Indian Penal Code, 1860 · Chapter XVII: Of Offences against Property · Of robbery and dacoity
Section 392: Punishment for robbery
The Indian Penal Code, 1860 was repealed and replaced by the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 from 1 July 2024. It still applies to offences and proceedings from before that date.
Whoever commits robbery shall be punished with rigorous imprisonment for a term which may extend to ten years, and shall also be liable to fine; and, if the robbery be committed on the highway between sunset and sunrise, the imprisonment may be extended to fourteen years.
Corresponding sections were matched by comparing the wording of both official texts, and for the IPC and BNS, also against a published correspondence table. Wording, punishments and structure often changed, so read both sections before relying on the match.
Source: India Code (Legislative Department), the text of the Act as it stood before its repeal. Words in square brackets [ ] were inserted or substituted by later amending Acts, and *** marks words omitted by an amendment. The amendment footnotes are not reproduced here.
Supreme Court judgments citing the section 392
-
Kattavellai @ Devakar v. State of Tamilnadu
Issue arose as to the correctness of the order passed by the High Court upholding the order of the conviction and death sentence of the appellant for offence punishable u/ss.302, 376 and 397 IPC.
-
Maharana Pratap Singh v. The State of Bihar & Ors.
Whether due process was followed in dismissing the appellant from service and whether his dismissal from service is justified, on facts and in the circumstances; whether, in light of the facts, evidence, witnesses, and…
-
Sachin v. State of Maharashtra
Issue arose whether, the High Court could enhance the sentence under its revisional powers in a convict’s appeal against conviction.
-
Wahid v. State Govt. of NCT of Delhi
The appellants herein have preferred appeal against their conviction. Appellant-W was convicted by the Trial Court for offence punishable u/s.392 r/w. s.397 IPC and appellant-A was convicted u/s.392 r/w. s.397 IPC and…
-
Chandrabhan Sudam Sanap v. The State of Maharashtra
Matter pertains to the correctness of the order passed by the High Court upholding the conviction of the appellant for rape and murder of the deceased and imposition of death sentence.
-
Daljit Singh v. State of Haryana & Anr.
Issue arose as regards the order passed by the High Court refusing to quash the complaint, summoning order and order declaring the appellant a proclaimed offender passed by the Magistrate; whether the proclaimed…
-
Ram Prakash Chadha v. The State of Uttar Pradesh
In the chargesheet, appellant was accused for commission of offences u/ss. 302, 343, 217, 218, 330, 120B and 34, IPC. An application for discharge u/s. 227 of Cr.PC was rejected by the Trial Court. Whether the findings…
-
Gaurav Maini v. The State of Haryana
Courts below, if justified in convicting and sentencing the appellants for the offences punishable u/ss. 364A, 392 and 120B IPC.
-
Nenavath Bujji Etc. v. The State of Telangana and Ors.
High Court, if erred in affirming the order of preventive detention passed by the Detaining Authority against the detenu and his associates for committing offence of gold chain snatching creating lot of fear and panic…
-
Thakore Umedsing Nathusing v. State of Gujarat
Scope of interference by High Court in an appeal challenging acquittal of the accused by the trial Court; standard of proof required to bring home charges in a case based purely on circumstantial evidence.
-
Joseph v. The State of Kerala
Whether the writ petition filed by the petitioner seeking appropriate direction to the Sta te Government, to prematurely release him, having been in custody-actual imprisonment for over 26 years, and served a sentence…
-
Ameena Begum v. The State of Telangana
An order of detention dated 24.03.2023 was passed by the Commissioner of Police against appellant’ s husband. Whether the alleged acts of commission for which the Detenu has been kept under detention are prejudicial to…
-
State of Haryana v. Dharamraj
In instant appeal, the State seeks cancellation of anticipatory bail granted to the sole respondent by the Single Judge of the High Court.
- B. A. Umesh v. Union of India & Ors.
- Chaitu Gowala and Another v. The State of Assam
- The State of Rajasthan & Ors. v. Phool Singh
- Amrik Singh v. The State of Punjab
- Surendran v. State of Kerela
- Ram Ratan v. State of Madhya Pradesh
- Parveen @ Sonu v. The State of Haryana
- Bijender @ Mandar v. State of Haryana
- Ganesan v. State Rep. by Station House Officer
- Srei Equipment Finance Ltd. v. Ramjan Ali & Ors.
- Mohd. Anwar v. The State (N.C.T. of Delhi)
- Shashi Bhusan Prasad v. Inspector General Central Industrial Security Force & Ors.
- Rashmi Chopra v. The State of Uttar Pradesh & Anr.
- Pavan Vasudeo Sharma v. State of Maharashtra Through Secretary
- Rafiq Ahmedbhai Paliwala v. The State of Gujarat & Ors.
- The State of Madhya Pradesh & Ors. v. Bunty
- Joseph Shine v. Union of India
- State of Karnataka v. A. B. Mahesha Etc.
- State of Himachal Pradesh v. Nirmala Devi
- Raj Kumar@ Raju v. State (Nct of Delhi)
- Raja and Others v. State of Karnataka
- B.A. Umesh v. Registrar General, High Court of Karnataka
- Ajay Kumar Singh v. The Flag Officer Commanding-In-Chief & Ors.
- Neeru Yadav v. State of U.P. and Anr.