www.nslrj.in All copyrights reserved @ National Social and Legal Research Journal Volume 1 Issue 1

Visit us at www.nslrj.inNational Social and Legal Research Journal Page 1

VOLUME 1 ISSUE 1

Name:- Gauri Desai

Edition:-Volume1Issue1

Title:- An Analysis of Robbery and Dacoity with reference to Judicial Interpretation

Date of publication:-5th November , 2020

An Analysis of Robbery and Dacoity with reference to Judicial

Interpretation

INTRODUCTION

The scope of this research paper is high as it goes beyond just analyzing the crimes of robbery and dacoity

as mentioned in the Indian Penal Code and implores the judicial perspective which in the long run would

hold a powerful impact in helping conclude cases. Since India is a country that gives special importance to

judicial review, this paper would help enlighten the reader with respect to these two crimes.

One must realize that simply being accused and charged with a crime is not sufficient to convict a person.

The essentials of the crime must be met and this paper discussed in depth about what constitutes the

crimes of robbery and dacoity while simultaneously giving case laws that helps understand the content

better. Comprehension of a crime in its entire entity to clarify any reasonable questions is what this paper

hopes to achieve and sees a lot of scope in doing so.

The paper hopes to better understand the conceptualities of the crimes of dacoity and robbery and see if

and how their judgments have changed over the course of time and how the judicial decisions have helped

contribute this change.

The questions it seeks to answer are how have the crimes of Dacoity and Robbery evolved over time, have

the judges and the Judicial interpretation with respect to these crimes is a necessity

The research methodologies used in this paper to find information are the Doctrinal form of research, since

most of it was database and library based. It also included the Comparative and analytical form of

research, as there was a need to make a comparison between the types of crimes and analyze the available

information regarding the two crimes and their punishments

From being used as illustrations1 to help comprehend other sections or crimes to being defined in the

Indian Penal Code of 1860 (IPC), dacoity and robbery are two of the most serious crimes recognized in

India. Section 390 and 391 of the IPC define Robbery and Dacoity respectively.

Robbery is considered to have been committed when either theft or extortion acts as an integral part of it;

it is considered robbery if theft is accompanied with causing or an attempt to cause hurt, or if the offender

threatens “instant death, instant harm or instant restraint” and causes the victim to be afraid or fearful

while trying to extort from him. Dacoity is defined as a crime where five or more than five people commit

or aid in committing robbery together, here each member aiding or committing the act is said to have

committed dacoity.

Dacoity is an angelized word for the term dakoo which loosely translates to the English ‘bandit’.2 It can be

assumed to have been derived from dakarpana which essentially means plundering or dakat meaning

armed band robbery3. Dacoity has a significant history in India and its practices can be traced back the

British and the Mughal era. In Akbar’s era alone, over five hundred dacoits were sentenced to be hanged.

These ‘gang robberies’ were unknown to the British Raj, all that they were aware of was the fact that these

1 The IPC uses- „Dacoity‟ to help illustrate “Concealing design to commit offence punishable with death or imprisonment for life” under Section

118 of the IPC

„Robbery‟ to help illustrate the term „Voluntarily’ under Section 39 of the IPC 2Sir Henry Yule, Arthur Coke Burnell, Hobson-Jobson: A Glossary of Colloquial Anglo-Indian Words and Phrases, and of

Kindred Terms, Etymological, Historical, Geographical and Discursive 3Milan Roy. "CRIME AND DACOITY AMONG THEBAGDI COMMUNITY IN COLONIAL BENGAL." Proceedings of the

Indian History Congress, 376 (2015).

robberies were more drastic and dangerous than the ones that commonly occurred. It was considered to

be a dangerous crime and an administrative problem by the British; as many as 19,000 police officers were

dispatched in a single district to deal with the crime of dacoity, all to no wail as that did not work out as

planned.4

Robbery in its essence must either constitute theft, as defined in Section 378 of the IPC, or extortion, as

defined under Section 383 of the IPC. The other essential to constitute robbery is the fact that there must

be a commission or an attempt to commit harm, as seen in J. Narayan Prasad v. State of M.P5, or restrain

as previously mentioned. Section 390 further explains when theft is robbery and under which

circumstances extortion constitutes robbery.

