Section 397 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) fixed a minimum sentence for the most dangerous robberies and dacoities. Since 1 July 2024 the same rule is Section 311 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 (BNS), with the same wording: if, at the time of committing robbery or dacoity, the offender uses any deadly weapon, causes grievous hurt to any person, or attempts to cause death or grievous hurt to any person, the imprisonment “shall not be less than seven years”. Section 311 does not create a separate maximum. The upper limit comes from the robbery or dacoity section itself: up to ten years’ rigorous imprisonment for robbery (fourteen on a highway between sunset and sunrise), up to imprisonment for life where hurt is caused in the robbery (Section 309(6)), and up to imprisonment for life for dacoity.
The First Schedule of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (BNSS) lists Section 311 as cognizable, non-bailable and triable by the Court of Session. It is not compoundable. The companion provision, Section 312 BNS (formerly Section 398 IPC), sets the same seven-year minimum where the offender is armed with a deadly weapon while attempting robbery or dacoity. Offences committed before 1 July 2024 are still charged under Section 397 IPC.
Section 397 IPC / Section 311 BNS at a glance
- 397 IPC in BNS: Section 311 BNS; the firm’s Gazette-checked comparison records “No change” in the wording.
- When it applies: during robbery (Section 309 BNS) or dacoity (Section 310 BNS), the offender uses a deadly weapon, causes grievous hurt, or attempts to cause death or grievous hurt.
- Punishment: imprisonment of not less than seven years (Section 311); the maximum is that of the robbery or dacoity section.
- Bailable or not: non-bailable and cognizable (BNSS First Schedule); bail is under Sections 480 and 483 BNSS (formerly Sections 437 and 439 CrPC).
- Which court: Court of Session (BNSS First Schedule).
- Compoundable: no; Section 311 is not in the table of Section 359 BNSS (formerly Section 320 CrPC).
- Co-accused: the minimum applies to the offender who used the deadly weapon, not automatically to the others (Supreme Court, Phool Kumar v. Delhi Administration, 1975).
- 398 IPC: now Section 312 BNS – attempt to commit robbery or dacoity when armed with a deadly weapon, also a seven-year minimum.
Reviewed and updated by Century Law Firm, Delhi – October 2026. Statutory references are to the Acts as in force on that date. The Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 and the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 are quoted from their India Code texts (as on 6 October 2025, still the current versions on 23 October 2026), Sections 311 and 312 in Hindi from the official Hindi text of the BNS on India Code, and the Supreme Court’s judgment in Phool Kumar v. Delhi Administration from the Court’s official copy.
Section 397 IPC is now Section 311 BNS: the text
The Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 replaced the Indian Penal Code on 1 July 2024; Section 358(1) BNS says, “The Indian Penal Code (45 of 1860) is hereby repealed.” Section 397 IPC became Section 311 BNS, in the same chapter on offences against property (Chapter XVII). The firm’s IPC to BNS comparison tool, checked against the Gazette text, records the change as “No change.”
Section 311 BNS, headed “Robbery, or dacoity, with attempt to cause death or grievous hurt”, reads:
“311. If, at the time of committing robbery or dacoity, the offender uses any deadly weapon, or causes grievous hurt to any person, or attempts to cause death or grievous hurt to any person, the imprisonment with which such offender shall be punished shall not be less than seven years.”
The section applies only when a robbery or dacoity is actually committed (“at the time of committing”); an armed attempt falls under Section 312. Any one of the three facts is enough, and the section fixes only the minimum term for “such offender”.
Section 311 is not a stand-alone offence with its own complete punishment. In the Supreme Court’s words, “The Sentence of imprisonment to be awarded under section 392 cannot be less than 7 years if at the time of committing robbery the offender uses any deadly weapon or causes grievous hurt to any person or attempts to cause death or grievous hurt to any person : vide section 397” (Phool Kumar v. Delhi Administration, 13 March 1975). Section 392 IPC is now Section 309(4) BNS. So Section 311 is applied together with the robbery or dacoity section: Section 309(4) read with Section 311 BNS (formerly “392/397 IPC”), or Section 310(2) read with Section 311 BNS (formerly “395/397 IPC”).
