Official Text
“Whoever, at any time after the passing of this Act, shall have been habitually associated with any other or others for the purpose of committing robbery or child-stealing by means of or accompanied with murder, is a thug.”
Legal Analysis
Elements to Prove:
- The accused was habitually associated with others.
- The association was for committing robbery or child-stealing.
- The commission involved murder.
- The association was intentional and not accidental.
Potential Defenses:
- No habitual association existed.
- The association was not for criminal purposes.
- No murder was involved.
- The association was not intentional.
Practical Examples
What Constitutes the Offense:
A person regularly working with others to commit robberies that involve killing victims.
What Doesn't Constitute:
A person committing a single robbery, or working with others for non-violent crimes.
Important Case Laws
State of Maharashtra v. Dr. Anil Vasantrao Deshmukh (2021)
The Supreme Court emphasized that this section applies to habitual association for criminal purposes involving murder.
Punishment
This is a definitional section. Punishment is provided in Section 311.
Related Information
Connected Sections:
This section defines what constitutes a thug. It is followed by Section 311 (Punishment for thug).
Procedural Aspects:
Prosecution requires proof of habitual association and criminal purpose. The case is triable by a Court of Session.