IPC 394 → BNS 309(6): Robbery with Hurt

IPC 394 (now BNS 309(6)): Voluntarily Causing Hurt in Committing Robbery

IPC 394 punished anyone who, while committing or attempting robbery, voluntarily caused hurt — and it extended that liability to every accomplice jointly concerned in the robbery, not just the person who struck the blow. From 1 July 2024 the offence continues as Section 309(6) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS) 2023, sitting within the consolidated robbery framework of Section 309.

Punishment under BNS 309(6)

Same — imprisonment for life, or rigorous imprisonment up to 10 years, with fine. Section 309(6) provides that where hurt is voluntarily caused in committing or attempting robbery, the offender and any other person jointly concerned face life imprisonment, or rigorous imprisonment which may extend to ten years, and fine. The same penalty reaches every participant, whether or not they personally inflicted the hurt.

What changed from IPC to BNS?

No major change. The substance of old IPC 394 is carried over almost verbatim. The chief difference is organisational: robbery — its definition, basic punishment and aggravated forms — is now gathered under a single umbrella, Section 309, rather than scattered across separate IPC provisions. Sub-section (6) is the limb that deals specifically with hurt caused during a robbery.

Worked example

A and C rob a shopkeeper; while snatching the cash A punches the shopkeeper and breaks his nose. Both A (who struck) and C (jointly concerned in the robbery) are liable under Section 309(6), even though C never touched the victim — each is exposed to up to ten years or life, with fine. This joint-liability rule is what makes the provision far heavier than simple robbery.

Practical notes

• For advocates: Two ingredients must be proved together — that a robbery or attempt occurred, and that hurt was voluntarily caused in its course. Establishing that co-accused were "jointly concerned" extends liability to all of them; conversely, breaking that link is the strongest defence for a non-striking accused.
• For the accused / citizens: This is a grave, non-bailable offence. Whether the underlying act was truly robbery (theft or extortion accompanied by force or fear of instant hurt) and whether the accused shared in that act are the pivotal questions.

Related reading: robbery (IPC 392 to BNS 309) and robbery defined (IPC 390 to BNS 309).