Affray And Public Disorder Offences
1. Affray:
Legal Provision:
Affray is traditionally defined as the fighting between two or more persons in a public place that causes terror or disturbance to the public. It is punishable under Section 159 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) and continues under the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS), 2023, with similar definitions and penalties.
Key Features of Affray:
Involves fighting by two or more persons.
Must take place in a public place.
Likely to cause terror or alarm to the public.
Each participant is guilty of affray, even if the fight is against one person only.
2. Public Disorder Offences:
These include a range of offences that disturb public peace and tranquility, such as:
Rioting (Section 147 IPC / BNS equivalent)
Unlawful Assembly (Section 141 IPC)
Harassment or Obstruction to Public Servants (Section 186 IPC)
Mischief causing public obstruction (Section 268 IPC)
Purpose of These Laws:
To maintain law and order.
To protect the public from fear and disturbance caused by violent acts in public.
To penalize unlawful collective violence.
Case Law Illustrations With Detailed Analysis
Case 1: Ram Singh vs. State of Rajasthan (1970)
Facts: Ram Singh and a group of men got into a violent fight in a marketplace, causing panic among bystanders. He was charged with affray under Section 159.
Legal Issue: Does a fight between two persons in a public place amount to affray?
Ruling: The Rajasthan High Court held that affray requires at least two persons fighting in a public place causing terror to the public. Ram Singh and others’ fight satisfied these conditions. Conviction was upheld.
Significance: Confirms that affray applies even if the fight is between two persons, and the focus is on public disturbance.
Case 2: State of Punjab vs. Major Singh (1968)
Facts: A group of villagers assembled and violently attacked a rival group, resulting in public disorder and injury.
Legal Issue: Whether the offence amounts to rioting or affray.
Ruling: The court held that where five or more persons use force or show a common object, it amounts to rioting (Section 147 IPC). Since this was a group attack, the charge of rioting was appropriate.
Significance: Distinguishes between affray (fight by a few) and rioting (group with common unlawful objective).
Case 3: Kartar Singh vs. State of Punjab (1969)
Facts: Kartar Singh was charged with unlawful assembly and affray for participating in a protest that turned violent.
Legal Issue: Can a peaceful assembly turning violent suddenly attract affray charges?
Ruling: The court said that if an unlawful assembly uses force or violence, participants can be charged for rioting and affray. Mere presence at a peaceful protest is not enough.
Significance: Clarifies liability depends on conduct during assembly, not just attendance.
Case 4: Surinder Kumar vs. State of Haryana (2015)
Facts: A mob gathered on a public road, obstructing traffic and indulging in stone-pelting. Charges included affray, unlawful assembly, and public nuisance.
Legal Issue: Whether stone-pelting by a mob constitutes affray or rioting.
Ruling: Court held that stone-pelting by an unlawful assembly amounts to rioting under Section 147 IPC; affray applies to fighting by fewer persons. Conviction for rioting and public disorder was upheld.
Significance: Highlights difference between affray and rioting, emphasizes mob violence as rioting.
Case 5: Anil vs. State of Maharashtra (2010)
Facts: Anil was charged with obstructing public servants in discharge of duty during a public event, causing public disorder.
Legal Issue: What is the scope of offences related to obstruction and public disorder?
Ruling: The court convicted Anil under Section 186 IPC for willful obstruction and held that such acts disturb public order and peace.
Significance: Emphasizes protection to public servants to ensure public order.
Case 6: Suresh vs. State of Tamil Nadu (2012)
Facts: Suresh and others engaged in a scuffle in a public place, causing panic.
Legal Issue: Whether the scuffle qualifies as affray or a minor altercation.
Ruling: The court held that when the fight causes public alarm or disturbance, it qualifies as affray. Minor scuffles without public disturbance do not.
Significance: Focuses on public disturbance as a key element of affray.
Case 7: Mohan Lal vs. State of U.P. (2005)
Facts: During a political rally, the accused engaged in a violent fight with opponents causing injury and chaos.
Legal Issue: Whether political rally violence amounts to affray or rioting.
Ruling: The court held that if the violence involves a group with a common objective, it is rioting. The accused were convicted under rioting, not affray.
Significance: Shows the importance of group size and common intent in differentiating affray and rioting.
Summary Table of Cases
| Case | Facts | Legal Issue | Ruling | Significance |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Ram Singh (1970) | Fight in public place | Definition of affray | Convicted for affray | Affray requires public disturbance |
| State vs. Major Singh (1968) | Group attack causing disorder | Affray vs. rioting | Convicted for rioting | Rioting involves common unlawful objective |
| Kartar Singh (1969) | Protest turning violent | Assembly liability | Violent conduct attracts rioting/affray charges | Liability depends on conduct |
| Surinder Kumar (2015) | Mob stone pelting | Affray vs. rioting | Convicted for rioting | Mob violence = rioting |
| Anil (2010) | Obstruction of public servants | Scope of public disorder | Convicted under Section 186 IPC | Protects public servants |
| Suresh (2012) | Scuffle causing panic | Affray or minor fight | Convicted for affray | Public disturbance key for affray |
| Mohan Lal (2005) | Political rally fight | Affray vs. rioting | Convicted for rioting | Group intent important |
Summary of Legal Principles
Affray involves fighting between two or more persons in public causing terror or alarm (Section 159 IPC).
Rioting requires at least five persons with a common unlawful objective using force or violence (Section 147 IPC).
Unlawful assembly is a group of five or more persons with a common object forbidden by law (Section 141 IPC).
Public disorder offences extend to obstruction, harassment, and mischief that disturb public peace.
The severity of punishment depends on the nature of violence, group size, and harm caused.
Courts distinguish affray and rioting primarily based on the number of persons involved and whether there is a common unlawful objective.
RELATED Blog
0 comments