What robbery and dacoity mean
Section 311 builds on two offences defined just before it. Robbery is in Section 309 BNS (formerly Sections 390, 392, 393 and 394 IPC) and dacoity in Section 310 BNS (formerly Sections 391, 395, 396, 399, 400 and 402 IPC).
Robbery – Section 309 BNS (formerly Section 390 IPC)
“In all robbery there is either theft or extortion” (Section 309(1)). Theft becomes robbery under Section 309(2) if, in order to commit the theft, while committing it, or while carrying away or trying to carry away the stolen property, 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”. Extortion becomes robbery under Section 309(3) if the offender is in the presence of the person put in fear, puts that person in fear of instant death, instant hurt or instant wrongful restraint, and so makes the person hand over the thing “then and there”.
“A meets Z on the high road, shows a pistol, and demands Z’s purse. Z, in consequence, surrenders his purse” – that is robbery (illustration (b)). But a threat that “Your child is in the hands of my gang, and will be put to death unless you send us ten thousand rupees” is extortion, not robbery, “unless Z is put in fear of the instant death of his child” (illustration (d)). For ordinary theft without force, see the firm’s guide to Section 379 IPC (now Section 303 BNS).
Dacoity – Section 310 BNS (formerly Section 391 IPC)
Dacoity is robbery by five or more people acting together. Section 310(1) says: “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.” So the count includes those present and aiding, and each of them commits dacoity.
The firm’s video below explains the difference between theft, robbery, extortion and dacoity under the IPC (now Sections 303, 308, 309 and 310 BNS).
Punishments for robbery and dacoity
The table gives the punishment sections that Section 311 works with. The classification columns are from the BNSS First Schedule.
| BNS section (old IPC) | Offence | Punishment in the BNS | Classification and court |
|---|---|---|---|
| 309(4) (392) | Robbery | Rigorous imprisonment up to 10 years and fine; up to 14 years if on the highway between sunset and sunrise | Cognizable, non-bailable, Magistrate of the first class |
| 309(5) (393) | Attempt to commit robbery | Rigorous imprisonment up to 7 years and fine | Cognizable, non-bailable, Magistrate of the first class |
| 309(6) (394) | Voluntarily causing hurt in committing or attempting robbery | Imprisonment for life, or rigorous imprisonment up to 10 years, and fine – for the person causing hurt and “any other person jointly concerned” | Cognizable, non-bailable, Magistrate of the first class |
| 310(2) (395) | Dacoity | Imprisonment for life, or rigorous imprisonment up to 10 years, and fine | Cognizable, non-bailable, Court of Session |
| 310(3) (396) | Murder in dacoity | Death, imprisonment for life, or rigorous imprisonment of not less than 10 years, and fine – for every one of the dacoits | Cognizable, non-bailable, Court of Session |
| 311 (397) | Robbery or dacoity with a deadly weapon used, grievous hurt, or attempt to cause death or grievous hurt | Imprisonment of not less than 7 years | Cognizable, non-bailable, Court of Session |
| 312 (398) | Attempt to commit robbery or dacoity when armed with a deadly weapon | Imprisonment of not less than 7 years | Cognizable, non-bailable, Court of Session |
The ten-year minimum for murder in dacoity in Section 310(3) is new in the BNS. For murder generally, see the firm’s guide to Section 302 IPC (now Section 103 BNS).
The three situations that bring in Section 311
Prepared by Century Law Firm from Sections 309 to 312 and 116 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023, the First Schedule and Section 359 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (India Code, as on 6 October 2025) and Phool Kumar v. Delhi Administration (Supreme Court, 13 March 1975).