Once the crimes are committed, Sections 392 and 395 of the IPC establish the duration and other essential

details of punishment for robbery and dacoity respectively. If a person commits robbery, the punishment

can extend up to ten years and may also include fine. Interestingly, here if the robbery in question were to

take place between sunset and sunrise and on a highway, the duration of the penalty which is

imprisonment would increase to fourteen years as seen in the case of Ezhil vs. State of Tamil Nadu6.

However, if there was an attempt to commit robbery (Section 393 of the IPC), the punishment would be

imprisonment for a period of seven years and may include fine. Regardless, robbery or attempt to commit

robbery under the IPC is classified as a non-bailable, non-compoundableand cognizable offense that can be

tried by the court of the Magistrate.7

Similarly, dacoity is robbery, or an attempt to robbery, committed by five or more people; aiding in a

dacoity is also considered as commission. Section 395 defines the punishment dealt out for dacoity- which

can span from a penalty anywhere between rigorous imprisonment for a term of ten years to life

imprisonment; it may also include a fine. Cases of committing murder in order to aid the dacoity are not

unheard of, and the Section 396 states that every one of the accused shall be charged under this section as

seen in Shyam Behari vs. State of Uttar Pradesh8. The punishment here is similar to that of Section 395,

however, this section also included being punished by death. As an offence, section 395 and 396 are non-

bailable non-compoundable and cognizable, they can be tried by the court of Sessions.

4MadanjitKour. "A NOTE ON THE PRACTICE OF DACOITY IN 19TH CENTURY BENGAL: A CONTEMPORARY

ACCOUNT." Proceedings of the Indian History Congress 44: 538-43 (1983). 5AIR 2006 SC 204 6 J.T. 2002(4) SC 375 7K.D. Gaur, Textbook on Indian Penal Code, ed.5(2014).

8AIR 1957 SC 320

While Section 391 defines dacoity, numerous other sections portray a variation of the same, such as

Section 397 which defines “committing robbery or dacoity with the attempt of causing death /or grievous

hurt”, Section 398 where “robbery or dacoity is committed whilst being armed with a deadly weapon”,

Section 399 which criminalizes “preparations to commit dacoity”, Section 400 where one is punished for

“belonging to a group of dacoits” and Section 402 where “assembling for the purpose of committing

dacoity” is punishable in a court of law.

Landmark Judgments-

Some landmark judgments with respect to robbery and dacoity are mentioned below-

Robbery-

1. State vs Chand Singh Mit Singh And Anr9- It was held in this case that of a person commits robbery

(or dacoity) while being armed and attempts to cause or causes harm, his punishment should not

be less than seven years.

2. Sinkander Kumar vs State10- two people were accused of committing robbery as they took Rs. 50

from a passerby while being armed with knives; they made their escape in an autorickshaw.

However, the appeal court acquitted them as a witness turned hostile.

Dacoity-

1. The State vs Sadhu Singh and Ors11- it was pronounced that the five perpetrators who were armed

with pistols and had tried to rob the victims but were eventually stopped by the villagers were in

fact guilty of dacoity.

2. Satya NarainChoube vs State of Madhya Pradesh12- Although there were five accused of dacoity

since they had robbed and caused hurt to the neighbor, the court did not hold them guilty of

dacoity since the identity of the accused could not be established.

The content mentioned here have been derived from various literary sources such as ‘Some Types of the

Indian Hereditary Criminal’ by F.C Daly which is a thorough journal article that goes deep into most of the

hereditary crimes that are indigenous to India. The author tries to define dacoity from the perception of an

Indian Police Officer for whom it is a hereditary crime committed by specific tribes and clans for their

9AIR 1970 P H 532, 101998 (3) Crimes 69 Delhi HC 11

1972 WLN 677 12 2003 CriLJj 2242

sustenance. This article gives a thorough sweep into the history and evolution of dacoity. ‘Patterns of

dacoity in India: a case study of Madhya Pradesh’ by Shyam Sunder Katare a book from 1972, and is as the

name suggests, a thorough analysis of the notorious dacoits of Madhya Pradesh and talks of their behavior.

