Dacoity: Irrelevant Colonial Crime or a Persisting Problem?

The term dacoity is not unfamiliar to us. Popular culture has portrayed dacoits as dangerous and ruthless criminals, involved in violently looting and killing people, especially the ones that they rob from. This paper tries to take a more objective and nuanced look at the crime of dacoity, starting from its historical prevalence to how the modern legal system defines it and the safeguards and punishments that are present against it.

Dacoity is defined under section 391 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 as:

Dacoity.—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”.

The provision for dacoity in the Penal Code, 1860 falls under the chapter dealing with offences against property and is listed along with other offences such as theft, robbery and extortion. So, is dacoity related to the crimes of robbery and extortion and if yes, then how.

Let us first take a look at the definition of robbery and extortion as provided under the Indian Penal Code, 1860.

S.378. Theft.—Whoever, intending to take dishonestly any movable property out of the possession of any person without that person’s consent, moves that property in order to such taking, is said to commit theft.

S.383. Extortion.—Whoever intentionally puts any person in fear of any injury to that person, or to any other, and thereby dishonestly induces the person so put in fear to deliver to any person any property, or valuable security or anything signed or sealed which may be converted into a valuable security, commits “extortion”.

S.390. Robbery.—In all robbery there is either theft or extortion.

When theft is robbery.—Theft is “robbery” if, in order to the committing of the theft, or in committing the theft, or in carrying away or attempting to carry away property obtained by the theft, the offender, for that end voluntarily causes or attempts to cause to any person death or

hurt or wrongful restraint, or fear of instant death or of instant hurt, or of instant wrongful restraint.

When extortion is robbery.—Extortion is “robbery” if the offender, at the time of committing the extortion, is in the presence of the person put in fear, and commits the extortion by putting that person in fear of instant death, of instant hurt, or of instant wrongful restraint to that person or to some other person, and, by so putting in fear, induces the person so put in fear then and there to deliver up the thing extorted.

From the above provisions, we can gather that the crime of theft has two prerequisites:

1. mens rea, e. a dishonest intention to take the property out of possession of the owner.

2. actus reus, e. moving the property in order to facilitate such taking.

For the crime of extortion however, the accused uses threats of harm either to the owner or to others to induce him to deliver the property or the thing that is required by the accused. Proximity is not a requirement for the offence of extortion. The difference between extortion and theft therefore is that, though both requires a dishonest intention to acquire something that does not legally belong to them, in theft, the actus reus is the act of moving the property out of possession, while in extortion, the actus reus is the threats that is issued by the accused, thus facilitating the delivery of the property to him.

Robbery has traits common to both theft and extortion. Where theft does not include the voluntary causing of harm or death to the owner, in case of robbery, the taking away of a property is accompanied with causing or an attempt to cause harm or death to the owner. Extortion snowballs into robbery when the accused is in the vicinity of the victim while inducing fear of harm or death or confinement in him and thereby facilitating the delivery of the thing that he requires.

Dacoity shares common traits with all three offences mentioned above i.e. theft, extortion and robbery.

Dacoity is an economic crime; the main motive behind committing dacoity is economic gain. At the very core of dacoity is theft; dishonest intention in taking away property from the possession of its owner. However, it is a much more violent form of theft, where the action of theft is accompanied by either causing harm or death to the owners or the issuing of threats to induce them to hand over the valuables themselves. Thus, dacoity can be a more violent form

of either extortion or robbery, depending on the circumstances, provided it is performed by five or more people conjointly.

Now, the question that arises is that, if dacoity is nothing but just a more serious category of either extortion or robbery, why is it considered a separate crime with wide range of punishments listed under the Penal Code of 1860?

One obvious reason is the violent nature of the crime of dacoity. It is a group effort and is usually accompanied by violence such as murder or grievous hurt. But, other than that, dacoity does have differences in the motive behind the commission of the act. The historical reasons for the prevalence of the crime are different than that of mere theft or even robbery or extortion.

Dacoity Under Colonial Rule

Dacoities were essentially a rural phenomenon. The recorded observations of an overwhelming number of British officials posted in rural India state that a majority of the dacoits belonged to the lower social classes¹ and hence lacked social capital. This naturally meant a lower economic class as caste constrained employment was more prevalent back then and so most people had to be constrained to the occupation that their forefathers had been following, which for the lower classes meant insufficient income.

