Analysis of Sections 399 and 402 of the Indian Penal Code

An Analytical Study of Sections 399 and 402 of the Indian Penal Code: Preparation and Assembly for Dacoity

Introduction

The Indian Penal Code, 1860 (IPC) criminalizes not only completed offences but also acts that fall within the preparatory stages of certain grave crimes. Sections 399 and 402 of the IPC are significant provisions in this regard, specifically addressing the preparatory acts and assembly for the purpose of committing dacoity. Dacoity, defined under Section 391 IPC, is an aggravated form of robbery involving five or more persons, and is considered a serious offence against person and property. By penalizing preparation and assembly, the law aims to pre-empt the commission of dacoity, thereby safeguarding public peace and security. This article undertakes a comprehensive analysis of Sections 399 and 402 IPC, examining their ingredients, judicial interpretation, evidentiary requirements, and the challenges encountered in their application, drawing upon relevant case law and legal principles.

Defining Dacoity and its Preparatory Stages under the Indian Penal Code

To understand Sections 399 and 402, it is essential to first comprehend the offence of dacoity. Section 391 IPC defines dacoity as follows: "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'." Robbery itself, under Section 390 IPC, involves theft or extortion where the offender, for the end of committing theft, or in carrying away property obtained by theft, voluntarily causes or attempts to cause death, hurt, or wrongful restraint, or fear of instant death, hurt, or wrongful restraint. The gravity of dacoity is further underscored by provisions like Section 396 IPC, which deals with murder committed during dacoity.[1]

Sections 399 and 402 IPC operate at a stage prior to the actual commission or attempt of dacoity. They criminalize the intention and actions directed towards this offence, reflecting a legislative policy to intervene at an earlier point to prevent its consummation.

Section 399 IPC: Making Preparation to Commit Dacoity

Section 399 IPC states: "Whoever makes any preparation for committing dacoity, shall be punished with rigorous imprisonment for a term which may extend to ten years, and shall also be liable to fine."

The core ingredient of this section is "making preparation." The term "preparation" is not explicitly defined in the IPC. Judicial pronouncements have established that it involves more than a mere intention; it requires some overt act or conduct manifesting the design to commit dacoity. As observed in Mahavir v. State Of Haryana, the prosecution must demonstrate some conduct to prove the factum of "preparation."[2]

The evidentiary threshold for proving preparation under Section 399 IPC is high. Mere suspicion, or the mere assembly of persons, or even the possession of arms, may not, in isolation, be sufficient to secure a conviction. The Supreme Court's decision in Chaturi Yadav And Others v. State Of Bihar is a landmark in this context. Although the detailed reasoning was to be provided separately, the acquittal of the appellants in that case, who were initially convicted under Sections 399 and 402, underscores the necessity of robust evidence.[3] This principle was reiterated in Shridhar Koeri v. The State Of Bihar, where the Patna High Court, citing Chaturi Yadav, held that the mere arrest of the appellant at a lonely place with arms was insufficient to prove that he had assembled for committing dacoity or was making preparation, unless the prosecution proved beyond doubt the specific purpose.[4] Similarly, in Pardeep Kumar v. State Of Haryana, the reliance on Chaturi Yadav was noted.[5]

In STATE OF MAH v. RAVINDRA @ PINTYA KISAN SONWANE, the trial court acquitted the accused under Section 399 IPC, finding no cogent evidence that the accused persons were found making preparation to commit dacoity, even though it convicted them under Section 402 IPC for assembling with the purpose of committing dacoity.[6] This highlights that the act of "preparation" requires specific proof distinct from mere assembly, even if the assembly is for the purpose of dacoity. However, in Vipul (In Jail) v. Nikhil (In Jail), convictions under Section 399 and 402 IPC were upheld where police, acting on secret information, apprehended individuals armed with country-made pistols and knives, who were reportedly planning a dacoity.[7] This suggests that a combination of factors, including credible information, apprehension in circumstances indicative of a criminal enterprise, and recovery of weapons, can cumulatively satisfy the requirements of Section 399.

Section 402 IPC: Assembling for Purpose of Committing Dacoity

Section 402 IPC provides: "Whoever, at any time after the passing of this Act, shall be one of five or more persons assembled for the purpose of committing dacoity, shall be punished with rigorous imprisonment for a term which may extend to seven years, and shall also be liable to fine."

The essential ingredients for an offence under Section 402 are:

  1. Assembly of five or more persons; and
  2. The purpose of such assembly must be to commit dacoity.

The prosecution bears the onus of proving not only the fact of assembly but also the specific criminal purpose. As emphasized in Mahavir v. State Of Haryana, "the prosecution must prove, from some evidence, directly or indirectly, or from attending circumstances, that the accused persons had assembled for no other purpose than to make preparation, for commission of dacoity. If the evidence falls short of it, the case must fail."[2] This stringent requirement was also highlighted in Shridhar Koeri, where the court noted that the possibility that the accused might have collected for some other purpose could not be safely eliminated based on the evidence presented.[4]

In STATE OF MAH v. RAVINDRA @ PINTYA KISAN SONWANE, the trial court, while acquitting the accused under Section 399 IPC, convicted him under Section 402 IPC. The court concluded that "it was proved that the accused persons had assembled on the spot and concluded that the purpose of assembly was of committing dacoity."[6] This indicates that evidence of assembly coupled with circumstances pointing towards the intent to commit dacoity can lead to a conviction under Section 402, even if specific acts of "preparation" for Section 399 are not independently established to the court's satisfaction. Cases like Channakeshava v. State Of Karnataka[8] and SHANKAR BALLI S/O VIJAYKUMAR v. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA[9], which are bail matters, often involve factual scenarios where police act on information regarding individuals assembling with weapons, allegedly for committing dacoity.

