IPC Section 398 - Attempt To Commit Robbery Or Dacoity When Armed With A Deadly Weapon

If, at the time of attempting to commit robbery or dacoity, the offender is armed with any deadly weapon, the imprisonment with which such offender shall be punished shall not be less than seven years.

IPC Section 398: Explained In Simple Terms

Indian Penal Code (IPC) Section 398 deals with situations where an attempt is made to commit robbery or dacoity using deadly weapons. It enhances the gravity of punishment for the offender when such crimes are attempted with deadly instruments. While it specifically focuses on robbery or dacoity attempts, the section stresses the use of deadly weapons as an aggravating factor. This section ensures the legal system’s response is more stringent when dangerous weapons are involved, aiming to curb violent attempts of robbery or dacoity that pose severe risks to human life.

Key Terms In IPC Section 398

• Robbery: The unlawful taking of someone’s property by force or the threat of force. The key element in robbery is the use of violence or intimidation.
• Dacoity: When five or more people collaborate to commit or attempt to commit robbery, it is classified as dacoity under Indian law.
• Deadly Weapon: A weapon that is inherently capable of causing death or severe injury. This can include firearms, knives, or even blunt instruments depending on their usage and the potential harm they pose.
• Attempt: The act of trying to commit a crime, even if the crime is not successfully completed. An attempt, in legal terms, requires an overt act that comes close to completing the crime.
• Punishment: Under IPC Section 398, an attempt to commit robbery or dacoity with a deadly weapon carries a mandatory minimum sentence of seven years imprisonment. This applies even if the robbery or dacoity is not fully carried out.

Also Read : IPC Section 392- Punishment For Robbery

Key Details of IPC Section 398

Also Read : IPC Section 396- Dacoity With Murder

Case Law And Judicial Interpretations on IPC Section 398

Shahaji Ramanna Nair vs. State Of Maharashtra

In this case, the appellant was accused of attempting to rob a driver, by threatening him with a knife, and was sentenced to 7 years of rigorous imprisonment under both sections. The High Court ruled that Section 398 does not create a separate offense but only enhances punishment if the offender is armed during an attempted robbery, meaning separate convictions under Sections 393 and 398 were erroneous. Furthermore, the court found that the prosecution failed to prove a clear attempt to commit robbery, as the evidence indicated only an assault. Consequently, the appellant’s conviction was overturned, and he was acquitted.

Sonu @ Raja vs. State

On February 12, 2015, the appellant attempted to rob an auto-rickshaw driver, at gunpoint. The police arrived and arrested the appellant, who was identified by one of the accomplices. The appellant was convicted under Sections 393 and 398 IPC, as well as Sections 25 and 27 of the Arms Act. The appellant was convicted under Sections 393 (attempt to commit robbery) and 398 (attempt to commit robbery or dacoity when armed with a deadly weapon) of the IPC, as well as Sections 25 (possession of arms without license) and 27 (use of arms) of the Arms Act. The court sentenced him to 7 years of rigorous imprisonment for the robbery attempt and additional sentences for the Arms Act violations.

Chinnadurai vs. State Of T.N. (1995):

The appellant and his companions forcibly entered the house of a moneylender, identified as PW 3, with the intent to rob during the night. They were armed with a knife and caused injuries to the moneylender and his family members, who tried to resist. Despite their violent behaviour, they did not manage to steal any valuables as the neighbours raised an alarm, leading to the appellant's capture. The appellant was initially convicted under Section 398 IPC by the trial court. However, upon appeal, the Supreme Court set aside the conviction, stating that the evidence presented was insufficient to prove the intention of robbery or dacoity beyond a reasonable doubt. The court noted that no stolen property was recovered, and the testimonies of the witnesses had inconsistencies.

FAQ’s

How does IPC Section 398 protect public servants?

IPC Section 398 indirectly protects public servants by imposing severe punishments on offenders who attempt violent crimes like robbery or dacoity with deadly weapons. Since public servants, such as police officers, are often targets in the execution of their duties, this section deters potential criminals from using deadly force in such situations, thus ensuring better safety for law enforcement officials and other public figures.

What are the potential misuses of IPC Section 398?

Despite its intention to curb violent attempts at robbery or dacoity, IPC Section 398 could potentially be misused in the following ways:

• False Accusations: In some cases, individuals could be falsely implicated in robbery or dacoity attempts by alleging that they carried deadly weapons when they did not.
• Misapplication by Law Enforcement: Police may misuse this section to impose harsher punishments in cases where the circumstances do not warrant such a charge, especially when weapons found may not qualify as "deadly" under the legal interpretation.

Are there any defences available under IPC Section 398?

Yes, some defences can be argued under IPC Section 398:

1. Absence of Deadly Weapon: The accused may argue that they were not carrying a weapon at the time of the alleged attempt, or that the weapon in question does not qualify as a "deadly" weapon.
2. Lack of Intent: It may be contended that there was no intent to commit robbery or dacoity and that the presence of a weapon was incidental or for self-defence.
3. Mistaken Identity: In situations where an individual is wrongly identified as the culprit, they may argue mistaken identity as a defence.