DR. B.R.

AMBEDKAR NATIONAL LAW UNIVERSITY

SONIPAT, HARYANA

CRIMINAL LAW ASSIGNMENT

TOPIC- UNLAWFUL ASSEMBLY, RIOTING AND AFFRAY

Submitted to: Submitted by:

Dr. Sonia Sameer Kumar
Assitant Professor Section-B
DBRANLU, Sonipat Roll. No 2001093
 ACKNOWLEDGEMENT

In preparation for my assignment, I had to take the help and guidance of some respected
persons, who deserve my deepest gratitude. As the completion of this assignment gave
me much pleasure, I would like to show my gratitude to Dr. Sonia, assistant professor,
Dr. BR Ambedkar National Law University for giving me a good guideline for
assignment throughout numerous consultations. I would also like to expand my gratitude
to all those who have directly and indirectly guided me in writing this assignment.
Introduction
Peace and tranquillity are the prerequisites for development in society. If there is disorderliness
in society or any other hindrance of like nature, the society cannot provide to the individual,
the opportunity to grow and develop to their full potential, hence the maintenance of peace and
tranquillity is a must for every society and nation as a whole.
Offences against the public tranquillity are the offences against not only a single person or
property but against the society at large. These kinds of offences are committed by the group
of people sharing a common intention to disturb the peace and tranquillity of an area thus
affecting the whole society. It is important to study these offences so that they could be curbed.

Maintenance of Public Peace

Peace and morality are the basis on which the base of a society is held, hence their protection
is of prime importance, otherwise, the very foundation of the society would be endangered,
which will, in turn, hinder the progress of the individuals.
It is the duty of the state to maintain public peace and order. It is even present in Section 23 of
the Police Act, 1861 to maintain order in the public roads and public places. In fact, it is an
offence to cause inconvenience, obstruction, annoyance, risk danger or damage to the public
order or peace and further Section 34 of the Police Act, 1861 makes the police responsible for
maintaining public tranquillity and punish anyone committing an offence. Hence public order
means that the actions of the individual should not impinge the public peace or cause any kind
of inconvenience to any other person.

Public Offences
Under IPC chapter eight deals with public offences. These offences could be categorized into
four:
• Unlawful assembly;
• Rioting;
• Enmity amongst different classes;
• Affray.
Furthermore, Chapter X of the Criminal Procedure Code 1973 gives legal guidelines for the
maintenance of public peace and order and also delineates duties, responsibilities, functions,
and power of the Executive and the Police in this matter.

Unlawful Assembly
Section 141 of the IPC, 1860 deals with the unlawful assembly. Article 19(1)(B) of the Indian
Constitution,1950 confers a fundamental right to assemble peacefully however this section
seeks to criminalize an unlawful assembly.
Definition
Assembly of 5 or more people to commit an unlawful offence is called an unlawful assembly.
An important aspect of an unlawful assembly is the presence of a common intention to disturb
public peace and tranquillity. The mere presence of a person in an assembly without any motive
to infringe the peace in the surrounding is not punishable. The common objective is to
determine the aim and nature of the assembly. It is also possible that lawful assembly turns out
to be an unlawful assembly.

Object
• To use criminal force against any public servant, state or central government.
• To resist any legal proceeding.
• To commit any mischief or trespass on any property or person.
• To use criminal force against any person to deprive him of the enjoyment of any right.
• To use criminal force against a person and compelling him to do something which he
is legally not bound to do.

Ingredients
For unlawful assembly, several ingredients need to be present for making anyone liable for the
punishment defined for unlawful assembly under the provisions of IPC.

