CHAPTER VIII

f offENCES AGAINST THE PUBLIC

0 TRANQUILLI1Y

ful assem bly.-A n assembly of five or more persons

141. VnlaW"unlawful assembly" if the common object of the personiss
·gnated rt assembly is- .
~::po~ingt ~T: 0 veraweGoby crimitnal foprce! or show of cri~
Firs • y State al force, the
vernmen or ar11ament or the Legislature of any
tral or an ublic servant in the exercise of the lawful power of
Ce0 or anY P such public
state, . or .
i;ef\'ant 'nd,-T o resist the execu tion of any law
or of any legal process ; or
Sec~,J To commit any misch ief or criminal trespass
~~ or other offence •
'
or rtL -BY means of criminal force, or show of criminal force to
Fou '"'
take or obtam • possession any
• of any property, or to deprive ' person
person, ~ '""ent of a right of way, or of the use of water or any
e eDJ0.1- . . • other incorporeal
o.f th of which he 1s m possess10 •
n or eDJoyment, or to enforce any right or
l'lgbt sed right ; or . .
suPPoFifth.-BY means of cnmm al force, or show of criminal force,
rson to do what he is not legally bound to do, or to omit to compel
to do what
anY. ~ gaily entitled to do.
15
be ~lana tion.- An assembly, which was not unlawful
when it assembled,
bsequently become an unlawful assembly.
DlaY su • COMMENT
The object of section 141 is to prevent to resort to criminal force
by five
or more to do any of the acts stated in this section.1
In early times mere assembly of men was considered a menace to
the
society and was, theref~re, r~g~rded unlawful. But later
on with the
development of democratic socreties the assembly of men becam
e a public
necessity. Assembly of men cannot be punished if it is for a lawful
purpose
because mere assembly is not punishable unless it is for an unlaw
ful purpose.
Therefore, it becomes necessary to describe those unlawful objects
which make
an assembly unlawful. Now the illegality is transferred from assembly
to the
objects of the assembly. The essence of offence under this
section is the
combination of several persons, united for the purpose of
committing a
criminal offence, and the consensus of purpose is itself an offenc
e distinct
from the criminal offence which these persons agree and intend
to commit.2
Ingredients.-An unlawful assembly is an assembly of five or
more
persons if their common object is :
1. To overawe by criminal force
(a) The Central Government, or
(b) The State Governmental, or

1. Pranbandhu Misra, !LR (1952) Cut. 219.

2. Mattivenkanna, (1922) 46 Mad. 257.
( 327 )
328 INDIAN PENAL CODE

Is1
(c) The Legislature, or 41
(d) Any publ ic serv ant in the exer cise of
1
t the exec ution of law or legal proce sawf ul Power.
2. To resis
s.
3. To commit mischief, criminal trespass, or any th
o er offence
4. By criminal force.
ty •
(a) to take or obtain possession of any proper or
• al • 'h
(b) to depn ve any pers on of any incorpore
. ng t, or
(c) to enforce any right or supposed right
S. By criminal force to compel any person
do, or
(a) to do wha t he is not legally bound to
(b) to omit wha t he is legally entitled to do.
wful assembly th
Five or more pers ons. -To constitute an unla ere Ill
• fi e persons. They must share Ust
be more than four persons 1.e. ve or mo~
five are prosecuted for ri tin the
common object of others. Where mor e than
some of them are acquitted and thos e who are convicted are less ~ g ~t
1 an fo,,e
in number, the conviction is illegal.
assembly is the cozruno
Common object. - The essence of an unlaw:611
obJ~ct mus t be common to n
object of the persons forming assembly. The
that 1s they should all be aw all
1

those persons who constitute the assembly;

