Section 399 IPC | Offence of Preparation to Commit Dacoity Necessitates Five or More Persons : Kerala High Court
Sanchayita Lahkar
The High Court of Kerala Single Bench of Justice M.B. Snehalatha allowed a revision petition, acquitted the accused, and discharged his bail bond after finding that preparation to commit dacoity cannot be alleged under Section 399 IPC unless the material indicates involvement of at least five persons. The prosecution case was that police intercepted the accused travelling with two others in a car during patrolling and recovered weapons and other articles said to have been carried for committing dacoity. The Court observed that since dacoity, by definition, requires five or more persons, the same numerical threshold applies when the allegation is preparation for such an offence. The Registry was directed to transmit the records to the trial court forthwith.
The criminal revision petition arose from the conviction of the accused for the offence of making preparation to commit dacoity. The prosecution alleged that during night patrol duty, the police intercepted a car in which the accused and two others were travelling. Upon inspection, various weapons and articles were recovered from the vehicle, including knives, iron rods, gloves, a helmet, and a monkey cap. On this basis, the police registered a crime initially under provisions of the Code of Criminal Procedure and the Arms Act, and later added the offence relating to preparation to commit dacoity.
The accused faced trial before the Assistant Sessions Court, which convicted him for the offence of preparation to commit dacoity while acquitting him of the Arms Act charge. The Sessions Court, in appeal, confirmed the conviction and sentence. Aggrieved by the concurrent findings, the accused approached the High Court contending that the essential ingredients of the offence were not established and that the prosecution evidence did not disclose any preparation to commit dacoity within the meaning of law.
The Court examined the scope of the offence relating to preparation to commit dacoity by reading it in conjunction with the statutory definition of dacoity. It observed that “the essential or core ingredient of the offence of dacoity is that there should be five or more persons.” The Court further stated that this numerical requirement applies equally to preparation for dacoity.
The judgment recorded that “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.” It was further observed that “the numerical requirement of five or more persons is a mandatory and indispensable ingredient of the offence.”
While assessing the evidence, the Court noted that only three accused were named in the final report and intercepted in the vehicle. It observed that “the fact that A1, along with two other accused named in the charge sheet were found travelling with the articles by itself is not a ground to hold that they were making preparations to commit dacoity.”
The Court also took note of the timing of the addition of the offence and recorded that “the offence under Section 399 IPC was added only after two months of the arrest of the accused.” It stated that despite the allegation of preparation, “the prosecution failed to establish the ingredients of the offence under Section 399 IPC.”
The Court directed that “the Criminal Revision Petition is allowed. The revision petitioner is found not guilty of the offence under Section 399 IPC and he is acquitted. His bail bond stands discharged. The Registry shall transmit the records to the trial court forthwith.”
Advocates Representing the Parties
For the Petitioner: Sri. V.A. Vinod, Advocate
For the Respondent: Smt. Maya M. N., Public Prosecutor
Case Title: Hari v. State of Kerala
Neutral Citation: 2026:KER:3967
Case Number: Criminal Revision Petition No. 588 of 2018
Bench: Justice M.B. Snehalatha