The prevalent conditions of abject poverty in rural areas of Eastern India, mostly Bengal also accounts for the rise of dacoity in these hinterlands². Deindustrialisation of the major cities under the colonial rule, left many of the urban workers unemployed as they returned to the villages.³ The scene there was no better either. The introduction of the Zamindari system had led to land being traded of as a commodity on non-payment of tax. Sky high tax rates and poor harvest from the commercial system of agriculture, left the peasantry of these areas with nothing to survive by. Naturally, they took up arms and started looting wealthy neighbours and zamindars⁴.

Adding to that, the various forest regulations introduced by the British had put restrictions on the access to forest produce. This had affected a large number of forest communities and hill tribes who depended on the forest for their livelihood. The natural consequence was that they took up arms to   fight the administration and rob    their representatives, the landed and affluential classes and castes of India.

Colonial Laws to Tackle Dacoity

In order to safeguard people against dacoity, a powerful police administration had been put in place by the police, by appointing a number of lower-rung police officers under the control of each zamindar, who was then responsible for tackling the issues in his area⁵.

The Criminal Tribes Act, 1871 had been enacted to segregate whole communities who were recognized by the British to have criminal tendencies in them. Numerous castes, obviously the lower castes, were included in the classification as criminal tribes. Wide restrictions were put on their movement and they were thoroughly policed.

However, these measures had not been entirely successful and so dacoity remained a major law and order problem for the British administration, especially in Bengal and surrounding areas. The major reason for the failure of these regulations were that the colonizers depended heavily on lower-rung police officers, a majority of them rural Indians, to stop this menace⁶. The dacoits and their methods enjoyed considerable sympathy from many of these officers. Adding to that, many dacoits had taken up more of a Robinhood style of social justice⁷. They often distributed a sizeable potion of their loot with poor villagers and, their killing of the zamindars and the upper caste individuals was viewed as justice against their inhumane oppression by many.⁸

Even those who did not entirely agree with their methods, showed restraint in making arrests because of the support that the dacoits enjoyed among the inhabitants of the villages. Also, others entered into transactions with them; to let them carry on their business in return for a share in their income.

Dacoity in Modern India

 Dacoity has always been a predominantly rural crime⁹ with its origin in the injustices of the colonial period and social atrocities. Dacoity as was understood historically, might not exist today but it exists in the form of an aggravated version of robbery, committed by people in 

⁵ Kaur, M. (1983). A Note On The Practice Of Dacoity In 19^th Century Bengal: A Contemporary Account. Indian History Congress. groups with the use of force and violence. This is dacoity as explained under the Indian Penal Code. This definition of dacoity can also fit into gang crimes of the modern times, which are uniformly spread throughout the urban and rural areas.

Gangs are association of individuals committed to a variety of criminal activities and identified by their symbols, slogans, specific gang names and so on¹⁰. Gang crimes might range from petty neighbourhood theft to the more serious category of organized crimes. The crime of organized extortion specifically shares many characteristics with the original conception of dacoity. The organized crime gangs consist of a group of people, working together with a common intention, under the leadership of a gang leader¹¹. This is similar to how dacoity was carried out by a group of individuals, leaded by a sirdar¹², to whom the whole gains of the loot had to be submitted and he decided how the gains of the loot would be distributed among the members of the band.

The methods adopted by gang members in attaining their objectives are equally violent and the killings committed in furtherance of their actions is no way less than what was the case under dacoity of the older times.

So, even though the area of organized crime has become more sophisticated and has moved “underground”, i.e. neither is it explicitly visible to the common man nor does it generally affect their daily lives, does not necessarily mean than the crime of dacoity as was understood originally, is a crime of the past and does not pose any substantial threats today.

The changes in the nature of modern day dacoity has been taken cognizance of by our courts and they have interpreted the essentials of the crime in a broad manner to ensure that a wide variety of similar crimes can be accommodated under the ambit of the sections dealing with dacoity in the IPC, 1860.