Five or More Persons

Unlawful assembly should consist of persons more than 5. If the number of people in a group
is less than 5 then it will render this section inapplicable. It is also possible that the number of
persons in an unlawful assembly may drop down to 5 after the commission of the crime, in this
scenario too this Section would not apply, but Section 149, of the given Act (Subran
Subramaniyam vs the State of Kerala) which levies vicarious liability on the person, would be
applicable.
If in an unlawful assembly 3 persons are acquitted and the rest could not be identified or are
unmanned but the court is certain about the presence of other people in the group making the
number to 5 or more than that, then, in that case, the section of the unlawful assembly would
be applied.
In the case of Ram Bilas Singh vs the State of Bihar, the Supreme Court has delineated certain
situations where even the number of persons in an unlawful assembly becomes less than 5, then
also conviction could take place.
• Evidence must be given that other than the person convicted, there are other people who
are involved at a given point of time.
• Evidence to show the presence of other unidentified persons that are part of the
unlawful assembly.
• The first information report must reflect such to be the case even if there is no such
charge formed at that given point of time.
They must have a Common Object
The term “object” refers to design or purpose, and for it to be “common” the person must share
and abide by it. The members of an unlawful assembly must have a common object to commit
a particular offence. Unlike common intention here prior meeting of minds is not important,
the common object could be constructed on the spot. Common object leaves scope for the
likelihood of events. Here the persons could also have an assumption that certain events “might
happen” or are “likely to happen”.
The presence of common objects could be shown by way of facts and circumstances because
the direct evidence of it is not possible.
Section 149 of the IPC, 1860 deals with the common object. The word ‘knew’ is used in the
second part of this Section, which means more than a “possibility” but less than “might have
known”. Hence any offence so committed by any member of the unlawful assembly is assumed
that all the member must have known at least the possibility of that act. This section further
implies that any offence committed in the prosecution of the common object is immediately
connected to a common object held by all the members of the unlawful assembly.

Object Must be one of Those Specified in Section 141

The common object possessed by the members of the unlawful assembly could be varied and
could be adjudged by appraising the facts and circumstances, however, the common object
needs to be the one already ascertained under section 141 of IPC, 1860.
In the case of Moti Das vs the State of Bihar, it is possible that the assembly started as being
lawful but later turned out to be unlawful. The following are the objects present under Section
141 of the IPC, 1860:
The object must be one of the following referred to in the section:
i. Overawing the Central or a state government or its officers;
ii. Resistance to the execution of legal process;
iii. Commission of mischief, criminal trespass;
iv. Forcible possession and dispossession of property;
v. Illegal compulsion.

Member of an Unlawful Assembly

Section 142 of IPC reads – “Whoever, being aware of facts which render any assembly an
unlawful assembly, intentionally joins that assembly, or continues in it, is said to be a member
of an unlawful assembly.” The essential ingredient of section 142 is that as soon as the person
is aware of the fact that the assembly is unlawful, it is to be proved that he remained as the part
of such assembly despite to knowing the fact that it is unlawful. The word ‘continues’ under
section 142 signifies physical presence as a member of an unlawful assembly, that is, to be
physically present in the crowd. This section cannot be attributed to a person who knows that
the assembly is unlawful and is present as a just bystander. In the case of Apren Joseph, it was
held that the test is whether the person knows the common object of the assembly and continues
to keep its company due to his own free will.
Section 143 of the IPC embodies the punishment for being a member of an unlawful assembly.
A person who is a part of an unlawful assembly shall be punishable with an imprisonment
which may extend to 6 months, or with fine, or with both.
Section 144 of IPC can be said to be an extended version section 143. Section 144 aims to
punish the persons armed with a weapon of offence in an unlawful assembly. It prescribes the
punishment with imprisonment for a term which may extend to 2 years, or with fine, or with
both. The intention of this section is to reduce the risk of hampering the public tranquillity.
Section 145 of IPC prescribes punishment for knowingly joining an unlawful assembly which
has been commanded to disperse. This section is in par with section 151 and 148 of IPC.
Section 151 talks about the cases of special nature where disobedience will lead to a breach of
public peace, further, section 188 deals with cases where there is a violation of any legal order
commanded by any public servant. Section 129 of Code of Criminal Procedure provides for
special powers to a police officer to command dispersal of an unlawful assembly.
Section 150 makes liable to persons who were hired for joining the unlawful assembly. It
provides that if a person is hired for being a member of an unlawful assembly he shall be liable
in the same manner as if he was the member of such assembly and he himself had committed
the offence. Section 157 of the IPC is a wider section which provides punishment for
harbouring the hired persons. All such person who harbours knowingly that the persons are
hired to be the part of an unlawful assembly shall be liable with imprisonment which may
extend to 6 months, or with fine, or with both.

