Question: A, B, C and D plan to rob a bank. They visit the bank on the decided date and collect cash from the cashier at gunpoint. In the process of trying to escape with the loot, they are resisted by the guard and B caused him grievous injury with his revolver. On coming out of the bank… Read More »

Question: A, B, C and D plan to rob a bank. They visit the bank on the decided date and collect cash from the cashier at gunpoint. In the process of trying to escape with the loot, they are resisted by the guard and B caused him grievous injury with his revolver. On coming out of the bank C notices his enemy E standing at the bus stop and shoots at him causing his death. What offences, if any, are made out against the respective accused? Give reasons in support of your answer....

Question: A, B, C and D plan to rob a bank. They visit the bank on the decided date and collect cash from the cashier at gunpoint. In the process of trying to escape with the loot, they are resisted by the guard and B caused him grievous injury with his revolver.

On coming out of the bank C notices his enemy E standing at the bus stop and shoots at him causing his death. What offences, if any, are made out against the respective accused? Give reasons in support of your answer. [D.J.S. 2005]

Find the answer to the mains question only on Legal Bites. [ A, B, C and D plan to rob a bank. They visit the bank on the decided date and collect cash from the cashier at gunpoint.. E standing at the bus stop and shoots at him causing his death. What offences, if any, are made out against the respective accused?]

Answer

Section 396 provides for an aggravated form of dacoity inasmuch as it deals with the situation where the offender commits murder in the course of committing dacoity. Murder committed in a transaction unconnected to, or different from, the transaction of dacoity does not bring section 396 into play. Only, the murder committed during the course of dacoity attracts s 396.

In Laliya v. State of Rajasthan [AIR 1967 Raj 134] the Rajasthan High Court held that the decision as to whether the murder is or is not a part of the transaction of dacoity has to be taken in the backdrop of facts and circumstances of the case at hand. A court, while deciding the question, has to pay attention to:

  1. whether the dacoits retreated without plunder and the murder was committed while retreating;
  2. the interval between the attempt of dacoity and the commission of the murder;
  3. the distance between the places where the attempt at dacoity was committed and the murder was committed; and
  4. whether the dacoits abandoned all the booty and the lapse of an interval between the abandonment of the booty and the commission of the murder.

Therefore, if the dacoity has failed and the offenders are running away without any booty, while others are chasing them, one of the dacoits kills someone of the persons chasing them; other members of the gang cannot be guilty under section 396 of the IPC. To attract the provisions of section 396, the offence of dacoity must be coupled with murder.

In Shyam Behari v. State of Uttar Pradesh [AIR 1957 SC 320], the accused had entered the house with the intention of committing robbery. However, their attempt was foiled because of the hue and cry raised by the residents. All the residents of the village and the neighbouring village arrived on the scene. The accused and his companions without collecting their booty ran away from the house. They were chased by the residents and when they were crossing the ditch, one of the dacoits was caught by a villager.

Thereupon, another dacoit fired a pistol, which hit the villager killing him instantly. The Supreme Court, under the facts and circumstances of this case, held that the transaction of the dacoity had ended the moment the dacoits started fleeing because this was a case where the dacoits escaped without the booty. A separate transaction took place when the accused shot dead the villager while crossing the ditch. It was, therefore, held that it was not a case of dacoity with murder under s 396. The accused was convicted under s 302, IPC.

So, in the present case at hand, A, B, C, and D when B caused him grievous injury to the guard with his revolver during their act of robbery, all will be liable to be made punishable under section 394 which makes the offence of voluntarily causing hurt in committing robbery punishable as the beating and the robbery were all part of the same transaction and that all the accused acted conjointly. However, C is separately liable for murder E because the offence was committed not in the course of dacoity.


Important Mains/Long Questions and Answers for Judiciary, APO & University Exams

  1. IPC Mains Questions Series Part I: Important Questions
  2. IPC Mains Questions Series Part II: Important Questions
  3. IPC Mains Questions Series Part III: Important Questions
  4. IPC Mains Questions Series Part IV: Important Questions
  5. IPC Mains Questions Series Part V: Important Questions
  6. IPC Mains Questions Series Part VI: Important Questions
  7. IPC Mains Questions Series Part VII: Important Questions
  8. IPC Mains Questions Series Part VIII: Important Questions
  9. IPC Mains Questions Series Part IX: Important Questions
  10. IPC Mains Questions Series Part X: Important Questions
Updated On 13 Nov 2021 12:49 AM GMT
Admin Legal Bites

Admin Legal Bites

Legal Bites Study Materials correspond to what is taught in law schools and what is tested in competitive exams. It pledges to offer a competitive advantage, prepare for tests, and save a lot of money.

Next Story