law separately punishes membership in a gang habitually associated with dacoity.
This reflects the serious danger associated with organised violent robbery.
Q44. What is the first punishable stage — assembly?
Answer:
Under Section 310(5), the law intervenes when:
- Five or more persons have assembled; and
- Their purpose is to commit dacoity.
The actual preparation, attempt or completed dacoity need not yet have occurred if the statutory requirements for the assembly offence are proved.
Q45. What is the second punishable stage — preparation?
Answer:
Under Section 310(4), making preparation for dacoity is itself punishable.
The offenders may have moved beyond mere assembly and begun arranging the means necessary to carry out the contemplated dacoity.
The law punishes this preparatory stage because of the serious nature of the offence.
Q46. What is the third punishable stage — attempt?
Answer:
Section 310(1) expressly includes five or more persons who conjointly attempt to commit robbery.
Therefore, completion of the robbery is unnecessary for the conduct to become dacoity.
Once five or more persons conjointly attempt robbery in the manner required by the provision, the definition of dacoity may be satisfied.
Q47. What is the fourth stage — completed dacoity?
Answer:
Where five or more persons conjointly complete the robbery, the completed offence of dacoity is established.
Punishment is then governed by Section 310(2), subject to any aggravated circumstances such as murder under Section 310(3).
Q48. How can the stages of dacoity be remembered easily?
Answer:
Use the sequence:
ASSEMBLE → PREPARE → ATTEMPT → COMMIT
All of these stages receive legal attention in relation to dacoity.
An additional category is:
BELONG TO HABITUAL GANG
This is covered by Section 310(6).
Q49. What is the difference between preparation and assembly for dacoity?
Answer:
Assembly — Section 310(5)
The emphasis is on:
- Five or more persons;
- Coming together;
- For the purpose of committing dacoity.
Preparation — Section 310(4)
The emphasis is on:
- Preparatory acts;
- Undertaken for the commission of dacoity.
Therefore:
Assembly = coming together for dacoity
Preparation = arranging or taking preparatory steps for dacoity
Q50. What is the difference between robbery and dacoity?
Answer:
The supplied comments identify the principal distinction as the number of offenders involved.
Robbery becomes dacoity where the statutory requirement of five or more persons acting conjointly is satisfied.
Memory Rule
Robbery + 5 or more conjoint participants = Dacoity
However, the persons present and intentionally aiding may also be counted towards the five.
Q51. Can an aider be guilty of dacoity even without physically taking property?
Answer:
Yes.
Section 310(1) expressly includes persons who are present and aiding the commission or attempted commission.
Therefore, a person may be guilty even though another participant physically takes the property.
What matters is intentional participation or aid in the conjoint transaction.
Q52. Is mere presence at the scene sufficient?
Answer:
No.
The wording refers to persons “present and aiding.”
Therefore, mere accidental or innocent presence is not equivalent to being present and aiding the robbery.
The person must be connected to the conjoint criminal activity.
Q53. Can dacoity exist where the robbery is only attempted?
Answer:
Yes.
This is expressly recognised in Section 310(1).
Five or more persons conjointly attempting to commit robbery may constitute dacoity even though they fail to obtain any property.
Therefore:
Completed robbery is not essential to the definition of dacoity.
Q54. Why does Section 310 impose severe punishment?
Answer:
Dacoity combines:
- Robbery;
- Group participation;
- Organised criminal conduct;
- Potential violence;
- Greater capacity to overpower victims; and
- Increased danger to public safety.
The participation of five or more persons makes resistance substantially more difficult and increases the potential for serious violence.
The severe punishments reflect these characteristics.
Q55. What is the classification of offences under Section 310?
Answer:
According to the supplied classification, offences under:
- Section 310(2);
- Section 310(3);
- Section 310(4);
- Section 310(5); and
- Section 310(6)
are:
- Cognizable;
- Non-bailable; and
- Triable by the Court of Session.
Q56. What are the IPC equivalents of the different parts of Section 310?
Answer:
For revision, the supplied comments give the following equivalents:
Section 310(1) BNS
Equivalent to Section 391 IPC — Definition of dacoity.
Section 310(2) BNS
Equivalent to Section 395 IPC — Punishment for dacoity.
Section 310(3) BNS
Equivalent to Section 396 IPC — Dacoity with murder.
Section 310(4) BNS
Equivalent to Section 399 IPC — Preparation for dacoity.
Section 310(5) BNS
Equivalent to Section 402 IPC — Assembly for dacoity.
Section 310(6) BNS
Equivalent to Section 400 IPC — Belonging to gang of dacoits.
Q57. What are the important BNS changes identified in the supplied comments?
Answer:
Most of Section 310 substantially retains the corresponding IPC provisions.
The principal changes mentioned are:
Section 310(3)
A minimum threshold has been introduced for the rigorous-imprisonment alternative:
Minimum rigorous imprisonment = 10 years
Section 310(5)
The older phrase:
“at any time after passing of this Act, shall be”
has been replaced with:
“is.”