Dispersal of Unlawful Assembly by use of Civil Force:

The fundamental right under article 19(1)(b) of the Constitution is subject to reasonable
restriction as imposed under article 19(3). Section 129 of Cr.P.C. aims to protect public peace.
Section 129(1) confers power to Executive Magistrate or any police officer not below the rank
of sub-inspector to command for the dispersal of any unlawful committee or any assembly of
5 or more persons which is likely to cause a disturbance of the public peace. It shall be the duty
of the members of the assembly to disperse accordingly, as soon as it is commanded to disperse.
The subsection (1) only provides power to command not the power to use force.
Further, under section 129(2) power has been conferred on Executive Magistrate or any police
officer not below the rank of sub-inspector to disperse, the assembly commanded to disperse,
by force if such assembly does not disperse after being so commanded, or if the assembly by
its conduct shows determination not to disperse if not being so commanded. The subsection
provides power to use force and may also take the assistance of male persons to disperse the
assembly. However, for the purpose of dispersal, no member or officer of armed forces shall
be allowed to assist under this section. The power to use force also includes the power to arrest
and confine a person, if necessary, for the dispersal of the assembly.
The power given under this section is subject to following conditions:
• The assembly must be of 5 or more persons
• such assembly is likely to cause a breach of public peace
• such assembly need to be dispersed
• not to use force until and unless assembly does not disperse, despite being ordered to
disperse

Dispersal of Unlawful Assembly by Armed Forces

Section 129 of Cr.P.C. grants no power to armed forces to disperse the unlawful assembly. This
power has been given by section 130. Under section 130(1) the Executive Magistrate of the
highest rank may command to disperse the assembly by armed forces. This power by the
Magistrate can be exercised only if:
• the assembly cannot be dispersed otherwise, and
• if it is utmost necessary in the public security that such assembly is required to disperse.
Section 130(2) provides that the Magistrate may require any officer of the armed forces to
disperse the assembly with the help of armed forces. All such officers are also conferred with
power to arrest and confine the members of the assembly in order to disperse it or punish them
according to law. Section 130(3) puts check on the power of officers of armed forces. Every
officer is required to use little force and do as little harm to the person and property which is
necessary for dispersal of assembly. In the case of State of Karnataka v. B. Padmanabha Beliya,
when the district armed reserve police fired without lawful orders from the authorities on the
members of an unlawful assembly and caused the death of one of the person, it was held that
the State Government is vicariously liable and had to pay compensation to the dependants of
the deceased.
Section 131 hand over special powers to commissioned or gazetted officer of the armed forces
to disperse the assembly. All such officers are authorized to command the dispersal of an
assembly only when the public security is considerably endangered by such assembly and no
communication with the Executive magistrate is practicable. According to section 132(3)
‘armed forces’ means the military, naval and air forces and also includes any other armed forces
of Union.
The section also states the situation where while executing his power it becomes practicable
for the officer to communicate with the Magistrate, then, he shall be bound to communicate
and shall act as per the instructions of the Magistrate to continue or discontinue the action.

Case Laws –
State of U.P vs Sughar Singh:
Five accessed were lying in a bush on either side of a lane, with armed guns. When the deceased
came near, the accused 4 and 5 exhorted him, and accused 2, 3 and 4 shot the deceased with
their guns respectively. Accused 1, 2 and 3 threatened the witnesses. The trial court held that
all of these were sufficient to come to the conclusion that these five accused had constituted an
unlawful assembly and has members had common object to kill the deceased. They had a
prearranged plan. The trial court convicted the accused. On appeal, the high court quashed the
conviction. The Supreme Court upheld the conviction against the accused.

Moti Das vs State of Bihar

It was held that an assembly was lawful but later became unlawful when one of the members
called on the others to assault the victim and all the members started chasing the victim and
hence constituted unlawful assembly.

Allauddin Mian Sharif Mian v. State of Bihar

There is a relation between a common object and offence created, when the offence is
committed with common object then every person is liable for that.

Rioting
Section 146 and 147 under IPC deal with rioting. It usually takes place as a way to dissent
something or for a perceived threat or grievance.

