Unlawful Assembly And Its Ingredients
Definition (Section 141 IPC)
An assembly of five or more persons is said to be an unlawful assembly if the common object of the persons composing that assembly is:
To overawe by criminal force, or show of criminal force, the Central or any State Government or Parliament or Legislature;
To resist the execution of any law or legal process;
To commit any mischief or criminal trespass, or other offense;
By means of criminal force or threat of criminal force, to take possession of property, or deprive any person of property, or force any person to do something which he is not legally bound to do;
To compel any person to do something which he is not legally bound to do, or to omit to do something which he is legally entitled to do;
To commit any offense; or
To take over the government by force.
Ingredients of Unlawful Assembly
Number of Persons: At least five persons must be present.
Common Object: The persons must have a common object which falls within one of the seven categories mentioned in Sec 141.
Presence Together: The persons must assemble or be present together.
Intention to Use Criminal Force: The common object must involve the use or threat of criminal force or an offense.
Punishment
Under Section 143 IPC, punishment is imprisonment for up to six months, or fine, or both.
If the unlawful assembly turns violent, more serious charges apply (e.g., rioting under Section 146 IPC).
Important Case Laws on Unlawful Assembly
1. K. M. Nanavati v. State of Maharashtra (1962)
Facts: The case primarily dealt with a homicide, but the Court discussed what constitutes unlawful assembly.
Key Point: The Supreme Court clarified that mere gathering of five or more persons without a criminal common object does not amount to unlawful assembly.
The intention and common object is the crux.
Impact: Established the requirement that unlawful assembly cannot be presumed merely by number; there must be a criminal intent.
2. Dwarika Prasad v. State of U.P. (1964)
Facts: A large group gathered protesting against certain government actions.
Judgment: The Court emphasized the common object and that mere presence of five or more persons is not sufficient.
Even if the group is peaceful and lawful in purpose, it cannot be called unlawful.
Impact: Reinforced that the presence of criminal intention or object is necessary.
3. Ramesh Singh v. State of Punjab (1955)
Facts: A dispute about whether a gathering was unlawful assembly.
Judgment: The Supreme Court held that the common object of the assembly must be such that it necessarily involves the use or threat of criminal force.
The Court said the essential element is a combination of persons to commit an offense or cause disturbance.
Impact: Clarified that mere presence is not unlawful assembly; the intent to use criminal force is necessary.
4. State of Maharashtra v. K.H. Mohammed Ibrahim (1970)
Facts: Several persons were charged with unlawful assembly for protesting a government decision.
Judgment: The Court said the object of the assembly is to be judged by the conduct of the persons and the surrounding circumstances.
Mere peaceful protest or gathering is not unlawful.
Impact: Helped distinguish lawful assemblies (such as protests) from unlawful assemblies based on conduct and intent.
5. Rangachari v. State of Madras (1957)
Facts: Issue whether the accused were part of unlawful assembly during a riot.
Judgment: Court held that if the assembly turns violent, then it becomes rioting (Section 146 IPC), which is a more serious offense.
Unlawful assembly is a preliminary stage, but once violence occurs, higher penalties apply.
Impact: Differentiated unlawful assembly from rioting, explaining the gradation of offenses.
6. Arvinder Singh v. State of Punjab (2013)
Facts: Several people assembled to prevent the demolition of a structure.
Judgment: The Court observed that an unlawful assembly requires a common intention to commit an offense.
The mere assembly to protect property, if peaceful, is not unlawful.
Impact: Reiterated the importance of common intention and use/threat of criminal force.
7. Kedar Nath Singh v. State of Bihar (1962)
Though primarily a sedition case, the judgment has references to unlawful assembly.
The Court explained that for an assembly to be unlawful, it must have a criminal intention and not merely be an expression of opinion or peaceful protest.
Impact: Affirmed the limits of criminal liability on assemblies based on the nature of their object.
Summary Table of Ingredients of Unlawful Assembly
| Ingredient | Explanation |
|---|---|
| Number of persons | Must be 5 or more people assembled. |
| Common Object | Must have a criminal purpose as listed in Section 141. |
| Assembly Together | The persons must be physically present together at the time. |
| Criminal Intent | The common object must involve use or threat of criminal force or commission of offense. |
| Conduct | Conduct and behavior may be used to infer common object. |
Conclusion
Unlawful Assembly is a group offense requiring five or more persons acting with a common criminal object.
The common object must involve criminal force or commission of an offense.
Mere gathering without criminal intent is not unlawful.
Courts look into intention, conduct, and circumstances to decide the nature of assembly.
The offense serves as a precursor to more serious offenses like rioting (Section 146 IPC).
RELATED Blog
0 comments