1. “Uses any deadly weapon”
The BNS does not define “deadly weapon”, and Section 311 does not say what “uses” means. The Supreme Court answered the second question in Phool Kumar v. Delhi Administration (13 March 1975), a night robbery at a petrol pump on the Mall in Delhi. The appellant, who had a knife in his hand, argued for a conviction for robbery alone, allowing a lower sentence. The Court rejected this:
“He was therefore carrying a deadly weapon open to the view of the victims sufficient to frighten or terrorize them. Any other overt act, such as, brandishing of the knife or causing of grievous hurt with it was not necessary to bring the offender within the ambit of section 397 of the Penal Code.”
The Court stated the rule this way: “When the offence of robbery is committed by an offender being armed with a deadly weapon which was within the vision of the victim so, as to be capable of creating a terror in his mind, the offender must be deemed to have used that deadly weapon in the commission of the robbery.” And, of course, “If the deadly weapon is actually used by the offender in the commission of the robbery such as in causing grievous hurt, death or the like then it is clearly used.” The Court said that the narrower meaning given to “uses” by the Punjab and Haryana High Court in State v. Chand Singh (1970) “is not correct”. It upheld the seven-year sentence.
2. “Causes grievous hurt to any person”
Grievous hurt has a closed list in Section 116 BNS (formerly Section 320 IPC): “The following kinds of hurt only are designated as “grievous””. The list is emasculation; permanent loss of sight of either eye; permanent loss of hearing of either ear; loss of any member or joint; destruction or permanent impairing of the powers of any member or joint; permanent disfiguration of the head or face; fracture or dislocation of a bone or tooth; and “Any hurt which endangers life or which causes the sufferer to be during the space of fifteen days in severe bodily pain, or unable to follow his ordinary pursuits”. The period in the last item was twenty days under the IPC; the BNS reduced it to fifteen.
Simple hurt (“bodily pain, disease or infirmity”, Section 114 BNS) during a robbery falls under Section 309(6) BNS (formerly Section 394 IPC), not Section 311. Grievous hurt to “any person” is enough, not only to the person robbed.
3. “Attempts to cause death or grievous hurt to any person”
The third limb covers an offender who, “at the time of committing robbery or dacoity”, tries to kill or to cause grievous hurt, even if the attempt fails.
Punishment under Section 397 IPC and Section 311 BNS
The punishment is a minimum: “the imprisonment with which such offender shall be punished shall not be less than seven years”. Section 311 has no proviso allowing a shorter term. The BNSS First Schedule describes the punishment as “Imprisonment for not less than 7 years.”
The maximum comes from the base offence:
- Robbery with Section 311 (for example, a deadly weapon used but no hurt caused): at least 7 years, and up to 10 years’ rigorous imprisonment and fine under Section 309(4), or up to 14 years if the robbery was on the highway between sunset and sunrise.
- Robbery in which hurt (including grievous hurt) is voluntarily caused – Section 309(6) with Section 311: at least 7 years, up to imprisonment for life, and fine.
- Dacoity with Section 311: at least 7 years, up to imprisonment for life, and fine under Section 310(2).
The fine comes from Sections 309 and 310 (“shall also be liable to fine”); Section 311 says nothing about fine. The old version of this page said that Section 397 itself allows imprisonment that “may extend to imprisonment for life, along with a fine”; that is not in the section and is not correct for an ordinary robbery.
Is only the person with the weapon liable? Co-accused
Section 311 speaks of “the offender” and “such offender”. In Phool Kumar the Supreme Court held: “The term ‘offender’ in that section, as rightly held by several High Courts, is confined to the offender who uses any deadly weapon. The use of a deadly weapon by one offender at the time of committing robbery cannot attract section 397 for the imposition of the minimum punishment on another offender who had not used any deadly weapon.” In that case the shots fired by another member of the group were not the basis of the appellant’s sentence; his own knife was.
The other robbers remain liable for the robbery or dacoity itself. Where the BNS wants group liability it says so: Section 309(6) covers “any other person jointly concerned” when one robber causes hurt, and Section 310(3) punishes “every one of those persons” when one dacoit commits murder. Section 311’s wording, by contrast, is about the individual offender, as Phool Kumar holds.