t be one of those set out in ~
of it and must concur in it. The object mus
not make a person member of
section. Mere presence in an assembly does
that he had done something
an unlawful assembly unless it is shown
e him a member of the unlaw~
omitted to do something which would mak
that an assembly is unlawful one
assembly or unless being aware of the facts
to be its member. A_n ~ssembJy
2
intentionally joins that assembly or continues
of five or more persons cannot be called m:
~a w~ ~ssembly ~ its object
in the liIDits prescribed by the
is to defend property by the use of force with
law.3
The Supreme Court in Masalti v. State of Uttar
Pradesh, 4 observed that in
ce is committed by any member
fact, section 149 makes it clear that if an offen
common object of that assembly,
of an unlawful assembly in furtherance of a
to be likely to be committed
or such as the members of that asser&ly knew
at the time of committing of
in furtherance of thaf object, every person who,
bly, is guilty of that offence; and
that offence, is a member of the same assem
that the puni shm ent prescribed
that emphatically brings out the principle
does not always proceed on
unde r Section 149 is in a sense vicarious and
committed by every member of
the basis that the offence has been actually
unl~wful assembly.
ent that Sections 141 146
From what has been stated above, it is evid
on 149 only creates vicarious
'?1d. _148 create distinct _offences whereas Secti
hab1lity._ However, Section~ 146, _148_ and.
1~9 contain certain legislative
ity. The doctrine is sparingly
declarations based on doctrine o~ v1canous habd
ce of unlawful assembly as
applied .in crimina~ law. It applies for ~e offen le under Section 143 f IPC.
defined under Section 141 and made purushab
awe by criminal :Orce the
Clause 1. - The first illegal object is to over
1. Kartar Singh, AIR 1961 SC 1787.
SC 2381.
2. Baladin, AIR 1956 SC 181; Bishambhar, AIR 1971
Mathu Pandey, (1970)1 SCR 358.
3.
4. AIR 1965 SC 202.
 OF OFFENCES AG~INST THE PUBLIC
lRANQUlllllY
329
141 1 •slature or the public ser
s
..,.n'\ellt, the leghent
he restrains • hi b vantf etc. A person is said to
the m Y awe, ear or superior
cov eriv ·
raw
an° r wby supeno · r infl
uen ce • no t • • l
is
influence.
e
ave wiflg ll1 erely d b h Of • • l cnmma , no r is ov erawing by
rwe 1•t is attende Y s ow cnmina force. But wh
v. ra·[Link] ;ng what h h d th
1
e a o erw1se • no • ere a person
at l . d into Ou . mm d to do and • g
fe ..,.;fie • • d t ref rainin
•15 tew • what he had otherwise a mm O dO he 1s . . '
said to be overawed
t1l doillg th t fear is brough
t on bY the show of force, he
:d wher\ :how of criminal for is said to be'
ce. In order that this section
overawed ythat the assembly sho may apply it
uld have_ had the common obj
• 11ece~satY t enough tha
t the assembly did have the ect to overawe
~d it is no 2 - Under this claqse eff ect of ove rawing.
the act resisted must be a legal
Clause f ~ersons resisted an att act Where
empt to search a house which
a number :fficers, who did not w~s being
have the _power and authority
t1\ade by was held to be legal and to do so, this
tho
resiStance£fence under this sectio 1 se involved in resisting were not guilty
n. The execution of any law
of th:e to ut of the provision of means the
law or the enforcement of any
carr)11I\ Process means a measu act warranted
re,
by laWd• ce with law. Resistance and a 'legal process' means a measure in
to some law or legal process
accor an ct and mere words, when there • • ention
· of car'
connotes some
overt a ; not sufficient to prove 1s no int rying them into
an intention to resist.2
effect:e Supreme Court in Sta 0
te _! U.P. v. Niyamat & Ors.,3
se bling together of persons wi held that
as rn nt person fr th the common obJ'ect of res
innoce om un lawful li d • cuing an
constituting an unlawful assemblypo ce etention could not be held to be
under Section 141 of IPC.
Oause 3.-Although ~nly tw? _
the words 'or other offe~ce use off~nces are specifically enume
rated but
. elude all offences·. But 1f that d m this_ clau~e means· that it is intended to
was the intention of the Legis
: understand as to why only lature one fails
'mischief and criminal trespass'
mentioned. were specially
Clause 4. - This clause aims
injurious consequences which it at punishing the acts becaus
is likely to cause to public pea e of their
does not take away the right ce.
of private defence of property. This clause
'no person is entitled to vindic Th
ate his right to possession of any e rule that
resort to criminal force' appear pro
s to be in conflict with the law perty by
private defence of property. Bu
t the courts do recognise the rig relating fo
defence because if the use of for ht
ce is justifiable under one section of private
be held unjustifiable under this , it cannot
or any other section.
The expression 'right or suppo
sed rights' makes a division
in actual enjoyment when int
erfered with, and ,(ii) rights cla into (i) rights
in actual enjoyment when int imed though not
erfered with. Where a person
possession of his land and it is is in undoubted
attacked he has every right to
the limits of law of private def defend within
ence under the Code. Acts don
property in such cases cannot e in defence of
be
of course in cases of doubtful said to be done to 'enforce any right'. But
cla
amount to enforcing a right and ims, if either party used force, that would
in that case there would be no
right of