Along with focusing on the dacoits, the books mentions in detail about the legality, consequences and the

history behind its insurgence. While it may not singularly deal with the legality behind dacoity alone,

significant proportions and references are made. ‘A Note On the Practice of Dacoity in 19th Century

Bengal: A Contemporary Account by MadanjitKour’

A journal article, where the author tries to tell the reader the history behind dacoity and shows how deep

the roots of the crime are embedded in our history. Since the term is indigenous to India, it gives us an

insight into how dacoity has been perceived under various rulers, from Mughals to the British to the

present-day laws. Although Bengal centric, this article is quite informative in giving a general description of

dacoity and the reasons behind why people choose it. ‘Crime and Dacoity Among Thebagdi Community in

Colonial Bengal’ by Milan Roy which is similar to the previous journal article, where the written work

mentions in detail about the dacoits that threatened the British Administration in Calcutta. However, it

shows the first-hand official reports and the analysis of this indigenous crime and tries to evaluate it.

Although Calcutta and Bengal centric, a lot of information regarding dacoity’s progress through the years

has been recorded in this article. And finally the ‘Indian Penal Code’ by K.D. Kaur which is a very

informative book on the concept of the Indian Penal Code, the detail with which the descriptions of crimes

and their respective punishments is made is nothing short of commendable. With a graspable and

comprehendible language, this book gives the reader a clear understanding of the crimes in India and

makes sure to give ample case laws to further help understand the concepts.

RESEARCH OBJECTIVE

The objectives the paper hopes to achieve are-

1. To understand and explain the crimes of dacoity and robbery in detail with the help of case laws

and judgements wherever possible.

2. To throw light on the evolution of the crime of dacoity in India and explain how the once revered

and respected act that commanded power is now one of the most severely punished offences in

the Indian Penal Code.

3. To compare the two crimes and understand their relevance in the Indian Penal Code.

4. To understand essential requirement that one needs to commit in order to actually have

committed thecrimes of dacoity or robbery.

RESEARCH METHODOLOGY

The methodology used in this study was doctrinal in form as it has been carried out in legal proportions

and is focused on a particular issue. It focuses on the evolution if robbery and dacoity as crimes and shows

the evolution of judgements by using case laws and statues such as the Indian Penal Code while trying to

explain the depth of the study.The focal point here is on the Indian Penal Code and how sections 390 to

402 play an important role in explaining the concepts of the two crimes while simultaneously using case

laws to explain each one of them individually.

The sources used here are a combination of primary and secondary sources- the primary being the Indian

Penal Code of 1860 and case laws that have been cited, while the secondary sources include studies that

have been conducted for research purposes, textbooks enplaning the IPC and other relevant journal

articles that have been duly referenced.

The study to an extent also utilized Empirical form of research as we try to see how history and the course

of events (which are more theoretical than legal) have helped change and make dacoity the crime it is

today.

RESEARCH QUESTIONS

This paper hopes to answer the more fundamental questions such as-

1. What are the crimes of dacoity and robbery and (if and) how they are related to each other?

2. What is the history behind the crime of dacoity which was once considered to be a noble act of

standing up for justice and represented patriotism, and how it has evolved into becoming the crime

it is today?

3. Why (and how) is it necessary to understand the crimes of theft and extortion in order to grasp a

better understanding of the crimes of robbery and dacoity?

4. What is the law in question when it comes the two crimes?What conclusion can be drawn having

carefully comparing the two crimes and their essential requirements?