Section 398 IPC, now Section 312 BNS: attempt when armed
Section 312 BNS (formerly Section 398 IPC; “No change” in the wording) reads: “If, at the time of attempting to commit robbery or dacoity, the offender is armed with any deadly weapon, the imprisonment with which such offender shall be punished shall not be less than seven years.” It is also cognizable, non-bailable and triable by the Court of Session.
Section 311 says “uses” and Section 312 says “is armed”. In Phool Kumar the Court found it unreasonable that an armed offender who merely attempted robbery would face the seven-year minimum while one who succeeded would not, and held: “In our judgment the anomaly is resolved if the two terms are given the identical meaning”. An attempted robbery without a deadly weapon falls under Section 309(5) BNS (formerly Section 393 IPC): up to seven years’ rigorous imprisonment and fine, with no minimum.
Is 397 IPC bailable? Cognizable, compoundable and which court
The First Schedule to the BNSS gives the entry for Section 311 in six columns: “311 | Robbery or dacoity, with attempt to cause death or grievous hurt. | Imprisonment for not less than 7 years. | Cognizable. | Non-bailable. | Court of Session.” The entry for Section 312 is the same in the last three columns. In the Schedule, the word “cognizable” “stands for “a police officer may arrest without warrant””.
- Bailable or not: non-bailable. The accused “may be released on bail” at the discretion of the police officer or court under the BNSS (see the next section).
- Cognizable: yes. The police can register an FIR under Section 173 BNSS (formerly Section 154 CrPC) and arrest without a warrant; see the firm’s guide on how to file a police complaint and FIR.
- Compoundable: no. The tables in Section 359 BNSS do not list Sections 309, 310, 311 or 312, and Section 359(9) says: “No offence shall be compounded except as provided by this section.”
- Which court: the Court of Session. When the accused is brought before a Magistrate in a case “triable exclusively by the Court of Session”, the Magistrate must commit the case to that Court under Section 232 BNSS (formerly Section 209 CrPC); the committal proceedings “shall be completed within a period of ninety days from the date of taking cognizance”, extendable by the Magistrate up to one hundred and eighty days for recorded reasons.
- Where: robbery may be tried where the offence was committed or where the stolen property was possessed by the offender or a receiver (Section 201(3) BNSS); dacoity where the offence was committed or “the accused person is found” (Section 201(1)).
In Delhi, the firm’s court and district finder shows which district court covers each police station.
Prepared by Century Law Firm from Sections 22, 173, 187, 232, 359, 480, 482 and 483 and the First Schedule of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (India Code, as on 6 October 2025).
Bail in a Section 397 IPC / 311 BNS case
The firm’s general guide on how to get bail in India explains the kinds of bail; the points specific to Section 311 are these.
Section 480 BNSS (formerly Section 437 CrPC) governs bail by the police officer in charge or by a court other than the High Court or the Court of Session. Such a person “shall not be so released if there appear reasonable grounds for believing that he has been guilty of an offence punishable with death or imprisonment for life” (dacoity is punishable with imprisonment for life), but the court may still release a child, a woman, or a person who is sick or infirm. Where the offence is punishable with seven years or more, the court cannot grant bail under this sub-section “without giving an opportunity of hearing to the Public Prosecutor”. Robbery and dacoity are in Chapter XVII of the BNS, so when bail is granted under Section 480(1) the court “shall impose” conditions: the accused must attend as the bond requires, must not commit a similar offence, and must not threaten or induce witnesses or tamper with the evidence (Section 480(3)).
Section 483 BNSS (formerly Section 439 CrPC) gives the Court of Session and the High Court wider power to release “any person accused of an offence and in custody” on bail, with conditions. Because Section 311 is triable exclusively by the Court of Session, these courts must give notice of the bail application to the Public Prosecutor first, unless they record why that is not practicable (first proviso to Section 483(1)).
Anticipatory bail: a person who “has reason to believe that he may be arrested on an accusation of having committed a non-bailable offence” may apply to the High Court or the Court of Session under Section 482 BNSS (formerly Section 438 CrPC).