1. Narain, (1875) 7 N.W.P. 209

.
2. Abdul Hamid, (1922) 2 Pat
. 134.
3. AIR 1987 SC 1652.
 330 INDIAN PENAL CODE

I S 141
private defence. 1 . .
In Rambabu, 2 a licence was obtamed for takmg out a proces .
procession violated the conditions of licence by not observing th:•on hut th
route and by crossing the limit u~to whi~ the procession was pe pr~sctibeJ
proceed. The police and the Magistrate d1rected them not to do l'Jl\ittect to
group of processionists made a determined bid to break through ~o hut ~
cordon. It was held that the group constituted an unlawful assembI e Police
In R~ Abdul Sa~tar, 3 a proc_ession was moving on the pennitt~d
accomparued by music and was mterrupted and attacked by brickbats route
and empty bottles collected inside a mosque. All those persons indul ~ton~s
this activity were held to be members of unlawful assembly as their c~g ll\
object was to deprive the processionists of their right of way to which1on
were legally entitled. ey
Clause 5. - In order to bring a case under this section it would not b
enough to prove show of criminal force or use of criminal force to take
possession of property, unless the use of force was accompanied by so e
criminal intent. For instance, if A sees B committing theft, A is entitled ~e
arrest B under section 43 of the Cr PC, 1973. If some other persons interve 0
to secure release of the thief from A th~ir act falls within the ambit of cla:
5 of this section and they will be gmlty of the offence under section 1
Indian Penal Code. 47
Explanation.-In Moti Das v. State of Bihar,4 case the Supreme Court
noted with approval that an assembly which was lawful in its inception may
tum out into an ~awful assembly by the subsequent acts of its members
and without previous concert among its members provided others forming .
the assembly have also acquiesced in such unlawful acts. illegal acts of one
or more members, not acquiesced in by others, do not make the assembly
unlawful.
Where some persons associate themselves with the mob with innocent
motives, but they take part in the proceedings even when the assembly has
become unlawful, they will be liable as being members of an unlawful
assembly. 5 Certain persons assembled to prevent a procession by force from
passing over a certain street. They neglected the orders of police when asked
to disperse. Therefore, they were held guilty of being members of an unlawful
assembly.
Cases.-In Banwari v. State of Rajasthan,6 the accused six in number came
armed with deadly weapons and surrounded Shiv Prasad and Man Singh.
One of them shouted to exterminate the enemy while others were beating
them. It was held that none of the six accused persons who happened to be
present at the place of the occurrence and participated in assault could be
said to be there for innocent purpose. The nature of the weapon which they
were holding from the very beginning and the fact that all of them had come
together from a pretty long distance at a place which was neither in front of
their house nor in front of their land, as also the fact that all of them emerged
1. Raju, AIR 1961 Mys. 74.
2. (1945) 25 Pat. 125.
3. AIR 1961 Mys. 57.
4. AIR 1954 SC 657.
5. Periapien, (1883) 1 Weir 66.
6. (1979) Cr LJ 161 (Raj).
 OF OFFENCES AGAINST THE PUBLIC TRANQUILLITY
~
~I
s d participated in the assault and went
rif11e ~ •uries suggested that all those accused away _together after causing
8 1 sti tuted thems~l_ves into
8
~f11erotJ5;:; assembly. The common object of th~on
n tJ!tlaw 5 obviously to commit criminal offenee, namel
persons compnsmg that
d
an
a~f11
blY wa
Supreme Cour t ~ Shivjee Singh v. State o . y, :nur er.
d if Bihar, . held that an
fhe hich is lawful at its commencement c
85
7
sef11~1Y at spot eo instanti (i.e. at that inst: t) evelo
p durin g the
b~come unlawful as
course
of jrlCl;t'in explanation appended to Section 141 IP~o 1
t Is not necessary to
provid assembly unlawful when it comes into' . t.
at the outset. The
re!lder ~0 rIIling an unlawful intent is not materi ets; :ce
tiJlle of encement or even for some time ~ erea • ft ass~m bly, which, at
er, IS lawful, may
jts co]llfllti become unlawful.
sobs equ~case, a quarrel started between two e on the Holi festival
In March 9, 1993. The appellant called his i;:o ns
s~n~ wh? came armed
d~Y on and sticks and st~rted throwing stones and
with fgunthe roof and opened fire causing grievous inJ·un· ntOckthrpieces from the
and
P O hot d ea • e Injured were carriedes to h ee. persons
d Th • •
to Megh nath was s Odital on tractor
one mained under treabnent for about a week. Th.e accuse persons were
and re f erpetrating the crime b nced
convicted . or §02 read with Sec. 147 ofYIPccommon intention and sente
tlilder Section •
boev er be.
member of unlawful assem bly.-Wbl
141 Being
der any assem bly an unlaw ful asse . ' mg aware of facts
whichb{;nor continues in it, is said to be a m:i ~~ :~o .:;! f joins that
COM MENT . a assembly.
asselll '
ins in an unlawful
This section makes it clear that if a person rema
unlawful, he shall be
assembly after he became aware that the assembly was
shall be liable as such.
deemed to be a mem~er of~ unlawful assembly and
lly join knowing
In order to attrb;ct. ~ sec!~ n one s~ould either intentiona
that the assem y is aw or continue to be a member after being aware
at its inception has
of the fact that an assembly though ~ot ~a~ ful
means physical presence
subsequently turned out to be so. Here continues
bly.
with the knowledge of unlawful character of the assem
~ unlawful assembly, shall
143. Puni~hln';nt.---;Whoever is a. member o!ption
descn for a term which may
be punished with 1mpnsonment of either
extend to six months, or with fine or with both.
weapon.-Whoever
144. Joining unla wful assembly arme d with deadly which, used as ~
ing
being armed with any deadly weapon, or with anyth a member of an unlawful
weapon of offence, is likely to caus e death, is either description for a
impr isonm ent of
assembly, shall be punished with
or with both.
term which may extend to two years, or with fine,
COMMENT
of the offence under
The offence unde r this section is an aggravated form
section because the
section 143. Greater puni shme nt is prescribed under this
of using force evinced
risk to public tranquillity is aggravated by the intention
thing which, if used
by carrying arms. Where the accused is armed with any
shall be liable under this
as a weapon of offence, is likely h~ cause death, he
section.

