DIFFERENCE BETWEEN ROBBERY AND DACOITY
|The definition of robbery is defined under section 390 of Indian penal code.||The definition of Dacoity is defined under section 391 of Indian penal code.|
|Robbery is less serious in nature.||It is more serious offence than robbery because of the terror caused by the presence number of offenders.|
|The abettors are accountable in robbery on their own.||Abettors who are present and helping when the crime is committed are classified as part of the Dacoity total.|
|The punishment is less severe than Dacoity.||The punishment is more severe.|
|If the robbery is committed on the highway between sunrise and sunset then the jail time may be upto 14 years.||If you commit dacoity then you may be punished with jail time which may be for life and a fine.|
|The number of persons is less than five. It may be committed by a single person.||The numbers of persons are five or more.|
|Every Robbery is not Dacoity.||Every Dacoity is Robbery.|
|Punishment is given under section 392 of Indian Penal Code.||Punishment is given under section 395 of Indian Penal Code.|
|The offence of robbery is triable by Magistrate of first class.||The offence of robbery is triable by Corts of Session.|
CASE LAWS OF ROBBERY
- In State of Maharashtra vs. Joseph Mingel , it was decided that in order to show Robbery by Theft, all five required factors spelled out under Section 378, which is considered to constitute theft, had to be proven. Robbery under Section 390 cannot be claimed to have occurred if any of the five components of Section 378 are not met.
- In Abdul Rashid vs. Nausar Ali , an armed individual had invaded the plaintiff's field and was chopping the plaintiff's crops. However, because the element of menace was absent, it was determined that this did not constitute robbery, but rather stealing.
CASE LAWS OF DACOITY
- The State v Sadhu Singh and ors , four and one kurda Singh were involved in the dacoity in this instance. They were all armed to the teeth with rifles and handguns. They broke into Gharsiram's residence and robbed him. Gharsiram, Jugalkishore, Sandal, and Jugalkisore were all hurt. In one example, the dacoits attempted to steal a wristwatch and a scarf from one individual, but because they were peasants, they were unable to take anything with them. When the dacoits began fleeing the people, they were pursued by the locals, who responded by setting fire to them. As a consequence, dharma, one of the villagers, died, while one of the dacoits was taken by the locals. The dacoits were charged in this case.
- In one instance, Shyam Behari v. State of Uttar Pradesh , a dacoit killed one of the victims who had caught the robber's companion in the act of dacoit. Because any homicide perpetrated by the dacoits during their struggle would be classified as murder, the robber was found guilty under Section 396 of the Indian Penal Code.
The robbery is part of Dacoity. Both are tied to one another. Robbery will bring instant fear and some threat, whereas Dacoity plans on murdering and taking ornaments. Dacoity is a heinous crime, and rape may also occur. Dacoity will be planned by a group of five or more people, although a single individual will suffice. India's penal system is far from flawless. It must be replaced as soon as feasible. In the beginning, there were fewer crimes, and the punishment was harsh.
With all of this in mind, one critical fault in the penal system is that the state of mind of the offenders is never taken into account. There is no court-mandated therapy to understand why they felt compelled to commit the crime and are just imprisoned. Despite their long confinement, we can never be sure of their mental condition or if imprisonment, harsh or otherwise, was sufficient to dissuade them from repeating the same conduct. An ideal punishment would be mandated therapy accompanied by a slightly lighter sentence where they can reflect upon their actions.