Default bail: under Section 187(3) BNSS (formerly Section 167 CrPC), a Magistrate cannot authorise custody beyond “ninety days, where the investigation relates to an offence punishable with death, imprisonment for life or imprisonment for a term of ten years or more”, or sixty days for any other offence; when the period ends without a charge-sheet, the accused “shall be released on bail if he is prepared to and does furnish bail”. Dacoity (Section 310(2)) and robbery in which hurt is caused (Section 309(6)) are punishable with imprisonment for life, so they fall within the ninety-day clause. For robbery under Section 309(4), with or without Section 311, the maximum is ten years (fourteen on a highway at night) with no ten-year minimum. Under the old wording of the CrPC (“not less than ten years”) the Supreme Court held that an offence punishable with imprisonment that “may extend to 10 years” attracts the sixty-day period (Rajeev Chaudhary v. State (N.C.T.) of Delhi, 4 May 2001). The BNSS now says “ten years or more”; no ruling on the new words was found, so the period for a robbery investigation should be checked case by case.
Offences committed before 1 July 2024
Under Section 358(2) BNS the repeal of the IPC does not affect punishment incurred for offences committed under it, and such a penalty “may be imposed as if that Code had not been repealed”. So an armed robbery committed before 1 July 2024 is still charged under Sections 392/397 IPC (or 395/397 for dacoity), and an investigation, trial or appeal pending on that date continues under the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (Section 531(2)(a) BNSS).
धारा 397 आईपीसी (अब धारा 311 बीएनएस) हिंदी में – Section 397 IPC in Hindi
भारतीय दंड संहिता (आईपीसी) की धारा 397 अब भारतीय न्याय संहिता, 2023 (बीएनएस) की धारा 311 है। यह 1 जुलाई 2024 से लागू है। India Code पर उपलब्ध भारतीय न्याय संहिता के आधिकारिक हिंदी पाठ (भारत का राजपत्र असाधारण) में धारा 311 का पार्श्व शीर्षक है “मृत्यु या घोर उपहति कारित करने के प्रयत्न के साथ लूट या डकैती” और इसका पाठ इस प्रकार है:
“311. यदि लूट या डकैती करते समय अपराधी किसी घातक आयुध का उपयोग करता है, या किसी व्यक्ति को घोर उपहति कारित करता है, या किसी व्यक्ति की मृत्यु कारित करने या उसे घोर उपहति कारित करने का प्रयत्न करता है, तो वह कारावास, जिससे ऐसा अपराधी दण्डित किया जाएगा, सात वर्ष से कम का नहीं होगा ।”
आधिकारिक हिंदी पाठ में धारा 312 (पहले आईपीसी की धारा 398) इस प्रकार है: “312. यदि लूट या डकैती करने का प्रयत्न करते समय, अपराधी किसी घातक आयुध से सज्जित है, तो वह कारावास, जिससे ऐसा अपराधी दण्डित किया जाएगा, सात वर्ष से कम का नहीं होगा ।”
नीचे का सारांश फर्म का अपना है; उद्धरण चिह्नों में दिए गए शब्द आधिकारिक हिंदी पाठ से हैं।
धारा 397 क्या है? यह धारा कोई अलग अपराध नहीं बनाती, बल्कि लूट या डकैती के गंभीर मामलों में न्यूनतम सज़ा तय करती है। यदि लूट या डकैती करते समय अपराधी (1) किसी घातक आयुध (हथियार) का उपयोग करता है, या (2) किसी व्यक्ति को घोर उपहति (गंभीर चोट) पहुंचाता है, या (3) किसी की मृत्यु या घोर उपहति कारित करने का प्रयत्न करता है, तो उसे कम से कम सात वर्ष का कारावास होगा। इनमें से कोई एक बात भी काफी है।
