Indian Penal Code, 1860 · Chapter XVII: Of Offences against Property · Of robbery and dacoity
Section 395: Punishment for dacoity
The Indian Penal Code, 1860 was repealed and replaced by the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 from 1 July 2024. It still applies to offences and proceedings from before that date.
Whoever commits dacoity shall be punished with [imprisonment for life], or with rigorous imprisonment for a term which may extend to ten years, and shall also be liable to fine.
Corresponding sections were matched by comparing the wording of both official texts, and for the IPC and BNS, also against a published correspondence table. Wording, punishments and structure often changed, so read both sections before relying on the match.
Source: India Code (Legislative Department), the text of the Act as it stood before its repeal. Words in square brackets [ ] were inserted or substituted by later amending Acts, and *** marks words omitted by an amendment. The amendment footnotes are not reproduced here.
Supreme Court judgments citing the section 395
-
Mamman Khan v. State of Haryana
Issue arose whether the orders of the trial court, as affirmed by the High Court, directing segregation of the appellant’s trial from that of the co-accused and requiring the filing of a separate charge sheet solely on…
-
Gauri Mahto @ Gauri Kumar v. The State of Bihar
Whether in the facts of the case, prima-facie offence u/s.364-A, IPC against appellant is made out or not.
-
Jay Kishan and Ors. v. The State of Uttar Pradesh and Ors.
Whether the High Court was justified in dismissing the writ petition filed by the appellants for quashing the FIR under Sections 2 and 3 of the Uttar Pradesh Gangsters & Anti-Social Activities (Prevention) Act, 1986.…
-
Thammaraya and Another v. The State of Karnataka
Whether the conviction of the appellants-accused under Sections 201 and 302 read with Section 34, Penal Code, 1860 is sustainable.
-
Daljit Singh v. State of Haryana & Anr.
Issue arose as regards the order passed by the High Court refusing to quash the complaint, summoning order and order declaring the appellant a proclaimed offender passed by the Magistrate; whether the proclaimed…
-
State of Haryana v. Dharamraj
In instant appeal, the State seeks cancellation of anticipatory bail granted to the sole respondent by the Single Judge of the High Court.
-
Mohammad Wajid and Anr. v. State of U.P.
In the instant case wherein FIR was registered u/ss. 395, 504, 506 and 323 IPC against the appellants, the questions which arose for consideration are whether the said case falls within the parameters laid down for…
- Sunil Saini & Ors. v. The State of Haryana & Ors.
- Boby v. State of Kerala
- Kaushal Kishor v. State of Uttar Pradesh & Ors.
- Ashok Kumar Singh Chandel v. State of U.P.
- Zakir Abdul Mirajkar v. The State of Maharashtra & Ors.
- Himanshu Kumar and Others v. State of Chhattisgarh and Others
- Imran v. Mr. Mohammed Bhava & Anr
- Jaina Construction Company v. The Oriental Insurance Company Limited & Anr.
- Ganesan v. State Rep. by Station House Officer
- Sarabjeet Singh Mokha v. The District Magistrate, Jabalpur & Ors.
- Raja v. State by the Inspector of Police
- Rajan v. The Home Secretary, Home Department of Tamil Nadu and Ors.
- Rafiq Ahmedbhai Paliwala v. The State of Gujarat & Ors.
- Ankush Maruti Shinde and Others v. State of Maharashtra
- State of Maharashtra v. Shankar Ganapati Rahatol & Ors.
- State of Uttar Pradesh v. Wasif Haider Etc.
- Sharad Hiru Kolambe v. State of Maharashtra and Others
- Shajahan v. State Rep. by Inspector of Police
- Birbal Choudhary@ Mukhiya Jee v. State of Bihar
- Mukesh & Anr. v. State for NCT of Delhi & Ors.
- State (Through) Central Bureau of Investigation v. Shri Kalyan Singh (Former Cm of Up) & Ors.
- State of Maharashtra v. Ramlal Devappa Rathod and Others
- Sanjiv Kumar @ Gora v. State of Punjab