Law and You > Criminal Laws > Indian Penal Code > Unlawful Assembly (S. 141 IPC)
For a country to grow, develop and reach new heights of good governance, it is of utmost importance that its government should be able to give its citizens a peaceful and egalitarian environment. The maintenance of Public Order and to ensure tranquility in the public discourse is the primary objective of any government. In order to maintain the public order and tranquility among the people of the society, the lawmakers of our country have taken commendable steps. The legal provisions pertaining to public order and tranquility have been primarily enshrined in IPC from Section 141 to Section160. In this article, we shall understand the concept of unlawful assembly.
Article 19(1)(b) of the Indian Constitution confers onto the citizens the right to assemble. However, there is always a possibility that an assembly might turn unruly, causing damage not only to property but also to life. Such an unruly assembly is termed as “unlawful assembly.”
Unlawful Assembly S. 141 IPC:
An assembly of five or more persons is designated an “unlawful assembly” if the common object of the persons composing that assembly is—
(1) To overawe by criminal force, or show of criminal force, the Central or any State Government or Parliament or the Legislature of any State, or any public servant in the exercise of the lawful power of such public servant; or
(2) To resist the execution of any law, or of any legal process; or
(3) To commit any mischief or criminal trespass, or other offence; or
(4) By means of criminal force, or show of criminal force, to any person, to take or obtain possession of any property, or to deprive any person of the enjoyment of a right of way, or of the use of water or other incorporeal right of which he is in possession or enjoyment, or to enforce any right or supposed right; or
(5)By means of criminal force, or show of criminal force, to compel any person to do what he is not legally bound to do, or to omit to do what he is legally entitled to do.
Explanation:
An assembly which was not unlawful when it assembled, may subsequently become an unlawful assembly.
Essential Ingredients of Unlawful Assembly:
An assembly of five or more persons:
There must necessarily be more than four persons sharing the common object. When there is no evidence to prove that the fifth individual shared the same object; it cannot be considered an unlawful assembly with the remaining four persons.
In Mohan Singh’s case, AIR 1963 SC 174, the Court held that it is only where five or more persons constituted an assembly that an unlawful assembly is born, provided, of course, the other requirements of Section 141 as to the common object of the person composing that assembly are satisfied.
In Amar Singh v. State of Punjab, AIR 1987 SC 826 case, initially seven persons were charged for offences under Sections 148 and 302/149, two of them were acquitted by the Sessions Court and one by High Court, and no other person apart from these seven was stated to have been involved in the crime. The Court held that the conviction of the remaining four cannot be sustained under Section 148 or Section 149 as to apply these Sections minimum 5 persons are required. Thus the acquittal of three accused persons, the remaining four accused cannot be convicted.
In Yunis alias Kariya, etc. v. State of Madhya Pradesh, AIR 2003 SC 539 case, eight accused were charged for offences under Sections 302, 147, 148 and 149 of the Indian Penal Code. Out of the 8 accused, 2 had been released on temporary bail on different occasions during trial. They did not surrender and could not be arrested. Therefore, their trial had to be separated. The remaining 6 accused were tried and convicted for offences under Sections 302/149 of IPC. The Court decided that the presence of accused as part of the unlawful assembly is sufficient for conviction. Fact that accused was a member of unlawful assembly and his presence at the place of occurrence not been disputed is sufficient to hold him guilty even if no overt act is imputed to him.
Existence of a common object among all the members which they should be aware of:
The second necessary ingredient is that the object of the assembly must be common to the persons composing the assembly. The object should be common to the persons who composed the assembly; that is to say, they should all be aware of it and concur in it.
Mere presence of a person along with members of an unlawful assembly is not sufficient to support a finding that he had the common object of the unlawful assembly. There must be other evidence direct or circumstantial to justify a finding that he had the common object. There must also be some present and immediate purpose of carrying into effect the common object. The same object is not necessarily a common object, but it becomes so only when it is known to and shared by all having it. Explanation attached to Section 141 says that an assembly which was not unlawful when it assembled, may subsequently become an unlawful assembly. It is not possible to prove what was in the mind of the persons assembled. That can only be inferred from the conduct of the assembly. The common object of the unlawful assembly can be collected from the nature of the assembly, arms used by them and the behaviour of the assembly at or before the scene of occurrence.