लूट और डकैती क्या है? धारा 309 बीएनएस (पहले आईपीसी की धारा 390) के अनुसार “सब प्रकार की लूट में या तो चोरी या उद्दापन होता है”। चोरी तब लूट बन जाती है जब अपराधी चोरी करने के लिए या चोरी का माल ले जाने में किसी व्यक्ति की मृत्यु, उपहति या सदोष अवरोध कारित करता है या उसका तत्काल भय पैदा करता है। धारा 310 बीएनएस (पहले आईपीसी की धारा 391) के अनुसार जब पांच या अधिक व्यक्ति मिलकर लूट करते हैं या उसका प्रयत्न करते हैं, तो उनमें से प्रत्येक “डकैती” करता है। इसलिए “लूट की धारा” अब बीएनएस की धारा 309 है, और हथियार के साथ लूट होने पर उसके साथ धारा 311 लगती है।
धारा 397 में कितनी सज़ा है? धारा 311 केवल न्यूनतम सज़ा बताती है – सात वर्ष से कम नहीं। अधिकतम सज़ा मूल अपराध से तय होती है। लूट के लिए धारा 309(4) में दस वर्ष तक का कठिन कारावास और जुर्माना है; यदि लूट राजमार्ग पर सूर्यास्त के बाद और सूर्योदय से पहले की जाए तो कारावास चौदह वर्ष तक हो सकता है। यदि लूट में स्वेच्छया उपहति (घोर उपहति सहित) कारित की जाए, तो धारा 309(6) में आजीवन कारावास तक की सज़ा है। डकैती के लिए धारा 310(2) में आजीवन कारावास या दस वर्ष तक का कठिन कारावास और जुर्माना है। पुराने लेख में लिखा था कि धारा 397 में ही आजीवन कारावास तक की सज़ा है; यह सही नहीं था।
घातक आयुध का “उपयोग” किसे कहते हैं? सुप्रीम कोर्ट ने फूल कुमार बनाम दिल्ली प्रशासन (13 मार्च 1975) में कहा कि यदि लूट के समय अपराधी के हाथ में घातक हथियार (जैसे चाकू) खुले में है और पीड़ित उसे देखकर डर सकता है, तो माना जाएगा कि उसने हथियार का उपयोग किया; हथियार लहराना या उससे चोट पहुंचाना ज़रूरी नहीं है। अदालत ने यह भी कहा कि न्यूनतम सात वर्ष की सज़ा केवल उसी अपराधी पर लागू होती है जिसने स्वयं हथियार का उपयोग किया; किसी साथी के हथियार के कारण दूसरे पर यह न्यूनतम सज़ा अपने आप नहीं लगती। हालांकि बाकी साथी लूट या डकैती के अपराध के लिए ज़िम्मेदार रहते हैं।
धारा 397 जमानती है या नहीं? भारतीय नागरिक सुरक्षा संहिता, 2023 (बीएनएसएस) की पहली अनुसूची के आधिकारिक हिंदी पाठ में धारा 311 और 312 के सामने लिखा है: “संज्ञेय”, “अजमानतीय” और “सेशन न्यायालय”। यानी पुलिस बिना वारंट गिरफ्तार कर सकती है, जमानत अधिकार के रूप में नहीं मिलती बल्कि अदालत के विवेक पर है, और मुकदमा सेशन न्यायालय में चलता है। जमानत के लिए बीएनएसएस की धारा 480 (पहले सीआरपीसी की धारा 437) और धारा 483 (पहले धारा 439) में आवेदन होता है, और गिरफ्तारी की आशंका होने पर धारा 482 (पहले धारा 438) में अग्रिम जमानत के लिए सेशन न्यायालय या उच्च न्यायालय में आवेदन किया जा सकता है। यह अपराध शमनीय (समझौता योग्य) नहीं है, क्योंकि बीएनएसएस की धारा 359 की सारणी में यह धारा नहीं है।
पुराने मामले: 1 जुलाई 2024 से पहले किए गए अपराधों में अब भी आईपीसी की धारा 392/397 या 395/397 लगती है, और उस तारीख को लंबित जांच या मुकदमे पुरानी दंड प्रक्रिया संहिता के अनुसार चलते हैं (धारा 358 बीएनएस और धारा 531 बीएनएसएस)।
Frequently asked questions
Section 397 of the Indian Penal Code fixed a minimum sentence of seven years’ imprisonment where, at the time of committing robbery or dacoity, the offender uses any deadly weapon, causes grievous hurt to any person, or attempts to cause death or grievous hurt to any person. It is now Section 311 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023, in the same words. It works together with the robbery and dacoity punishment sections (now Sections 309 and 310 BNS), which is why it is cited as “392/397” or “395/397”.
