Rioting With Deadly Weapons
Legal Provision
Section 147 and Section 148 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC), 1860 deal with rioting.
Section 147 IPC defines rioting.
Section 148 IPC deals with rioting, armed with a deadly weapon or with something that is likely to cause death or grievous hurt.
What is Rioting? (Section 146 IPC)
When force or violence is used by an unlawful assembly (minimum 5 people with a criminal common object), it constitutes rioting.
Rioting involves violence, as opposed to mere unlawful assembly which may or may not involve violence.
Definition of Rioting (Section 147 IPC)
Whoever is a member of an unlawful assembly, and the assembly uses force or violence in prosecution of its common object, is said to commit rioting.
Rioting Armed With Deadly Weapon (Section 148 IPC)
When any member of an unlawful assembly is armed with a deadly weapon or anything used as such, and the assembly commits rioting, it becomes “rioting with deadly weapons”.
Punishment: Imprisonment for up to 3 years, or with fine, or both.
If a deadly weapon is used in the commission of an offense, it is considered aggravated rioting.
Ingredients of Rioting with Deadly Weapons
Presence of an unlawful assembly (minimum five persons).
The assembly must have a common criminal object.
The assembly must use force or violence in pursuit of that object (constituting rioting).
At least one member of the assembly must be armed with a deadly weapon or something used as such.
The presence of the deadly weapon aggravates the offense.
What Qualifies as a Deadly Weapon?
Weapons capable of causing death or grievous hurt.
Examples: guns, knives, sticks, swords, or any object used with intent or knowledge to cause serious harm.
Important Case Laws on Rioting With Deadly Weapons
1. State of U.P. v. Ram Sagar Yadav (1964)
Facts: Several persons assembled and attacked the complainant’s house armed with sticks and swords.
Judgment: The Supreme Court held that mere possession of deadly weapons by some members of an unlawful assembly makes the entire group liable under Section 148 IPC.
Key Point: It’s not necessary that every member be armed; even one armed member makes the charge applicable.
Impact: Clarified the scope of “armed with deadly weapon”.
2. K. Ramachandra Rao v. State of Karnataka (1976)
Facts: An unlawful assembly used sticks and iron rods to commit rioting.
Judgment: The Court held that if deadly weapons are used, the offense under Section 148 IPC is attracted.
Key Point: The intention and use of the weapon to cause harm is essential.
Impact: Affirmed that use of any instrument as a deadly weapon in rioting aggravates the offense.
3. Ramesh v. State of Maharashtra (1972)
Facts: Accused charged under Section 148 IPC for rioting with deadly weapons.
Judgment: The Supreme Court explained that the deadly weapon need not be used by all; if one member of the assembly is armed, all members can be charged.
Key Point: Liability of members of unlawful assembly for weapons carried by any member.
Impact: Reinforced the principle of collective responsibility.
4. Ganpat v. State of Maharashtra (1967)
Facts: Rioting with sticks and rods.
Judgment: The Court explained that sticks or rods can be considered deadly weapons depending on the context and manner of use.
Key Point: The context of use determines whether a weapon qualifies as deadly.
Impact: Broadened the understanding of what constitutes a deadly weapon.
5. Ashok Kumar v. State of Rajasthan (2011)
Facts: Group of accused charged under Section 148 IPC after attack with knives and iron rods.
Judgment: The Court held that mere possession of knives or rods in a group rioting situation constitutes rioting with deadly weapons.
Key Point: Use or threat with such weapons justifies the charge.
Impact: Supported strict application of Section 148 IPC.
6. Kanhaiya Lal & Ors v. State of Rajasthan (1957)
Facts: Rioting case involving firearms.
Judgment: The Court observed that use of firearms or lethal weapons in an unlawful assembly escalates the gravity of the offense.
Key Point: Firearms are undoubtedly deadly weapons, invoking serious penalties.
Impact: Emphasized seriousness of rioting with firearms.
7. Joginder Singh v. State of Punjab (1969)
Facts: Rioting in which stones were thrown.
Judgment: The Court discussed whether stones could be considered deadly weapons.
Key Point: The Court held that stones can be deadly weapons depending on the manner and context.
Impact: Helped expand the definition of deadly weapons beyond conventional arms.
Summary of Key Points
| Aspect | Explanation |
|---|---|
| Number of Persons | Must be part of an unlawful assembly (minimum 5 persons). |
| Common Object | Must be criminal in nature, involving force or violence. |
| Use of Force/Violence | The assembly must use force or violence — that is rioting (Sec 147). |
| Deadly Weapon | At least one member is armed with a weapon capable of causing death or grievous hurt (Sec 148). |
| Collective Responsibility | All members are liable if any member is armed with a deadly weapon. |
| Punishment | Up to 3 years imprisonment or fine or both (Sec 148 IPC). |
Conclusion
Rioting with deadly weapons is an aggravated form of rioting.
The presence of a deadly weapon significantly increases the severity and punishment.
The courts have consistently held that collective liability applies — all members are liable if one member is armed.
The context and manner of use are crucial in determining whether an object qualifies as a deadly weapon.
The offense aims to deter violent group behavior and protect public safety.
RELATED Blog
0 comments