Section 310(6)
The older phrase:
“at any time after passing of this Act, shall belong”
has been replaced with:
“belongs.”
The latter two changes simplify the statutory language.
Key Provisions (Study Notes)
Section 310(1) — Definition
Dacoity exists where:
5 or more persons + conjointly commit/attempt robbery
or where:
Persons committing/attempting + persons present and aiding = 5 or more
Every such committing, attempting or aiding person is treated as committing dacoity.
Section 310(2) — Punishment for Dacoity
Punishment:
- Life imprisonment; or
- Rigorous imprisonment up to 10 years; and
- Fine.
IPC equivalent → Section 395
Section 310(3) — Dacoity with Murder
Where one of five or more persons conjointly committing dacoity commits murder in so committing it, every such person is punishable with:
- Death; or
- Life imprisonment; or
- Rigorous imprisonment not less than 10 years; and
- Fine.
IPC equivalent → Section 396
Important Rule
The murder must form part of the dacoity transaction.
Section 310(4) — Preparation for Dacoity
Preparation itself is punishable.
Punishment:
- Rigorous imprisonment up to 10 years; and
- Fine.
IPC equivalent → Section 399
Section 310(5) — Assembly for Dacoity
Requirements:
- Five or more persons;
- Assembled;
- Purpose is to commit dacoity.
Punishment:
- Rigorous imprisonment up to 7 years; and
- Fine.
IPC equivalent → Section 402
Section 310(6) — Gang of Dacoits
Requirements:
- Gang exists;
- Gang is associated for habitually committing dacoity;
- Accused belongs to that gang.
Punishment:
- Life imprisonment; or
- Rigorous imprisonment up to 10 years; and
- Fine.
IPC equivalent → Section 400
Important Cases from the Supplied Comments
Ram Shanker Singh v. State of Uttar Pradesh, AIR 1956 SC 441
Where the prosecution case did not establish five or more participants after the acquittals and there was no allegation of additional offenders, dacoity could not be sustained.
Memory Point
Proved participants below 5 + no others = no dacoity
Saktu v. State of Uttar Pradesh, AIR 1973 SC 760
Where the evidence established that more than five persons participated, failure to identify or convict every participant did not prevent conviction for dacoity.
Memory Point
All five need not be identified if 5+ participation is proved.
Raj Kumar v. State of Uttaranchal, AIR 2008 SC 3248
Fewer than five persons may ultimately be convicted where the evidence clearly establishes that five or more persons actually participated.
Memory Point
Five participants required — not necessarily five convictions.
Shyam Behari v. State of U.P., AIR 1957 SC 320
According to the supplied comments, a murder occurring after the dacoity transaction had ended was treated as a separate transaction.
Memory Point
Murder must be part of the dacoity transaction for Section 310(3).
Re Muppanna Appanna, AIR 1948 Mad 96
Participants performing different roles—entering, guarding, assisting and removing property—were treated as acting conjointly.
Memory Point
Different roles + common conjoint participation = dacoity liability
Quick Revision Notes
Basic Definition
5+ persons conjointly committing or attempting robbery = Dacoity
Aiders Count
Persons present and aiding may be included when calculating the minimum five.
Number Rule
Five participants are essential.
But:
Five convictions are not necessarily essential.
Conjointly
Participants must act together or in association in the criminal transaction.
Dacoity with Murder
Murder must be sufficiently connected with the dacoity transaction.
Punishable Stages
ASSEMBLY → PREPARATION → ATTEMPT → COMMISSION
The law also punishes:
MEMBERSHIP IN HABITUAL DACOITY GANG
Punishment Memory Guide
Ordinary Dacoity — Section 310(2)
Life OR rigorous imprisonment up to 10 years + fine
Dacoity with Murder — Section 310(3)
Death OR life OR rigorous imprisonment minimum 10 years + fine
Preparation — Section 310(4)
Rigorous imprisonment up to 10 years + fine
Assembly — Section 310(5)
Rigorous imprisonment up to 7 years + fine
Habitual Gang — Section 310(6)
Life OR rigorous imprisonment up to 10 years + fine
Ultimate Memory Formula
DACOITY
ROBBERY
+
FIVE OR MORE
+
CONJOINT PARTICIPATION
=
DACOITY
And remember:
5 participants required ≠ 5 convictions always required
Key Takeaway
Section 310 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 comprehensively regulates dacoity. Its central requirement is that five or more persons conjointly commit or attempt to commit robbery, with persons present and intentionally aiding also capable of being counted towards the required number.
The section goes considerably further than merely punishing completed dacoity. It covers assembly, preparation, attempt, completed dacoity, dacoity accompanied by murder, and membership in a gang habitually committing dacoity.
The most important examination principle is the numerical requirement: five or more persons must participate in the dacoity, although all five need not necessarily be identified or ultimately convicted if the evidence establishes that the total number of participants was at least five.
For rapid revision:
Robbery + 5 or more conjoint participants = Dacoity
Assembly → Preparation → Attempt → Commission are all covered
and
Dacoity + murder forming part of the same transaction = Section 310(3).