5. Have case laws helped comprehend the topics in question in a better manner?

CHAPTER 1- Evolution of Dacoity

Just like the Chicago style gangsters, India too saw the development of the criminal world during

Independence.However, despite the modernization of the criminal world, the largest sections of crimes

committed in India were attributed to the dacoits who wreaked havoc in the lives of rural Indians.Unlike

most organized crimes, dacoity was never limited to clans or family and the member were chosen

individually.13

The origin of dacoity in the Indian peninsula can be traced back to the 5th Century where the martial

Scythian tribesmen settled. Over the course of time, dacoity began to include members of the society who

were shunned, shamed or looked down upon such as the Shudras, Jats (Sat Shudras or the clean

untouchables), Muslims and Sikhs who were rejected from their families, members of the Arya Samaj or

people who were against the unfair system that san the society. Keeping this in mind it was only expected

that the targeted victims were the ones who belonged to the upper or the higher caste. They established

militant communities without a permanent place of dwelling, a nomadic lifestyle that was driven by their

need to challenge societal practices and question the existing laws. Their pillaging and looting although

driven by their sense of justice often left them with surplus amounts of foo that they distributed amongst

the poor14. The Robin Hood lifestyle over time began to shift.

By the 1960s, corruption and bribery had seeped into both- the ranks of the dacoits and the ranks of the

policemen where there was disorder in the way the dacoits worked coupled with the illegality of the work

and the fact that persecution was limited and a lengthy process, something that soon began to dishearten

the police.15For example, in 1956 a group of dacoits had just been surrounded and while most of them had

either been captured or killed, one of the dacoits Gurbanchan Singh turned out to be the nephew of the

then Chief Minister of Punjab- Pratap Singh Kairon. Such instances were not uncommon.

13George A. Floris “A Note on Dacoits in India.” Comparative Studies in Society and History, vol. 4, no. 4, 467–472 (1962). 14

Ibid 15 Ibid

A study conducted by K. C. Dube, Narendra Kumar and Sanjay Dube in the 1980s looks into dacoits and

their psychological state of being where they learnt that the chief dacoits back in the day were respected

and showered with favors by the ruling princes. Their men were employed into the State and they too

commanded a sense of respect. It was only after the independence that things began to go south for them

and dacoity became the heinous crime that it is considered to be today.16

During the British rule, the colonizers had, for a better method of administration,implemented the

Thuggee Act of 1836 and thought of thugs to be individuals of a secret cult who worshiped goddess Kali,

and were held to be responsible for the numerous murderswhich took place on the Indian highways. The

act allowed the authorities to arrest the accused solely based on their affiliation to the said organizations17.

Not long after, the Thugee Act of 1836 soon paved the path for the introduction of the Criminal Tribes Act

of 1871 since dacoits were more often than not members of unknown tribes and people shunned from

their societies trying their best to survive and make ends meet.18

Today it is termed as aggravated robbery and is a cognizable,non-bailable,non-compoundable and a

punishable offence under Section 391 of the Indian Penal Code19.

It was in Om Prakash vs The State20 that the essentials of dacoity were defined, which were- committing or

attempting to commit robbery, the involvement of five or more people and who act conjointly to further

their aim of robbery.

16Dube KC, Kumar N, Dube S. “Makings of a Dacoit.” International Journal of Social Psychiatry. 1982 17The Oriental Annual, Or, Scenes in India. United Kingdom: E. Bull, 1834. 18 Ibid. 19The State vs Sadhu Singh And Ors. on 17 August, 1972

1972 WLN 677 20AIR 1956 All 163

CHAPTER 2- Understanding Robbery, Theft and Extortion

While the introduction made it clear that dacoity and robbery differ in nothing but the number of people

commit the crime, it seems essential that we learn what constitutes a robbery.

