Section 312 lays down a minimum sentence where an offender is armed with a deadly weapon at the time of attempting to commit robbery or dacoity. The imprisonment imposed on such an offender shall not be less than seven years. It is the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita's counterpart of IPC Section 398, and the two texts read the same.
Verified against the National Crime Records Bureau's official BNS–IPC concordance (Sankalan Portal) and cross-checked directly against the bare text of both Acts. Section 312 is marked Exact correspondence — its wording and punishment structure are identical, word for word, to its old IPC predecessor:
| BNS 312 | Covers | IPC, 1860 equivalent | Category |
|---|---|---|---|
| 312 | Attempt to commit robbery or dacoity when armed with deadly weapon | S.398 “Attempt to commit robbery or dacoity when armed with deadly weapon” | Exact |
Comparing the two statutory texts word by word, BNS Section 312 and IPC Section 398 have the same heading and the same operative words: 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. No ingredient was added or removed, and the seven-year minimum is unchanged.
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.
Source: Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 (Act No. 45 of 2023), as published in the Gazette of India Extraordinary.
Section 312 deals with an offender who is armed with a deadly weapon at the time of attempting to commit robbery or dacoity. Like Section 311, it does not build a new offence from the ground up; it works on top of robbery (Section 309) and dacoity (Section 310) and fixes a minimum for the imprisonment when the aggravating feature is present. The two ingredients are: (1) the offender is, at that moment, attempting to commit robbery or dacoity; and (2) the offender is armed with any deadly weapon. When both are present, the imprisonment “shall not be less than seven years”.
The difference from Section 311 is worth fixing in mind. Section 311 applies when the offender is “committing” robbery or dacoity and then uses a deadly weapon, causes grievous hurt, or attempts to cause death or grievous hurt. Section 312 applies at the stage of attempt, and the aggravating fact is simply that the offender is armed; the section does not require that the weapon be used, or that anyone be hurt. Robbery is defined in Section 309 as theft or extortion accompanied by the violence or fear described there, and dacoity in Section 310(1) as robbery committed or attempted by five or more persons conjointly. The expression “deadly weapon” appears in the Sanhita but is not defined in it, so what counts as one is decided on the facts.
Section 312 sets a floor and states no ceiling. The BNSS First Schedule records the punishment as imprisonment for not less than 7 years, and classifies the offence as cognizable, non-bailable and triable by the Court of Session. It is in neither compounding table of BNSS Section 359, so it cannot be compounded. A person who attempts robbery or dacoity without being armed with a deadly weapon does not fall under this section; the punishment for an attempt at robbery is dealt with in Section 309(5), and the general provision on attempts is Section 62.
No. The section applies where the offender “is armed with any deadly weapon” at the time of attempting robbery or dacoity. It speaks of being armed, not of using the weapon.
Section 311 applies at the time of committing robbery or dacoity and requires use of a deadly weapon, causing of grievous hurt, or an attempt to cause death or grievous hurt. Section 312 applies at the time of attempting robbery or dacoity and requires only that the offender is armed with a deadly weapon.
It is a minimum. The section says the imprisonment shall not be less than seven years, and it states no upper limit.
Under the First Schedule to the BNSS it is cognizable and non-bailable, and it is triable by the Court of Session. It is not compoundable under BNSS Section 359.
No. Comparing the two texts, the heading, ingredients and the seven-year minimum are the same.