When five or more persons conjointly commit or attempt to commit a robbery, or where the whole number of persons conjointly committing or attempting to commit a robbery, and persons present and aiding such commission or attempt, amount to five or more, every person so committing, attempting or aiding, is said to commit "dacoity".
Section 391: Dacoity
The Indian Penal Code, 1860Central Act · Act 45 of 1860
Repealed. This text is published for reference. It is not in force, and it should not be relied on as current law without checking what replaced it. Repealed by the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023, with effect from 1 July 2024
Where this provision sits
| Act | The Indian Penal Code, 1860 |
|---|---|
| Section | 391 |
| Marginal note | Dacoity |
| Jurisdiction | Central |
| Status | Repealed |
| Judgments citing it | 22 |
Judgments that turned on this provision
- APEAL/178/2005 of KUKLAL @ KISHOR MOTILAL KALE and ANR. Vs THE STATE OF MAH and ORS.Bombay High Court · 2025-12-15
- CRLRC/781/2007 of KAKARALA RAJU, Vs THE STATE OF A.P., REP BY PP.,High Court of Andhra Pradesh · 2025-11-19
- CRLRC/985/2007 of KATHERA SREENIVASA RAO & 2 OTHERS Vs THE STATE OF A.P.High Court of Andhra Pradesh · 2025-11-19
- APPLN/3524/2018 of AMEY S/O. MADHAV MULE AND OTHERS Vs THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA AND ANRBombay High Court · 2023-03-03
- CRA/637/2012 of BIDHAN GHARUI Vs STATE OF WEST BENGALCalcutta High Court · 2022-03-14
- CRA/266/2012 of JOYDEEP ROY @ RAJU Vs STATE OF WEST BENGALCalcutta High Court · 2022-03-14
- CRA/758/2012 of AZIM MISTRY Vs STATE OF WEST BENGALCalcutta High Court · 2022-03-14
- CRA/177/2012 of RANAJIT MONDAL @ RANJIT MONDAL @ RON @ RANA Vs STATE OF WEST BENGALCalcutta High Court · 2022-03-14
- CRA/181/2012 of SK MOTALEB @ SK MATLEB Vs STATE OF WEST BENGALCalcutta High Court · 2022-03-14
- GANESAN vs STATE REP. BY STATION HOUSE OFFICERSupreme Court of India · 2021-10-29
- CRA/783/2011 of IMTIYAZ KHAN @ RAJ@ RAJA @RAHUL Vs THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESHHigh Court of Madhya Pradesh · 2019-04-25
- APEAL/381/2000 of THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA Vs KALU SHINDE AND ORSBombay High Court · 2017-07-26
- APPLN/1530/2009 of PRAMOD HASTIMAL RUNWAL AND OTHERS Vs RAJKUMAR SHANTILAL BHANDARI AND ANR.Bombay High Court · 2009-09-04
- APEAL/425/2001 of BHALKYA AMBRUSHI KALE Vs THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA and ORSBombay High Court · 2007-06-20
- CR.A/452/2001 of MANIYABHAI KOYABHAI NAYAK Vs STATE OF GUJARATHigh Court of Gujarat · 2006-06-22
- CR.A/862/1997 of MOHAMMAD IQBAL IBRAHIM SHEIKH Vs STATE OF GUJARATHigh Court of Gujarat · 1998-08-21
16 of 22 judgments on CourtMesh that cite this provision. Create a free account to search all of them.
Find the provision, not just read it
The full text above is free, and it stays free. What a free CourtMesh account adds is everything you cannot do by reading one page at a time:
- Search 49,000+ Central and State enactments by what a provision says, not by its number
- Jump from any section to every judgment that has applied it
- Search 300 million+ Indian court records alongside the statute
- Ask a research agent to find and read the case law on a provision for you
Free account. No card. About a minute to create.
Create a free accountNeed this as data, not as a page? The Indian Penal Code, 1860 is one of 49,000+ enactments on CourtMesh. The Indian court cases API serves the case law that cites these provisions over JSON, with API documentation and plans and pricing. See also the judgment library.