Law and You > Criminal Laws > Indian Penal Code > Rioting (Ss. 146 – 148 IPC)
S. 146: Rioting:
Whenever force or violence is used by an unlawful assembly, or by any member thereof, in prosecution of the common object of such assembly, every member of such assembly is guilty of the offence of rioting.
Essential ingredients of the offence of rioting.
- The accused persons must be five or more in number and form an unlawful assembly;
- The accused must be animated by a common object; and
- The force or violence must be used by the unlawful assembly or any member thereof in the prosecution of the common object.
The word ‘force’ is defined in Section 349 and criminal force in Section 150 of the Code and it is restricted to force used against persons only. The word ‘violence’ has not been defined in the Code.
In Lakshmi ammal v. Samiappa, AIR 1968 Mad 310, case, the Court held that violence is not restricted to force used against persons only but extends also to force against inanimate objects. Thus the term ‘violence’ has a wider meaning than ‘force’, because it includes force used against property and other inanimate objects. Even the slightest use of force by any member of an unlawful assembly, if proved to be unlawful, constitutes rioting.
A riot is unlawful assembly in a particular state of activity, which activity is accompanied by the use of force of violence. It is only the use of force that distinguishes rioting from unlawful assembly.
In Kalidas, 48 CrLJ 351 (Cal) case, the Court held that the offence of rioting was complete at the moment the accused person used force against the person or inanimate objects. Force of violence against an inanimate object too comes within the purview of Section 146 of IPC.
If prosecution fails to prove involvement of five or more persons in a case registered under Section 147, then the Code cannot sustain in trial.
In Achhey Lal v. State of Uttar Pradesh, AIR 1978 SC 1233, case according to prosecution 15 persons were accused of taking part in the assault on deceased. Out of these 15 persons, 14 were acquitted by the High Court, but the appeal of one accused was dismissed. There was no finding by High Court that after the acquittal of the accused the unlawful assembly consisted five or more, known or unknown, identified or unidentified. In these circumstances, the Supreme Court held that the provisions of Section 149 and 147 of the IPC cannot be invoked.
Explanation of “in prosecution of common object”:
The mere use of force by a number of men assembled does not render all of them liable for rioting. The essence of the offence lies in the use of force to achieve common purpose.
In Maiku v. State of Uttar Pradesh, AIR 1989 SC 67 case, a Sub Inspector of Police and few constables apprehended a person while the Sub Inspector was investigating a case and arrested person voluntarily lead them to the place for recovering the dead body, the apprehended person tried to escape from the Police. He was ultimately overpowered and beaten resulting in his death. The Court held that police was there for investigation. Hence their common object was lawful. If the common Object of an assembly is not illegal, it is not rioting even if force is used by any member of that assembly.
Requirement of Offence “five members or more”:
To constitute the offence of rioting there should be at least five persons and force should be used in the prosecution of the common object. If the number is less than five there could be no unlawful assembly and consequently no rioting.
Is “sudden quarrel” riot?
In Khajah Noorul Hoosein v. C Fabre-Tonnere (1875) 24 WR (Cr) 26 case, the Court held that if a number of persons assembled for any lawful purpose suddenly quarrels without any previous intention or design they would not be liable for rioting.
In Ananta Kathod Pawar v. State of Maharashtra, (1997) 11SCC 564 case, the Court held that if a number of persons assembled for any lawful purpose suddenly quarrels without any previous intention or design they would not be liable for rioting. In such a case, the accused persons would be liable for their individual acts and would not be liable vicariously.
Spectators and Wayfarers etc. of Rioting:
Spectators, wayfarers etc., attracted to the scene of rioting by curiosity, when a riot or offence is going on, should not, by reason of their mere presence at the scene of rioting be held to be members of unlawful assembly or rioters. However, if they are proved to have marched with the rioters for a long distance when the rioters were shouting tell-tale slogans and pelting stones, it will be for them to prove their innocence under Section 106 of the Evidence Act.
Fundamental Principles of mammoth rioting (mob rioting)
- When the large number of the rioters are produced in court and the consequent difficulty for the prosecution to name the specific acts attributable to each of the accused, the court must see to it that all the ingredients required for unlawful assembly and use of force or violence in rioting are strictly proved by the prosecution before convicting that particular accused persons.
- Spectators, wayfarers etc., should not be considered as members of the unlawful assembly or riots as they have no common object and they have not taken active participation in such offence. However, if they are proved to have marched with the rioters for a long distance, when the rioters were shouting tell-tale slogans and pelting stones, it will be for them to prove their innocence under Section 106 of the Evidence Act.
- It is not safe to rely on a single witness to prove the mob rioting. If the person is identified by one witness, and not proved to have done any overt act, etc… should be acquitted by giving him benefit of doubt.
- Where there are acute factions, the greatest care must be exercised before believing the evidence of a particular witness belonging to one of these factions against an accused of the rival faction.
- Mere followers in rioting deserve a much more lenient sentence than leaders, who mislead them into such violent acts by emotional appeals, slogans and cries.
In State of UP v. Dan Singh 1997 Cr.LJ 1150 (SC) case, the Court held that it has been observed that there may be some inconsequential contradictions or exaggeration in the testimony of the eye-witnesses that should not be a ground to reject their evidence in its entirety in the case of rioting, where there are a large number of assailants and a number of witnesses, it is but natural that the testimony of the witnesses may not be identical. What has to be seen is whether the basic features of the occurrence have been similarly viewed and/or described by the witnesses in a manner which tallies with the outcome of the riot viz., the injuries sustained by the victims and the number of people who are attacked and killed.
S. 147: Punishment for rioting:
Whoever is guilty of rioting, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to two years, or with fine, or with both.
Classification of Offence:
The offence is cognizable, bailable, non-compoundable and triable by any Magistrate.
Punishment:
Imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to two years, or with fine, or with both.
S. 148: Rioting, armed with deadly weapon:
Whoever is guilty of rioting, being armed with a deadly weapon or with anything which, used as a weapon of offence, is likely to cause death, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to three years, or with fine, or with both.
Essential Ingredient:
- It is an offence of rioting.
- The accused joins the rioting
- He is armed with a deadly weapon or with anything which, used as a weapon of offence, is likely to cause death
Classification of Offence:
The offence is cognizable, bailable, non-compoundable and triable by First Class Magistrate.
Punishment:
Imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to two years, or with fine, or with both.