1. AIR 2009 SC 417.

 332 \NOIAN PENAL cooE

ful as \ s. 14s
145. Joining ontinuinl in
n de or c W h oe .unla: conti sembly, knnwing it
comma d to disperse.- ver jo1 8 0 nu has
knowin g ch un ~., asse111 1l been ceosminman unl~wful & be
th
rescribed bat su law bly
dispeuruse, sh all be phuans is
. hed wit anded m th Ssetn,b~;
P y law
descn•ption for a teto which may d to
h im prisonmen e 11lllJUi 1
rm exten two years, o t of eith~t
both. r W I.t h fin
e, or "'1~th?
COMMENT
This section • • t..:... .
promu auns at purosiwlg the disobedienc
lgated by a ublic serva The ord e
P nt. er must rel otf ato ny lawful
unlawful asse
mbly. a e d1'sp · order
. ersmg an
1n the case S ta te o f .
• d tO disof Jagmohan vts Oris
cuss the arre . f some of sa, a public meeting
1
on m or er s the railway w
on strike. In th • tw oof the . employees as going
e s p .
against the th m ~ g ~ e th
e ac
e akers mote th d
e ,: who were
appea G ovem c use p o uc
that thleed to e mh,:ce~o : p p o r t the strik d (one of the spea e to revolt
accusedpuhaud ers. The Hig kers) merel-y
Government no common h C o urt of Orissa h
an obje · ·t t
that meeting d the assembly as unlaw ct to mcr e . he poli · eld
do so, th~y c d id not dispe fu l, ?'erefo c e against
ould not be rse even after being c re if the persons atte the
held guilty o n
It may, howe
v er, of the offen mmanded by the po ding
be sta c e under Se lic
not succeed
in this case ted that though a cha ction 145. e to
definitely surv , but a charg rg e under Se
iv e c
members cou ed in view of the fact under Section 151, IP tion 145 could
ld be pr~sen
had. been la te~ under Se that the assembly w C could have
Section 129(1wfully given m the ction 188, IP as unlawfu
C a s th e l its
for the preovna fide exercise of p order for dis~rsal
) of Cr.P.C. b
146. Riotin ention of br o
each of pliece powers unde
assembly , or by agn,-yWhenever force ace.
~c ~ member
thereof in or vio le r
noting.
assembly, e
very memb
er of s~ch
ro nce. is ed. b
!sse8i!.~~:o us y an un
A • .n °!}!1-tye lawful
tha .n? t is. . is &'-LU [Link] object of
o f t h e off
s C O
t activity beinunply an unlawful aMssMeENT ·
ence of
mbl .
':,~f,!, i~'~ g accompanie
tethat disting
d by th
ty a Par. .
or disturbanc uished n:~ ticular state
violence 3 e o r r ~ f art. and to ~ i o : r ~ or violence.
of activity
p
e neighbours opular belief a ri:,i I t is o n l y
. . lng•redie tho ugh th a w f u~ ass e
~
n ts ,-The f 11 . m
noting : -
0 ow .• ere musm ay involve bly .2 The
ing are th t be no noise
(l) The ace • so me force
an unlawful used e ingredien or
p ers t~
(2) The aascsecm bly ons must be fi < )

used,· ve or i n e offe
o (3) The . 1

r force or m~~
Meany. memh tb
01encee animated b
and it h a ~ g er thereofv1in
persons ~nl ee of force or v i l prosemust be u
extends al y. n_ Used here in o enc cution of
Vio e,-Force is
so to folence is tha t s
l. 1977 not restrictense. It .
2. Per Pir lJ
rc e against inan d is res