Robbery according to Section 390 of the Indian Penal robbery either involves theft21 or extortion22, both of

which are separate crimes defined under the IPC, and are accompanied with causing or attempting to

cause an imminent fear of death, hurt or wrongful restraint hoping to get away with taking a person’s

property or using fear to do so.Section 390 shows a series of scenarios which qualify as robbery and which

do not.In simple terms, robbery deprives a person of his property.To better comprehend robbery, one

must look into and understand theft and extortion as crimes.23

Theft

Under Section 378, theft is defined to be an act where a movable property is taken away from its owner

without the owner’s consent. This was further proved in the case of Pyare Lal Bhargava vs. State of

Rajasthan24 where the accused took a government document without permission but returned it two days

later; it was held that the crime of theft was committed none the less as the document had been moved 21 Section 378 of Indian Penal Code, 1860 22 Section 383 of Indian Penal Code, 1860 23

The Oriental Annual, Or, Scenes in India. United Kingdom: E. Bull, 1834. 24(1974) WLN 155

without the owner’s (or government’s) consent25.The essential in theft include dishonest intention while

moving the property, mobility of the property (theft of immovable property cannot happen), property

must have belonged to someone (a property without an owner cannot be stolen), the property must be

moved without the owner’s consent and lastly, the physical displacement of the property must occur.

Theft, under Section 379 of the IPC, states that a person convicted for the crime of theft shall be punished

with imprisonment up to three years or be fined or both.

Extortion

Defined under Section 383 of the IPC, extortion mentions that any person who puts another in‘fear of

injury’or‘dishonestly induces’ him into giving up his property to the former, he is said to have committed

extortion. Just like in the case of theft; extortion too has certain essential elements that need to be fulfilled

for it to be extortion. They are- intentionally putting the victim of extortion under fear, the fear must be

great enough to unsettle the victims mind and finally the person inducing fear into the victim’s mind must

do so dishonestly26.In the case of R.S. Nayak v. A.R Antulay, A.R. Antulay27 where the ‘victims’ donated

money to the accused- a Chief Minister who promised to look into their pending litigation, it was held that

since there was no fear induced and no dishonest intention, the accused could not be convicted of

extortion.The punishment for extortion is mentioned under Section 384 of the IPC where it is mentioned

that extortion too shall be punished with imprisonment up to three years or with fine or both- just as in the

case of theft as seen earlier28.

25Sami Ansari, Arvind Verma & Kamran M. Dadkhah, Crime Rates in India: A Trend Analysis, 25 INT'l CRIM. Just. REV. 318

(2015). 26Sami Ansari, Arvind Verma & Kamran M. Dadkhah, Crime Rates in India: A Trend Analysis, 25 INT'l CRIM. Just. REV. 318

(2015). 27

1988 (2) SCC602 28Surpa note 21

CHAPTER 3- ComparingDacoity and Robbery

Essentials

Like seen in the case of theft and extortion where a certain criterion had to be met in order for the crime

to be classified as such, dacoity and robbery too have certain criteria that need fulfilled.Surprisingly, but

just as mentioned before, there is only one criterion that differentiates dacoity from robbery and it lies in

the number of people committing the offence, that is, if the offence of robbery is committed by five or

more number of people, it qualifies as dacoity. The analogy that all dacoity is essentially robbery but not all

robbery is dacoity would be correct in assuming.

Sections regarding-

1. Robbery- While section 290 of the IPC defines when and how theft and extortion constitute robbery, we

realize that there are other sections in the same code that deal with the same crime and do more than just

define it. They are-

a. Section 392 of the IPC- deals with the punishment befitting the crime of robbery and charges the

accused with rigorous imprisonment up to ten years, unless its committed on a highway between sunset

and sunrise in which case he might be imprisoned for a period of fourteen years. A prime example would

be the case ofVenu and Others vs State of Karnataka29 where the convict was imprisoned for ten years

under Section 392 by the Karnataka High Court at Bengaluru.

b.Section 393 of the IPC- This section talks about the person’s/people’s attempt to commit robbery and

mentions the punishment dished out to them which is rigorous imprisonment up to seven years and might

also include a fine as seen in the case of Gurmej Singh vs State of Punjab30 where the appellant was

apprehended by the people of the society before he and two others who managed to escaped could rob

the victim. The court found of him guilty.

c.Section 394 of the IPC- This section deals with robbery that is committed while intentionally causing

grievous hurt to the victim and states the punishment to be either life imprisonment or rigorous

imprisonment for up to seven years. A prime example of this can be seen in the case of State of Madhya

Pradesh vs Phool Chand31 where the accused was sentenced to rigorous imprisonment for seven years

(although it was reduced by nine months which was the amount of time he was detained in prison

beforehand) for committing robbery and causing grievous hurt to the victim.