Definition
When an offence is committed by a group of people or any person belonging to that group, is
termed as rioting. For rioting the presence of at least 5 people is necessary. This offence is
generally grounded in civil unrest and is usually sudden and provocative behaviour. It shows a
herd-like mentality and this is the reason that in case if a person belonging to the guilty group
has not committed a violent act, even then he/she will be liable for rioting.
One of the most important ingredients is to constitute rioting is a common intention and object
of committing a crime. This very “common intention” makes all the people in the group liable
to be punished even when they haven’t even committed the crime themselves in rioting.
Historically rioting used to take place due to grievances against the government policies,
outcome of a sporting event, frustration against any legal judgement, taxation, oppression,
conflicts amongst races or was a way to channelise the suppression faced by the people to the
government.
Punishment for rioting is present under section 148 of the IPC and is a description of a term of
3 years or fine or both. This offence is cognizable and could be tried by the first class
magistrate.
Punishment for Committing Riot with Deadly Weapon
This is covered under Section 148 of the IPC. This section demands the same ingredients as
that of rioting but with the addition of a deadly weapon.
The weapon could be anything that is so dangerous that it can cause the death of a person. The
punishment for this is imprisonment for up to 3 years, which shall depend on the impact of
rioting or fine or both.

Punishment for Provoking Riot

This offence is present under Section 153 of IPC, 1860. Here, if the person with a malign
intention to provoke someone knowing completely that, this provocation could lead to rioting,
then that person would be booked under Section 153 of the IPC. The person provoking riot has
a malign intention and acts wantonly. Under this Section, there is no need for rioting to actually
take place, but only the mere provocation is enough to be liable for punishment under this
Section.
However the punishment would differ based on the consequences of this provocation, if rioting
took place then the punishment would be for a maximum of 1 year or fine or both and if rioting
does not take place then the maximum imprisonment could be up to 6 months or fine or both.

Liability of a Person for Whose Benefit Riot is Committed

This offence is covered under Section 155 of the IPC, 1860. In this if a riot took on behalf of
any person, or if that person takes some benefit from the riot so committed, that person is liable
to be booked under section 155 of the IPC. Moreover, if the person himself or his agent or
manager knew that riots of this nature is about or likely to take place and he or his agent or
manager has not taken any lawful steps to suppress or undermine the effect of the riot then also
the person is to be punished.
The main objective of this Section is to bring persons with mala fide intention under the law
and to prosecute them accordingly.

Liability of a Person for Obstructing Suppression of Riot

Section 152 of the IPC,1860 deals with this offence. Here if a person assaults or attempts to
assault any public servant dedicated to suppressing any unlawful activity like a riot, affray or
unlawful assembly, etc, then that person shall be prosecuted under this Section.
This Section seeks to bring under the books any person who interferes or disturbs the
mechanism built for maintaining peace and tranquillity in the society.
The punishment under this Section is up to 3 years or fine or both.
Belonging to an Assembly of Five or More Persons When Order to Disperse
Rioting is same as an unlawful assembly with a minor difference which constitutes the use of
force, hence like in the case of unlawful assembly, in this too the presence of 5 or more people
is necessary. The presence of more people distinguishes it from affray in which no such
mandate of the presence of more than 2 people.

Affray
Section 159 and 160 of the IPC,1860 deals with affray and its punishment.

Definition
Affray refers to fighting in the public so that it disturbs the public order and peace. For affray
to take place the presence of two or more persons is a must and their action should negatively
affect the tranquillity of their surroundings. However, most importantly the effect of their
behaviour should create disorder in society and for the people.
For example, if one person comes and slaps another person, that would not be counted as an
affray, but if that act threatens the public peace then this act would amount to affray.
Based on the impact of their behaviour the guilty could also be convicted under unlawful
assembly or rioting. The punishment usually depends upon the impact that their behaviour
creates in the society or the level of threat they pose.
It is important to note that it is not necessary that any offence committed in public is affray,
only the offence that has the potential to cause a disturbance in the public tranquillity could be
termed as affray (Sunil Kumar Mohamed Alias Mahakhuda Vs.the State of Orissa)

Punishment for affray could be one month of imprisonment or fine of Rs 100 or both.