3. R 0W 13 94 (Ori) u: to forc e
den J .
• • ate objects e
• v. Sharp, (195; l~~I, (1889
) P.R .N
E.R. 577.
o. 4.
 OF OFFENCES AGAINST THE PUBLIC TRANQUILLITY 351

a) he hired or engaged or employed a person to join the

(ful assembly, or
vrJaW(b) he promoted or conrli~e~ at the hiring, engagement or
of such person to JOm or become a member of the
1Oyrnent
el11P ful assembly.
vrila; persons hired must have committed an offence in
(2) ~ such hiring, engagement, or employment.
a11ce o . d •h h s who are neither abettors
11t1rst1 . n is Intende to purus t• et •person
· · an unlawful assembly
• sectIO but who nevertheIess assis m brmgmg
rrr1,1s
! ...... ants · ·11 b . h bl
art1c1P The hirer WI e purus a e for any offence committed as if
flor ~"istence. ber of the unlawful assembly and as if he had committed the
jttlO a JJleIIl
pe were1
offence. owingly joining or continu_ing in assembly of five or more persons
or
151, J(n been commanded to disperse,-Whoever knowingly joins
r it h~ any assembly of five or more persons likely
to cause a
f the public peace, after such assembly has been lawfully
o~etinues in ' hed. WI· th imprisonment of either
c0P ce o hall be pums
(ljstufbaDed to disperse, . s
....[Link] ~ r a term which may extend to six months' or with fine'
or with
coJJ.&-; tion 10 .
descl'lP
tion.- If the assembly is an unlawful assembly within
the
i,otb,
er will be punish able under section 145.
~la;:e ction 141, the offend
°
JlleaJlillg COMMENT
the application of this section the assembly of five or more persons
fort be an unlawful assembly but if •such assembly is likely to cause a
th ••
n_~d~
bl'
bance of the pu IC peace, . en JO~g or continuing in such assembly
1st11
d \1 has been commanded to disperse 1s punishable. However, such joining
a
after tinuillg must be with the knowledge that it is likely to cause
also been comm anded to
• : cobnance of the public peace and that it has
0
d1stur
disperse.
In order to prosecute the accused for an offence under Section 151, the
must prove :-
prosecution
(i) that there was a lawful assembly of five or more persons;
(ii) that such assembly was likely to cause disturbance of public
peace;
(iii) that such assembly was commanded to disperse;
(iv) that such command was lawful;
(v) that even after such command, the accused joined or continued
in the assembly; and
(vi) that the accused did so knowingly or deliberately.
The Supreme· Court in Komma Neelkantha v. State of Andhra Pradesh}
,
observed that where the police officers merely warned the two rival groups
not to commit breach of peace, it cannot be said that the group (assembly)
had been commanded to disperse and therefore, the provision of Section 151
d
would not be attracted to prosecute the members of those groups. The accuse
were, therefore, acquitted by the Court.
152. Assaulting or obstructing public servant when suppressing
riot,
etc.-Whoever assaults or threatens to assault, or obstructs
or attempts to