Evidentiary Challenges and Judicial Scrutiny

Prosecuting offences under Sections 399 and 402 IPC presents significant evidentiary challenges. Direct evidence of the intention or purpose behind preparation or assembly is often scarce. The prosecution typically relies on circumstantial evidence, such as:

  • The place and time of assembly (e.g., a secluded spot at night).
  • Recovery of weapons, tools, or other articles typically used in dacoities.
  • Conduct of the accused (e.g., attempting to flee upon seeing police).
  • Secret information received by the police.

However, courts exercise caution in evaluating such evidence. As established in Shridhar Koeri, alleged confessions made to police officers are inadmissible to prove the purpose of assembly.[4] The non-examination of independent public witnesses, especially when a raid or recovery is made in a place where such witnesses could be available, can cast doubt on the prosecution's case, as discussed in Mahavir v. State Of Haryana.[2]

The recovery of arms, while a relevant factor, is not conclusive proof of preparation or assembly for dacoity. The Supreme Court in Chaturi Yadav (as interpreted by later High Court judgments like Shridhar Koeri) has indicated that mere arrest on the spot at a lonely place with recovery of arms does not automatically lead to an inference of guilt under these sections.[3][4]

An interesting aspect arises in the interplay between charges under Sections 399/402 IPC and offences under the Arms Act, 1959. In Shokat And Others v. State, the Allahabad High Court observed that if the charge under Section 27 of the Arms Act was not found proved due to lack of evidence, it would be questionable how the appellants could be said to be preparing for dacoity with those very arms.[10] This suggests that the failure to prove possession or use of arms under the Arms Act can weaken the foundation of a Section 399/402 IPC charge if the alleged preparation or assembly heavily relies on the presence of those arms. However, it is also established legal principle, as noted in Firoz Alam Petitioner v. State Of Chhattisgarh[11] and p.k. tailang v. state of chhattisgarh[12] (citing Mohinder Singh v. State of Punjab), that offences under Sections 399 & 402 IPC are distinct from offences under the Arms Act. Therefore, an acquittal under the Arms Act would not ipso facto lead to an acquittal under Sections 399/402 IPC if there is other independent and cogent evidence to prove the ingredients of the latter offences.

Distinction and Overlap between Section 399 and Section 402 IPC

Section 399 IPC penalizes "making preparation" for dacoity, which can theoretically be an act by an individual, although dacoity itself requires five or more persons. Section 402 IPC specifically targets the "assembly" of five or more persons for the purpose of committing dacoity. While distinct, these two sections often overlap in practice, and accused are frequently charged under both.

The case of STATE OF MAH v. RAVINDRA @ PINTYA KISAN SONWANE provides a crucial illustration of judicial differentiation. The trial court acquitted under Section 399 (finding insufficient evidence of specific preparatory acts) but convicted under Section 402 (finding evidence of assembly for the purpose of dacoity).[6] This suggests that proving "assembly for the purpose of committing dacoity" under Section 402 might sometimes be achieved with evidence that falls short of proving concrete "preparatory acts" required for Section 399, provided the element of collective purpose is clearly established. Conversely, evidence of elaborate preparation by fewer than five individuals might attract Section 399, but not Section 402 until the assembly of five or more with the requisite purpose is proven. In many instances, such as in Vipul (In Jail) v. Nikhil (In Jail), convictions are recorded under both sections when the evidence supports both the making of preparations and the assembly for the criminal purpose.[7]

Sentencing and Judicial Approach

The punishments prescribed under these sections reflect the seriousness with which the legislature views preparatory crimes related to dacoity. Section 399 IPC provides for rigorous imprisonment up to ten years and a fine, while Section 402 IPC prescribes rigorous imprisonment up to seven years and a fine. For instance, in Chaturi Yadav, the appellants had initially been sentenced to 10 years' RI under Section 399 and 7 years' RI under Section 402 by the trial court, though these were set aside by the Supreme Court.[3] In Vipul (In Jail) v. Nikhil (In Jail), the appellants were sentenced to four years' RI under Section 399 and three years' RI under Section 402, among other sentences under the Arms Act.[7]

The judiciary adopts a cautious approach, insisting on a high standard of proof before convicting individuals under these sections. This is because these provisions criminalize acts at an inchoate stage, and there is a risk of misuse if convictions are based on mere suspicion or insufficient evidence. The courts strive to balance the objective of preventing dacoity with the fundamental principles of criminal justice, ensuring that an accused is convicted only when the prosecution has proved its case beyond all reasonable doubt.

Conclusion

Sections 399 and 402 of the Indian Penal Code are vital tools in the legal framework designed to combat the menace of dacoity by penalizing preparatory acts and unlawful assemblies. They enable law enforcement agencies to intervene before the actual commission of a dacoity, thereby preventing potential harm to life and property. However, the application of these sections requires careful judicial scrutiny to ensure that they are not used to penalize innocent individuals based on flimsy evidence. The prosecution must discharge a heavy onus to prove not only the overt acts of preparation or assembly but also the specific criminal intent or purpose of committing dacoity. The jurisprudence evolved through cases like Chaturi Yadav, Shridhar Koeri, and Mahavir v. State Of Haryana emphasizes the need for cogent, credible, and often corroborative evidence, particularly regarding the purpose of assembly and the nature of preparation. While these sections are distinct, they frequently overlap, and the judiciary meticulously examines the factual matrix of each case to determine culpability. Ultimately, the effective and just application of Sections 399 and 402 IPC hinges on a delicate balance between crime prevention and the protection of individual liberties.

References