Judgments

Rafiq Ahmed v State of UP13– This case deals with S.396 i.e. punishment for committing dacoity coupled with murder. In the given case, there was no sufficient evidence to hold the lot of people liable for attempt to commit dacoity. The only conclusive evidence was against the accused, who was part of the gang of people and who had murdered the victim in the course committing the dacoity. The Supreme Court held that the offense of murder under S.300 is similar to committing murder during dacoity and so, S.302, which states punishment for murder under 302 and S.396 are cognate. So, in absence of proof that dacoity was being committed, one could still be held liable under S.302 for murder.

Madan Kandi v State of Orissa14– this judgment clarified the position regarding threat in the crime of dacoity. It held that an overt act is not necessary to convey threat /force, according to

S.399. The theft must be committed using either actual or threatened violence. The same position was reiterated in Musafir Rajbanshi v State of Bihar15. The behaviour and nature of the mob needs to imply threat. Actual committing of violence is not a necessity for the offence of dacoity.

Ashfaq v State16– Supreme court noted that in S.398 IPC, the words “the offender is armed with any deadly weapon” also include brandishing and displaying a lethal weapon in such a way as to inspire dread and threat in the victim’s mind so that he does not resist out of fear of harm. The implication of harm is sufficient for the purposes of Section 397 IPC.

Raj Kumar v State17 – The Delhi High court held that, the distinction between robbery and dacoity is the number of people involved. The use of violence in the theft offence’s commission is a shared factor between the two. The same actions would be considered dacoity if there were five or more people present, and robbery if there were fewer.

Laws Dealing With Dacoity

 Indian Penal Code, 1860- Other than S.140, some other sections of the Code also relate to dacoity:

S.141. Unlawful assembly.—An assembly of five or more persons is designated an “unlawful assembly”, if the common object of the persons composing that assembly is—

First.—To overawe by criminal force, or show of criminal force or any public servant in the exercise of the lawful power of such public servant; or

Second.—To resist the execution of any law, or of any legal process; or

Third.—To commit any mischief or criminal trespass, or other offence; or

Fourth.—By means of criminal force, or show of criminal force, to any person, to take or obtain possession of any property, or to deprive any person of the enjoyment of a right of way, or of the use of water or other incorporeal right of which he is in possession or enjoyment, or to enforce any right or supposed right; or

Fifth.—By means of criminal force, or show of criminal force, to compel any person to do what he is not legally bound to do, or to omit to do what he is legally entitled to do.

It can be seen that the definition of unlawful assembly has characteristics similar to the offense of dacoity. Ans so, following that, the sections( S. 142, 143, 144, 149 and 150) dealing with punishments relating to unlawful assembly can be equally applied to the offence of dacoity.

National Security Act, 2008

NSA provides for preventive detention in certain cases, s.a. prevention from acts which are prejudicial to the security of the state or from actions prejudicial to the maintenance of public order or essential services. As dacoity creates law and order violation, NSA is used for detaining members of a band of dacoits and thus for preservation of security of the state and restoration of lawfulness in the society.

Unlawful Activities Prevention Act, 1967

UAPA allows for designation of an association or group as “unlawful”, if they are engaged in any activities that the central government pertains to be unlawful. It also allows for the government to classify any organization as a terrorist organization, if they commit or participate in acts of terrorism, or are involved in the preparation of any such act. As actions related to gang crimes/ dacoity fall within the ambit of actions producing fear and terror, such organizations are also termed as terrorist organizations and are then treated in accordance with the provisions.

Conclusion

For long, “dacoity” had remained shrouded in mystery and mystic, associated with bands of people with blackened faces¹⁸ raiding and pillaging villages. But, as the cloud of mystery lifted

it became clearer than the crime of dacoity is essentially a heightened crime of robbery or extortion, committed in a group.

Catalysed by the logical and objective definition provided in the Penal Code, 1860, it is now accepted that the crime of dacoity is no longer a rural crime, but has expanded to become an urban as well as a transnational gang crime, supported by an organized underworld criminal society, engaging sophisticated techniques to extort and rob.

Accordingly, the courts have resorted to a broader reading of the provisions to include as many similar crimes within its ambit, to ensure that such crimes are not allowed to pass through, just based on mere technicalities. The additional statues enacted to maintain law and order against terrorist and unlawful elements, provide the law enforcement agencies to tackle with the problem efficiently.