1. Silajit Mahto, ILR 36 Cal. 865.

2. AIR 1978 SC 1021.
 350 INDIAN PENAL CODE
Is 1
time of committing that offence will be a member of the unla fu1 • so
and held guilty of the offence. After that, it will not be open t: th asselllbJ
see as to who actually committed the offence (act). However, befo e Court/
•
. I mgre d. f re rec o
conviction under Section 149, essentia 1ents o Section 141 °rding
established. Whether members of unlawful assembly really had com rnust be
to cause offence has to be decided in the light of facts and circum:~n object
the case including :- ances of
(i) nature of weapons used by such member;
(ii) manner and sequence of attack made by these members on v· .
(iii) circumstances under which occurrence· took place. ictun;
In the instant case, there was dispute between the two families .th
regard to fishing at sea and appellant Joseph along with others had ·h wi
a bomb to kill the opponents. Held, common object under Section 149eared
not proved hence the appellant (accused) could not be convicted under Se;as
302, read with Section 149, IPC, instead, he was convicted under Section
302/109 of IPC. on
Distinction between Section 34 and 149.-In Virendra Singh v. State of
Madhya Pradesh, 1 the distinction between section 34 and 149 of Indian Penal
Code was made clear as follows :
When several persons numbering five or more do an act or intend to
do it both sections 34 and 149 I.P.C. may apply. Section 149 I.P.C. is of wider
import than section 34 I.P.C. and in case where section 149 applies a
constructive liability arises in respect of those persons who do not actually
commit the offence. The distinction between the two lies in-
(i) section 34 does not but itself create any specific offence whereas
section 149 does so.
(ii) Some active participation especially in crime involving physical
violence is necessary under section 34 but Section 149 does not require
it and the liability arises by reason of mere membership of the unlawful
assembly with a common object and there may be no active participation
at all in preparation and commission of crime.
(iii) Section 34 speaks of common intention but Section 149
contemplates common object which is undoubtedly wider in its scope
and amplitude than intention; and
(iv) Section 34 does not fix a minimum number of persons who
must share the common intention whereas Section 149 requires that there
must be at least five persons who must have some common object.
150. Hiring, or conniving at hiring of persons to join unlawful
assembly .-Whoeve r hires or engages, or employs, or promotes, or connives at
the hiring, engagement or employment of any person to join or become a
member of any unlawful assembly, shall b~ punishable as a member of such
unlawful assembly, and for any offence which may be committed by any such
rson as a member of such unlawful assembly in pursuanc e of such hiring,
pe a, ment or employment, in the same manner as if he had been a member
eng ~ unlawful assembly, or himself had committed such offence.
of sue COMMENT
In dients. _ The following are the ingredients of this offence :_
gre(l) The accused must have done one of the following acts :

- (2011) I Cr LJ 952 (SC).