Case laws for Affray

There was a rebuttal in Jagannath Shah v. State of Bihar between two brothers arguing and
assaulting each other on a public road in a town. A large crowd had gathered around them.
Even though the traffic was disrupted and a rush was generated, there was no physical
altercation between them. The Court ruled and remarked that the conduct did not include a
fight and was just verbal; therefore, lacking the essential elements of affray, no affray offence
was committed. Three guys were fighting in the case of State v. Meer Singh, which resulted in
the locality's tranquilly being disturbed. Both accused parties admitted that they were fighting
in a Gali and that in such a fight, it is evident that they would disrupt the public quiet and that
they would have to suffer as a result of their actions. Thus they sought a conviction for affray
Comparison between Affray, Assault, and Riot
RIOT AFFRAY ASSAULT

It is a violent activity that took

It is a violent outburst of It is a sudden attack that took
place in public to disturb public
unlawful assembly. place in a private setting.
peace.

Can be committed in private Can be committed in public arena Can be committed in a public or
and public settings. only. private setting.

One or more person needs to be

Five or more people must be Two or more people are to be
present for the liability of
involved. involved.
assault.

Presence of common object is

a must and that should be Presence of common object is not Presence of common object is
among the ones present in necessary. not necessary.
section 141 of the IPC.

It is an offence against the It is an offense against a private

It is a public offence.
public with violent force individual.

Every member of the unlawful

assembly is liable for the The person who has actually The person who assaulted is
offence committed even if he committed the offence is liable. liable for punishment.
has not done the act.

Punishment under ordinary

Ordinary punishment would Ordinary punishment includes a
circumstances would include
include imprisonment of two term of either description of 3
sentences up to 6 months or a fine
years or fine or both (Section months or a fine of Rs 500 or
of Rs 100 or both (Section
147 of the IPC) both (Section 352 of the IPC).
160 of IPC).
Affray – It is a group crime and poses a threat to the disturbance of public peace and
tranquillity. Here minimum two-person must be present and their actions must instil terror in
the mind of the public.
For example, In a fair, A comes and slaps B, and the people standing nearby are threatened by
such action.

Riot- It also disturbs the tranquillity and peace prevalent in the society, but unlike affray, it
shows a herd mentality where the offence is committed by a group or a person thereof
For example, A along with his group consisting of 8 people, went and slapped B in a Fair.

Assault- Unlike the other two, this offence is against an individual and does not threaten the
public peace and tranquillity. This offence is against one person and property
For example, A went to B’s house and during an argument slapped B.

Conclusion
Public order is not just any other issue in the governance of the country, it is the core of it,
comprising one of the vital aspects on which the democracy lies and the important realm of the
foundation of our nation as a whole.
Chapter eighth of the Indian Penal Code deals with the offences against public tranquillity.
These are offences which are committed against the whole society and disturbs the peace and
tranquillity of the society. Any offence committed against an individual, but still could derange
the public peace would come under the ambit of a public offence. Moreover, it is not necessary
that actual offence is committed, but even if there is a possibility of causing public disorder,
then it is a punishable offence.
These offences are categorised into four, i.e. Unlawful assembly, rioting and affray. All of them
are to a certain extent similar to each other with minor differences.
However, some reforms are needed to make these provisions in accordance with the changing
times.
REFERENCES

➢ https://thefactfactor.com/facts/law/criminal_law/indian_penal_code/rioting-section-
146-148/1259/
➢ http://www.shareyouressays.com/knowledge/differences-between-riot-affray-and-
assault-explained/118919
➢ https://www.academia.edu/7304444/Offences_A._Public_tranquility
➢ https://acadpubl.eu/hub/2018-120-5/2/101.pdf
➢ https://adrindia.org/sites/default/files/Details%20of%20IPC%20Sections%20153A,%
20295%20&%20295A.pdf
➢ http://lawcommissionofindia.nic.in/reports/Report267.pdf
➢ https://www.legalbites.in/offences-against-public-tranquillity/
➢ https://www.srdlawnotes.com/2017/03/difference-between-common-intention-
and.html
➢ http://delhihighcourt.nic.in/writereaddata/upload/CourtRules/CourtRuleFile_T4NVG6
MR.PDF
➢ The Indian Penal Code, 1860, Ratanlal and Dhirajlal 33rd edition by Jst K.T. Thomas,
M.A. Rashid
➢ 5th report of 2nd administrative reforms commission