Section 397 IPC is Section 311 BNS (“Robbery, or dacoity, with attempt to cause death or grievous hurt”), in force from 1 July 2024. The firm’s Gazette-checked comparison records “No change” in the wording. Robbery itself is now Section 309 BNS (formerly Sections 390, 392, 393 and 394 IPC), dacoity Section 310 BNS (formerly Sections 391, 395, 396, 399, 400 and 402 IPC), and Section 398 IPC is now Section 312 BNS.
Imprisonment of not less than seven years for the offender who used the deadly weapon, caused grievous hurt or attempted to cause death or grievous hurt. The section has no proviso allowing a shorter term, so the court cannot go below seven years once Section 311 is proved. The maximum comes from the base offence: up to ten years’ rigorous imprisonment and fine for robbery (fourteen on a highway between sunset and sunrise) under Section 309(4) BNS, up to imprisonment for life and fine where hurt is voluntarily caused in the robbery (Section 309(6)), and up to imprisonment for life and fine for dacoity under Section 310(2) BNS.
Non-bailable. The First Schedule of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 lists Section 311 BNS as “Cognizable”, “Non-bailable” and triable by the “Court of Session”. Bail can still be granted at the court’s discretion under Section 480 BNSS (formerly Section 437 CrPC) or by the Court of Session or High Court under Section 483 BNSS (formerly Section 439 CrPC), and anticipatory bail can be sought under Section 482 BNSS (formerly Section 438 CrPC).
It is cognizable: under the BNSS First Schedule a police officer may arrest without a warrant, and information about the offence is recorded as an FIR under Section 173 BNSS (formerly Section 154 CrPC). It is not compoundable: the tables in Section 359 BNSS (formerly Section 320 CrPC) do not include Sections 309 to 312 BNS, and Section 359(9) says “No offence shall be compounded except as provided by this section.”
The Court of Session, according to the BNSS First Schedule entry for Section 311 BNS. The Magistrate before whom the accused is produced commits the case to the Court of Session under Section 232 BNSS (formerly Section 209 CrPC). A Sessions Judge or Additional Sessions Judge “may pass any sentence authorised by law” (Section 22(2) BNSS).
Robbery (Section 309 BNS, formerly Section 390 IPC) is theft or extortion accompanied by death, hurt or wrongful restraint, or the fear of instant death, hurt or wrongful restraint. Dacoity (Section 310 BNS, formerly Section 391 IPC) is robbery committed or attempted by five or more persons conjointly, counting those present and aiding. Robbery carries up to ten years’ rigorous imprisonment and fine; dacoity up to imprisonment for life and fine.
No. In Phool Kumar v. Delhi Administration (13 March 1975) the Supreme Court held that an offender carrying a deadly weapon “open to the view of the victims sufficient to frighten or terrorize them” uses it, and that “brandishing of the knife or causing of grievous hurt with it was not necessary”. The appellant had a knife in his hand during a petrol-pump robbery in Delhi, and his seven-year sentence was upheld.
Not automatically. In Phool Kumar the Supreme Court held that the term “offender” in Section 397 “is confined to the offender who uses any deadly weapon”, and that its use by one offender “cannot attract section 397 for the imposition of the minimum punishment on another offender who had not used any deadly weapon”. The others remain liable for the robbery or dacoity itself.