1.
 OF OFFENCES AGAINST THE PUBLIC TRANQUILLITY
351
152 I
s (a) he hired or engaged or employed a person to join the
unlawful assembly, or
(b) he promoted h or connived at the [Link]·g, engagement or
employment of sue person to join or become a member of the
un}awful assembly.
(2) The perso~s. hired must have committed an offence in
ance of such hiring, engagement, or employment
PurSU
. ection 1s · 111
• tended tO purus• h the persons
who are• neither abettors
'fhiS. ·s ants but wh O neverthe1ess assist
• m• bnngmg
· · an unlawful assembly
P arbClp hi ·n b • h bl
nor • tence. The rer WI e purus a e for any offence committed as if
into eXIS member of the unlawful assembly and as if he had committed the
hewer~ a
offence. . . . . . .
151. Knowingly Joining or continu_ing in assembly of five or more persons
it has been commande d to disperse.-W hoever knowingly joins or
a~e~ s in any assembly of five or more persons likely to cause a
c~nt1nue
bance of tb e pubric peace, after such assembly bas been lawfully
d•sturanded to disperse, . shall be punished with imprisonment of either
co~ ti·on for a term which may extend to six months or with fine or with
descrtP ' '
botb· Explanatio
· '!'.-If the assemblY is_
• an uni~wful assembly . . the
within
aning of section 141, the offender will be punishable under section 145.
Dle COMMENT
For the application of this section the assembly of five or more persons
eed not be an unlawful assembly but if such assembly is likely to cause a
~sturbance of the public peace, then joining or continuing in such assembly
after it has been commanded to disperse is punishable. However, such joining
r continuing must be with the knowledge that it is likely to cause a
•~isturbance of the public peace and that it has also been commanded to
disperse.
In order to prosecute the accused for an offence under Section 151, the
prosecution must prove : - .
(i) that there was a lawful assembly of five or more persons; .
(ii) that such assembly was likely to cause disturbance of public
peace; .
(iii) that such assembly was commanded to disperse;
(iv) that such command was lawful; .
(v) that even after such command, the accused joined or continued
in the assembly; and .
(vi) that the accused did so knowingly or deliberatel y. 2
. . KOmma Neelkantha v. State of Andhra Pradesh,
The Supreme Court m
b d th h th lice
.
officers mere 1y warned the two rival groups'
o serve at_ w ere e po . t be said th?• the group (assembly)
not to commit breach of peace, it cannoh f •ision of Section 151
had been command ed to d ispers . e and t ere/'-~
e • roups. The accused
would not be attracted to prosecute the m T
were, therefore, acquitted by the Court.
• g ubl suppressin g
152. Assaulting or ob struc tin , or attemf
etc.-Whoever assaults or threatens

1. Silajit Mahto, ILR 36 Cal. 865.

2. AIR 1978 SC 1021.
 OF OFFENCES AGAINST THE
PUBLIC TRANau
S· 159 1 Wn
·er of land for any offence for whi 359
occUP~der sections 154 and 155 of the ch such ow-ner or .
Jjable be liable only when he has failed ~ode. However the occupier shall be
shallrevent such riot or assembly from t~se all lawful me~:n~ or ~anager
to P ing the same. g place and f m his power
dispers or suppressing and
for
151. Harbouring persons hired an unlawful
urs receives or assembles in an
bBl°~arg;, or under his control' any p: house or prentlse:[Link] m.~ly.-Whoe ver
or c }lired, engaged or employed o rsons knowing that in ~s occupation
bee~oyed to join or become me~ber are about to be ~c d persons have
eJJl~ shed' with imprisonm ent of eithe:s of ~ ~awful as::n: engaged or
p~nd to six months, or with fine or WI~thescbnpti on for a termbly'hi~hhall be
e~" ' oth. w c may
COMMENT
Section 150 makes the hiring of person to 1· oin unl
• d 1 . . awful assembly
wushable; this [Link] ea s with the harbourin
:ersons hired or likely to be hired for an unl %{eceivmg or assembling of
the part of harbourer that persons harboured a; tssemb~y • Knowledge on
to be hired to join unlawful assembly is essenti~~e een hired or are about
158. Being hired to take part in an unl ful
~
hire d , or [Link] aw • t . -Whoever
assembly or no
is engaged, or or attempts to b hir d
assist in doing any of the acts specified in sectio: 141e ;:_r engaged! to do or
imprisonme nt of either descriptio n for a Ji
~ all he purushed with
.months, or with fine or with both, ~ - -
or to go armed-an d whoever, .,....,11K1ed or hired - ~
goes armed, or engages or offers to armed, with any d 8 di afoiijaid.;
with anythin_g whic~ us~d a~ a wea~n of offence is likely ~ 0 Yc=~:a ::
shall be punished with 1mpr1son menror either description for a term whi h
may extend to two years, or with fine, or with both. c
COMMENT
This section makes it punishable to hire oneself out to assist in an
unlawful assembly or rioting; it consists of two parts. Each part is separable
according to the weapon possessed by the hired person. If a hired person is
rmed with deadly weapons he deserves greater punishment.
. 159. Affray.-W hen twp or more. persons, b~ fighting in a public place,
sturb the public pea~ tbey are smd to "commit an affray"·
1.· COMMENT
The word 'affray' is derived from the french word 'affraier' which mean:
o terrify. In la • means a public offence to the terror of the ~ple. ;
·st of ce lies in the terror it is likely to cause to . e puub~
,n per~ons m a p
fi hting between two or more English
,,.,._wne, a g . affr • law.
is ay m . ff .
Of His
Ma1·esty's subjects
di ts of this o ence •
.... The following are the ingre en
fi ht·
or more persons must g '
- - · ~ &u.-J.-i in a vublic place; .
p