In Bhanwar Singh v. the State of M.P. (2008) 16 SCC 657 the court held that the common object of an unlawful assembly depends firstly on whether such object can be classified as one of those described under section 141; secondly, such common object need not be the product of prior concert but may form on spur of the moment, finally, nature of such common object is a question of fact to be determined by considering the nature of arms, nature of assembly, behaviour of members etc. The common object essentially to be examined keeping in view the acts of the members and the surrounding circumstances of a particular case. Further, there is always a possibility that an assembly may be turned to an unlawful one.
The common object required by Section 141 is different from the common intention required by Section 34 in this respect that a previous concert is not necessary in Section 141.
In Lallan Rai and Ors v. the State of Bihar, 1962 Supp. (3) SCR 848, case, the Court held that the requirement of the law is that the person who has the common object must be present at the place of occurrence.
In Rajnath v. State of Uttar Pradesh, AIR 2009 SC 1422, case the Court held that a common object may be formed at any stage by all or few members of the assembly and other members may just join and adopt it. Once formed, it need not continue to be the same, it may be modified, altered or abandoned at any stage.
The common object must be one of the five clauses mentioned in the section;
Clause (1): To overawe by criminal force:
A person is said to overawe another when he restrains him by awe, fear of superior influence. The essential ingredients of an offence under clause (1) consists in (a) overawing, (b) by show of criminal force, (c) the Government, or parliament or Legislative of a State or (d) a public servant in the lawful discharge of his public duty.
Where a person is terrified into doing what he had otherwise no mind to do and refraining from doing what he had otherwise a mind to do, he is said to be overawed and where that fear is brought by show of force, he is said to be overawed by show of criminal force. Note that overawing merely by superior influence is not criminal, nor is overawing by fear illegal unless it is attended by show of criminal force.
Clause (2): To resist the execution of any law, or of any legal process:
‘Legal process’ means a process or procedure in accordance with the law. Any resistance to the carrying out of the provisions of any law or to the execution of the legal process is deemed to be illegal. If the object with which the persons assembled is a perfectly legal one, then it is not unlawful assembly.
Clause (3): To commit any mischief or criminal trespass, or other offences:
The terms “mischief” and “criminal trespass” are defined by Sections 425 and 441, respectively. “Offence” here means a thing punishable under the Code, or under any special or local law if punishable under such law with imprisonment for a term of six months or upward whether with or without fine (Section 40).
If a group of seven boys illegally seizes a herd of goats and leads it to a nearby lake, they cannot be said to be a part of an unlawful assembly their act does not qualify as mischief or as any of other offense stipulated in the clause
Clause (4): By means of criminal force, or show of criminal force:
No one is to vindicate his or her right to possess any property by recourse to criminal force. This right is subjected to limitations mentioned in Sections 97 to 106 Of the Indian Penal Code. The right is available against offenses only, not against any lawful act.
In Amin Chand v. Crown, 48 CrLJ 522 case, the Muslims of one village slaughtered a cow and carried its beef to other village, by the cart passing through Hindu’s field. The owner of the field and others armed with guns obstructed the cart and a fight ensued. The Court held that the object of Hindu’s was, by use of criminal force or by show of criminal force to compel the Muslims to omit what they are legally entitled to do. Thus the Court held that the assembly of Hindus is an unlawful assembly.
This clause does not take away the right of private defence of properety. It does not affect clause 2 of Section 105, which allows a person to recover the property carried away by theft. It is meant to prevent the resort to force in vindication of supposed rights. It makes distinction between admitted claim or ascertained rights and disputed claims.
Clause (5): To compel any person by means of criminal force or show of criminal force:
The essential ingredient of clause (5) is compelling another person. This clause is very comprehensive and is applicable to all the rights a man can possess whether they concern the enjoyment or not.
Explanation Attached to the Section:
An assembly which is lawful in its inception may become unlawful subsequently.
An assembly which was lawful at its inception became unlawful the moment one of them called on others to assault members of other party and they in response to this incitation started to chase the members of the other party who were running away. Evidence of premeditation or preparation is not necessary to impute a common object to the members of an unlawful assembly.