S.399 IPC | Preparation For Dacoity Requires Five Or More Persons: Kerala High Court

The Kerala High Court, in a recent ruling, clarified that a minimum of five persons are required to attract the offence of making preparation to commit dacoity under Section 399 of the Indian Penal Code.

Justice M.B. Snehalatha looked into the definition of 'dacoity' provided under Section 391 IPC and 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.”

The Court was considering an appeal filed by an accused challenging the concurrent findings of his guilt for the offence under Section 399 IPC.

The prosecution's case was that the petitioner with the two other accused was found to be travelling in a car carrying deadly weapon by the police patrol team. Crime was initially registered under Section 41(1)(a)(d) and Section 102 of the Code of Criminal Procedure and Section 27 of the Arms Act, 1959. Later, final report was filed with Section 399 IPC and Section 27 of the Arms Act.

The trial court found him guilty of Section 399 IPC and acquitted him of the Arms Act offence. The Sessions Court confirmed the conviction and dismissed the appeal. Thereafter, the petitioner approached the High Court in revision and contended that the ingredients of the offence was not made out.

The Court agreed that the ingredients of Section 399 IPC was not made since the requirement of minimum number of 5 persons was not satisfied in the case. It thus allowed the plea and acquitted the petitioner.

Case No: Crl.Rev.Pet No. 588 of 2018

Case Title: Hari v. The State of Kerala

Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Ker) 38

Counsel for the petitioner: V.A. Vinod

Counsel for the respondent: Maya M.N. – Public Prosecutor

Click to Read/Download Judgment