Indian Penal Code, 1860 · Chapter XVII: Of Offences against Property · Of robbery and dacoity
Section 394: Voluntarily causing hurt in committing 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The Indian Penal Code, 1860 was repealed and replaced by the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 from 1 July 2024.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.
If any person, in committing or in attempting to commit robbery, voluntarily causes hurt, such person, and any other person jointly concerned in committing or attempting to commit such robbery, shall be punished with [imprisonment for life], or with rigorous imprisonment for a term which may extend to ten years, and shall also be liable to fine.
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 394
-
Raj Kumar @ Bheema v. State of NCT of Delhi
Appellant-accused was convicted for the offence punishable u/s.302 IPC. The High Court further affirmed the order on sentence dated 20.02.2021, whereby the accused-appellant was sentenced to undergo imprisonment for…
-
Jamnalal v. State of Rajasthan and Another
In the instant appeal, the father of the prosecutrix challenges the order of the High Court. By the said order, the sentence imposed on respondent no.2 herein was suspended till the final disposal of the appeal. Whether…
-
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…
-
Rahul Kumar Yadav v. The State of Bihar
The issue for consideration was challenge to the conviction of the Petitioner under Section 302 and 394 IPC on the ground that the courts below erred in not considering the Petitioner’s plea of juvenility on the date of…
-
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…
-
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.
- Mukesh Singh v. The State (Nct of Delhi)
- Dakkata Balaram Reddy & Anr. v. State of Andhra
- Venkatesh @ Chandra & Anr. Etc v. State of Karnataka
- Ganesan v. State Rep. by Station House Officer
- Hari Om @ Hero v. State of U.P.
- Mohd. Anwar v. The State (N.C.T. of Delhi)
- Raja v. State by the Inspector of Police
- The State of Madhya Pradesh v. Dhruv Gurjar and Another
- Ashish Jain v. Makrand Singh and Ors.
- Issac @ Kishor v. Ronald Cheriyan and Ors.
- Shantanu Sitaram @ Anil Divekar v. The State of Maharashtra
- Khokan Giri @ Madhab v. State of West Bengal
- Parag Bhati (Juvenile) Thr. Legal Guardian- Mother-Smt. Rajni Bhat! v. State of Uttar Pradesh and Anr.
- M. Mahendar Kumar v. M. Mani & Ors.