Section 398 IPC, now Section 312 BNS with no change, applies when, “at the time of attempting to commit robbery or dacoity, the offender is armed with any deadly weapon”: the imprisonment “shall not be less than seven years”. It is cognizable, non-bailable and triable by the Court of Session. The Supreme Court in Phool Kumar (1975) held that “uses” in Section 397 and “is armed” in Section 398 have the identical meaning.
Loot (लूट) is robbery. In the BNS it is Section 309 (formerly Sections 390 and 392 IPC); the official Hindi text of the BNS uses the word “लूट” for robbery. Robbery is punished under Section 309(4) with up to ten years’ rigorous imprisonment and fine. If the robber used a deadly weapon, caused grievous hurt or attempted to cause death or grievous hurt, Section 311 BNS (formerly Section 397 IPC) also applies, with a seven-year minimum. Loot by five or more persons is dacoity (डकैती), Section 310 BNS.
धारा 397 आईपीसी अब भारतीय न्याय संहिता की धारा 311 है: लूट या डकैती करते समय घातक आयुध का उपयोग करने, घोर उपहति कारित करने, या मृत्यु या घोर उपहति कारित करने का प्रयत्न करने पर कारावास “सात वर्ष से कम का नहीं होगा” (official Hindi text of Section 311 BNS). The full Hindi text and a Hindi summary are given above.
No. Section 397 CrPC was the revision power of the High Court and Sessions Judge, now Section 438 BNSS. Section 397 BNSS (“Treatment of victims”) requires hospitals to give free treatment to victims of the offences it lists. Section 397 IPC is the robbery and dacoity minimum, now Section 311 BNS. The Constitution has no Article 397; its last article is Article 395.
Yes, for offences committed before 1 July 2024: under Section 358(2) BNS the penalty for such offences “may be imposed as if that Code had not been repealed”, and investigations and trials pending on that date continue under the Code of Criminal Procedure (Section 531(2)(a) BNSS). Offences committed on or after 1 July 2024 are charged under Section 311 BNS.
Conclusion
Section 397 IPC, now Section 311 BNS, does not create a new crime; it sets a floor of seven years’ imprisonment for the robber or dacoit who uses a deadly weapon, causes grievous hurt, or attempts to cause death or grievous hurt, while the maximum stays that of robbery or dacoity. The Supreme Court has held that openly carrying a deadly weapon to frighten the victim is “use”, and that the minimum applies to the offender who used the weapon, not automatically to every co-accused. The offence is cognizable, non-bailable, not compoundable and triable by the Court of Session, and Section 312 BNS (formerly Section 398 IPC) applies the same minimum to an armed attempt.
Sources used for this post: the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 (Act No. 45 of 2023), Sections 114, 116, 303, 308, 309, 310, 311, 312 and 358, from its India Code text (a2023-45.pdf, as on 6 October 2025, re-checked on 23 October 2026), and its official Hindi text on India Code (Hh202345.pdf, Gazette of India Extraordinary, Sections 309 to 312 read from the printed pages); the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (Act No. 46 of 2023), Sections 22, 173, 187, 201, 232, 359, 397, 438, 480, 482, 483 and 531 and the First Schedule, from its India Code text (A2023-46.pdf, as on 6 October 2025, re-checked on 23 October 2026), and the official Hindi text of its First Schedule (202346.pdf, entries for Sections 311 and 312); the Constitution of India (India Code); the firm’s section-by-section IPC–BNS and CrPC–BNSS comparison checked against the Gazette text; Phool Kumar v. Delhi Administration, Supreme Court of India, Criminal Appeal No. 62 of 1971, judgment dated 13 March 1975 (1975 SCR (3) 917), official copy at https://api.sci.gov.in/jonew/judis/6020.pdf; and Rajeev Chaudhary v. State (N.C.T.) of Delhi, Supreme Court of India, Criminal Appeal No. 606 of 2001, judgment dated 4 May 2001 ([2001] 3 SCR 508), copy on the High Court of Rajasthan’s official website at https://hcraj.nic.in/sci/2001/4-606-2001_2001-05-04.pdf.