2. Dacoity-By now we know that Section 391 defines dacoity and that the only difference between robbery

and dacoity lies only in the number of people committing the crime. Just like in the case of robbery, dacoity

too various sections that define the punishment for the act committed in various parts and stages. They

are-

29(2008) 3 SCC 94 30

2011 (1) SCT 616 (P&H) 312005 (3) SCALE 324

a. Section 395 of the IPC- This section defines the punishment for dacoity which is can either be life

imprisonment or rigorous imprisonment for ten years and may include.In the case of KushoMahton vs

State of Bihar32, it was held that the appellants were convicted righty under Section 395 as they had used

firecrackers to induce fear into the minds of their cellmates.

b. Section 396 of the IPC- This section deals with murder committed during dacoity and hold every single

member involved in the dacoity liable for the murder as well irrespective of their contribution to the act

itself. Like used to ascertain the essentials of dacoity, the Om Prakash vs State case also acts as a prime

example to explain this section.

c.Section 399 of the IPC- This section deals with the preparation to commit dacoity which is also a

punishable offence that opens up punishment for a term that can extend up to ten years of rigorous

imprisonment and may also include a fine as seen Nasir vs State of Uttar Pradesh33up to five years

d. Section 400 of the IPC- This section acts as a deterrent for any further formation of dacoity gangs as it

prohibits and punishes people belonging to a gang of dacoits and punishes them either with imprisonment

for life or with rigorous imprisonment for up to ten years. The

e. Section 402 of the IPC- This is perhaps the last section in the IPC that deal with dacoity and mentions the

punishment for assembling for the purposing of committing dacoity to be rigorous imprisonment up to

seven years and maybe include fine as seen Nasir vs State of Uttar Pradeshwhere the applicant was

punished with rigorous imprisonment up to five years. However, mere assembly is not enough proof to

convict the assembled as seen in Dev Raj vs State34.

3. Robbery and Dacoity-

a. Section 397 of the IPC- This section talks about robbery or dacoity- both being committed while

attempting cause death or grievous hurt and how the punishment would not be lower than seven years of

rigorous imprisonment.A prime example would be the case of Phool Kumar vs Delhi Administration35where

the accused and three others who committed robbery and ended up injuring a man were sentenced to

seven years of rigorous imprisonment.

b.Section 398 of the IPC-This section talks about robbery or dacoity- both being committed while being

armed with a weapon and how the punishment would not be lower than seven years of imprisonment. The

321980 Supp SCC 344 33582 SC 34

(2000) 52 DRJ 525 351997 IVAD Delhi 125

same can be seen in Ashfaq vs State (Govt. of NCT Delhi)36 where the court found the accused guilty under

this section for carrying a pistol while trying to rob the victim.

36 (2004) C SCC 116

CONCLUSION

It is now clear as to why one must have an understanding of the crimes of theft and extortion as they both

help understand robbery, which in turn helps us understand what dacoity is- a robbery committed with

five or more people. There exits an intricate, but just as essential, relationship between these four crimes

and it would be impossible to understand one without understanding the others.

The taboo attached to dacoity is in simple words- well deserved, although that might not have been the

case a century or two ago. The brutality that accompanies the crime is heinous enough for it to be

classified as a non-bailable, non-compoundableand cognizable offense; the same can be said about

robbery as a crime, especially if committed between sunset and sunrise. The history surrounding dacoity is

often overlooked if not thoroughly ignored. People tend to completely disregard the power of being

affiliated with what they consider to be ‘culturally rich’ even if it is now illegal. Crimes such as these where

people see a sense of justice by playing ‘Robin Hood’ in this era need to be treated with caution,

punishment alone is never enough.

