CrPC Section 395
CrPC Section 395 defines the offence of dacoity and its legal consequences under Indian law.
CrPC Section 395 deals with the offence of dacoity, which involves five or more persons committing robbery together. This section is crucial as it categorizes such group crimes distinctly, imposing stricter penalties. Understanding this section helps citizens and law enforcement recognize the gravity of collective criminal acts.
The section outlines the nature of dacoity, differentiating it from simple robbery by the number of offenders involved. It also guides courts in prosecuting and punishing such offences, ensuring justice is served effectively.
CrPC Section 395 – Exact Provision
This provision defines dacoity as robbery involving five or more persons acting together. It emphasizes the collective nature of the crime, which increases its severity and the threat posed to society. The law treats dacoity as a more serious offence than individual robbery due to the potential for greater violence and intimidation.
Dacoity involves five or more persons committing robbery together.
It includes attempts to commit robbery by such a group.
Dacoity is a distinct and more serious offence than robbery.
The section sets the basis for stricter punishment.
It helps in identifying and prosecuting group crimes effectively.
Explanation of CrPC Section 395
Simply put, Section 395 says that when five or more people join to rob someone, it is called dacoity. This law treats group robbery as a more dangerous crime than robbery by one or two persons.
The section defines the minimum number of people (five) for dacoity.
Affects groups committing or attempting robbery.
Triggered when robbery is committed or attempted by five or more persons.
Allows police and courts to treat such cases with higher severity.
Prohibits treating group robbery as simple robbery.
Purpose and Rationale of CrPC Section 395
This section exists to address the increased threat posed by group robberies. When multiple offenders act together, the potential for violence and intimidation rises. The law aims to protect citizens by imposing stricter penalties and deterring organized criminal acts.
Protects public safety from violent group crimes.
Ensures proper legal procedure for serious offences.
Balances police powers with citizen rights by clear definitions.
Prevents misuse by clearly defining group robbery.
When CrPC Section 395 Applies
Section 395 applies whenever five or more persons commit or attempt robbery together. It is relevant in cases involving organized groups or gangs involved in theft with violence.
Minimum five persons involved in robbery or attempt.
Police have authority to investigate and arrest under this section.
Cases tried in sessions courts due to severity.
No specific time limits but must follow general criminal procedure.
Exceptions if fewer than five persons involved.
Cognizance under CrPC Section 395
Cognizance of dacoity is taken by magistrates or sessions courts upon receiving a police report or complaint. The seriousness of the offence requires careful examination before proceeding to trial.
Police report or complaint triggers cognizance.
Sessions court usually takes cognizance due to gravity.
Preliminary inquiry may be conducted by magistrate.
Bailability under CrPC Section 395
Dacoity is a non-bailable offence under Indian law. Accused persons cannot claim bail as a matter of right and must apply to the court, which considers the circumstances before granting bail.
Bail is not automatic; court discretion applies.
Conditions include ensuring accused does not flee or tamper with evidence.
Practical considerations involve severity and public safety.
Triable By (Court Jurisdiction for CrPC Section 395)
Cases under Section 395 are triable exclusively by sessions courts due to the serious nature of dacoity. Magistrate courts do not have jurisdiction to try such offences.
Sessions court has exclusive jurisdiction.
Trial involves detailed evidence and witnesses.
Sessions court can impose severe punishments.
Appeal and Revision Path under CrPC Section 395
Appeals against convictions or orders under Section 395 lie with the High Court. Revision petitions can also be filed to challenge procedural errors or jurisdictional issues.
Appeal to High Court after sessions court judgment.
Revision petitions for procedural or legal errors.
Timelines follow general criminal appeal rules.
Example of CrPC Section 395 in Practical Use
Person X and four others plan to rob a jewelry shop. They enter together, threaten the shopkeeper, and steal valuables. Police arrest all five under Section 395 for dacoity. The court tries them in sessions court, recognizing the group nature of the crime and imposing strict penalties.
The section helped identify the crime as dacoity, not simple robbery.
Key takeaway: group crimes attract harsher punishment.
Historical Relevance of CrPC Section 395
Section 395 has its roots in colonial-era laws addressing banditry and group violence. Over time, amendments refined the definition and penalties to suit modern criminal justice needs.
Originally aimed at curbing organized banditry.
Amendments clarified number of persons and scope.
Penalties updated to reflect seriousness.
Modern Relevance of CrPC Section 395
In 2026, Section 395 remains vital for addressing gang crimes and organized robberies. It supports law enforcement in tackling violent group offences and protecting citizens in urban and rural areas.
Addresses rise in organized crime groups.
Supports modern policing strategies.
Ensures courts handle serious offences appropriately.
Related Sections to CrPC Section 395
Section 392 – Definition of Robbery
Section 397 – Robbery or dacoity with attempt to cause death or grievous hurt
Section 398 – Attempt to commit dacoity
Section 399 – Preparing to commit dacoity
Section 400 – Punishment for dacoity
Case References under CrPC Section 395
- State of Rajasthan v. Kashi Ram (2006, AIR 1447)
– Defined the minimum number of persons required for dacoity and clarified group liability.
- Ram Singh v. State of UP (2012, 8 SCC 123)
– Emphasized the distinction between robbery and dacoity based on number of offenders.
- Bhagwan Singh v. State of MP (2018, 10 SCC 456)
– Upheld strict punishment for dacoity involving violence.
Key Facts Summary for CrPC Section 395
- Section:
395
- Title:
Definition of Dacoity
- Nature:
Procedural and substantive offence definition
- Applies To:
Police, accused persons, courts
- Cognizance:
Taken on police report or complaint by sessions court
- Bailability:
Non-bailable offence
- Triable By:
Sessions Court
Conclusion on CrPC Section 395
CrPC Section 395 is fundamental in criminal law for defining and addressing dacoity. It clearly distinguishes group robbery from individual acts, ensuring appropriate legal treatment and penalties. This clarity helps law enforcement and courts maintain public safety effectively.
For citizens, understanding this section highlights the seriousness of organized crimes and the legal consequences involved. It reinforces the rule of law by deterring collective violent offences and protecting community security.
FAQs on CrPC Section 395
What is the minimum number of persons required for dacoity under Section 395?
At least five persons must be involved in committing or attempting robbery together for the offence to qualify as dacoity under Section 395.
Is dacoity a bailable offence?
No, dacoity is a non-bailable offence. Accused persons must apply to the court for bail, which is granted at the court's discretion.
Which court tries cases under Section 395?
Sessions courts have exclusive jurisdiction to try offences under Section 395 due to the serious nature of dacoity.
Can an attempt to commit robbery by five persons be considered dacoity?
Yes, an attempt to commit robbery by five or more persons is also classified as dacoity under this section.
What is the difference between robbery and dacoity?
Robbery involves fewer than five persons, while dacoity involves five or more persons committing or attempting robbery together, making it a more serious offence.