Preparation To Commit Dacoity U/S. 399 IPC Requires Minimum Of Five Persons: Kerala High Court
The accused contested his Section 399 IPC conviction, citing the lack of five persons.
Justice M.B. Snehalatha, Kerala High Court
The Kerala High Court has clarified the scope of Section 399 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC), holding that the offence of making preparation to commit dacoity can be attracted only when a minimum of five persons are involved.
A Bench of Justice M.B. Snehalatha, examined the statutory definition of “dacoity” under Section 391 IPC to determine whether the numerical requirement applies at the stage of preparation as well.
The Court observed, “A reading of Section 391 of IPC would show that the essential or core ingredient of the offence of dacoity is that there should be five or more persons. Section 399 IPC deals with making preparation to commit dacoity and therefore, the numerical requirement applicable to dacoity is equally applicable to preparation for it. If the number is less than five, the offence of dacoity or the offence of preparation to commit dacoity under Section 399 IPC will not attract. If fewer than five persons are involved, the preparation cannot be said to be for committing dacoity, because the numerical requirement of five or more persons mandatory under Section 391 IPC is equally applicable to Section 399 IPC.”
Advocate V.A. Vinod appeared for the Petitioner and Advocate Maya MN appeared for the Respondent.
Background
A revision petition was filed by an accused who had been convicted under Section 399 IPC. According to the prosecution, the petitioner, along with two other accused, was intercepted by a police patrol team while travelling in a car allegedly carrying a deadly weapon. Initially, the police registered a case under Sections 41(1)(a)(d) and 102 of the Code of Criminal Procedure and Section 27 of the Arms Act, 1959. Subsequently, after investigation, a final report was filed adding Section 399 IPC along with the Arms Act offence.
The trial court convicted the accused under Section 399 IPC but acquitted him of the charge under the Arms Act. The Sessions Court later upheld the conviction and dismissed the appeal. Aggrieved by these concurrent findings, the accused approached the High Court in revision, contending that the essential ingredients of Section 399 IPC were not established, particularly due to the absence of the mandatory minimum of five persons.
Finding
The High Court agreed with the petitioner’s contention. It held that since only three persons were allegedly involved in the incident, the statutory requirement of five or more persons was clearly not satisfied. As a result, the offence under Section 399 IPC could not be sustained in law.
Consequently, the Kerala High Court allowed the revision petition, set aside the conviction, and acquitted the petitioner.
Cause Title: Hari v. The State Of Kerala, [2026:KER:3967]