Contrary to popular belief, robbery and dacoity are not particularly different and are not just two separate

single standalone sections that we imagined them to be. A variety of sections including those that define

only a particular crime and the punishment for it such as -assembling to formulate or prep a gang of

dacoits- constitutes an offense and is a crime that is just as serious as committing or even attempting to

commit it.

The comparison, or what most hope would be a juxtaposition but is not, between the two crimes in

question only concluded with the slight change in the number of people actually partaking in the

commission of the crime. The essential features of the two crimes share a lot of resemblances to each

other and only further proves that without theft or extortion there is no robbery, and without robbery-

there is no dacoity which is why it is not very surprising to see that the punishment given out for the two

crimes are almost similar and at times are grouped under the same section such as sections 397 and 398.

Evolution of dacoity and robbery have however slowed down in the past few decades as the laws

governing them have remained the same.

The case laws here help comprehend the subject matter better and the judgments that they state only

help it along as seen with the essentials of dacoity or what prerequisite conditions need to be met in order

for a crime to be qualified as dacoity in Om Prakash vs The State.

These two crimes speak a lot about the Indian justice system and how the punishment is set out. In case of

dacoity, we see that although it is exactly the same as robbery except for the number of people involved,

the time to be served imprisoned is significantly higher. A reasonable conclusion would be the assumption

that the intimidation that comes with having a significantly larger number of people commit the offense

would traumatize the victim on a higher scale thereby increasing the duration of punishment. The

extended punishment here of course, also acts as a deterrent.

Unlike dacoity, robbery has not exactly seen any evolution in the past century or two and has always been

considered a notorious crime and no significant changes have been made to it in the recent times in Indian

law.

All this being considered, a major flaw that we see in the punitive system is that the convicts’ state of mind

is never taken into consideration. There is no court mandated therapy to understand why they felt

compelled to commit the crime and are just imprisoned. Despite the long imprisonment, we can never be

too sure about their state of mind and if imprisonment, rigorous or otherwise, was enough to deter them

from committing the same act again. An ideal punishment would be mandated therapy accompanied by a

slightly lighter sentence where they can reflect upon their actions.

LITERATURE REVIEW

1. A Note on Dacoits in India by George A. Floris

Cited- George A. Floris “A Note on Dacoits in India.” Comparative Studies in Society and History, vol.

4, no. 4

A journal article published in the 1950s, it talks about the growing cases of dacoity after India got its

Independence and how it was once a matter of pride being a dacoit until the British criminalized it

and categorized them as thugees in the 19th century. It gives an in-depth view into the history of

dacoity and how it evolved over the course of time.

2. Makings of a Dacoit by Dube KC, Kumar N, Dube S.

Cited- Dube KC, Kumar N, Dube S. “Makings of a Dacoit.” International Journal of Social Psychiatry.

1982

A report on a survey conducted in the 1980s, it talks about the psychological being or state of mind

of a dacoit and looks into the medical perspective on how their thinking process has influenced

their life thereby choosing to live a life of a dacoit. While this is perhaps not the most legally

inclined journal, it does provide a powerful insight into why they chose to continue a life of deceit

and violence which would help us understand the crime better.

3. Crime Rates in India: A Trend Analysis by Sami Ansari, Arvind Verma & Kamran M. Dadkhah

Cited- Sami Ansari, Arvind Verma & Kamran M. Dadkhah, Crime Rates in India: A Trend Analysis,

25 INT'l CRIM. Just. REV. 318 (2015).

This report marked the range and the changes various crimes experienced over the course of time.

While it shows that murder and related crimes do not follow a trend, it shows that the crime of

dacoity has dwindled whereas the crime of robbery has increased. The records have been

maintained since the early 1960s and talks about how rampant dacoity was and how bribing the

police worked in their favor.