336 INDIAN PENAL CODE

I S. 119
149 E ~ member of unlawf ul assembl~ guilty .of offence co,n .
: ve." n ob ·ect.-lf an offence 1s commit ted by an 11titted
prosec ut~ of com~ in ~rosecu tion of the commo n object of t?atnier
n~ ~
an unlha hassem
or sue as t e memhers of that assemb ly knew to be likely to he aaselllblb
. . f th t object every person w ho, a t the t'1me the ccoin-, .,,
inf pthrotsec;tione o is aa membe ; of the same assemb ly, is guiltyofof --..~
tha~nii:i
o a o enc ' tthig
COMMENT Oqenee.

Ingredients._ The following are the ingredients of this offence :

(l) Some offence must be committed by any member of an
unlawful assembly; and . .
(2) Such offence must have been committed m prosecution of
common object of the assembly; or must. be such as the members of ::
assembly knew to be likely to be coi:1m•~~d. .
Scope of the section.-This section 1s d1V1ded mto ~o parts : (l) an
offence committed by a member of an unlawful assembly ~ prosecution of
the common object of that assembly; and (2) an ~ffenc~ which the members
of that assembly knew to be likely to be committed m prosecution of the
common object.
Offence committed· by members of the unlawful assembly.- lbe
Supreme Court in Yunis v. State of Madhy~ _Pradesh,1 hel~ .that presence of
accused as part of unlawful assembly is sufficient for conviction. The fact that
accused was a member of unlawful assembly and his presence at the place
of occurrence has not been disputed is sufficient to hold him guilty even if
no overt act is imputed to him.
It was held in Mahmood v. State of U.P.,2 that once it is established that
a person was a member of unlawful assembly, prosecution need not establish
any specific overt act to any of the accused for fastening of liability with the
aid of Section 149, I.P.C.
It was held in Ram Dular Rai v. State of Bihar,3 that mere presence in
unlawful assembly cannot render a person liable unless he was actuated by
common object and that object is one of those set out in Section 141 of I.P.C.
Common object is different from a 'common intention' as it does not require
prior concert and prior meeting of minds before attack.
It was held in Ram Dular Rai v. State of Bihar,4 that a common object
may be formed by express agreement after mutual consultation but that is by
no means necessary. It may be at any stage by all or a few members of the
assembly and the other members may just join and adopt it. Once formed it
need not continue to be the same. It may be modified or altered or abandoned
at any stage. The expression "in prosecution of common object", as appearing
in Section 149 have to be strictly construed as equivalent to "in order to attain
the common object." It must be immediately connected with the common
object by virtue of the nature of the object. There must be community of
object and the object may exist only upto a particular stage and not thereafter.
Mere presence in an unlawful as~embly cannot render a person liable
unless he was actuated by common ob1ect and that object is one of those set
out in Section 141. Common object is different from a "common intention" as
1. 2003 Cr LJ 817 (SC).
2. 2008 I Cr LJ 696 (SC).
3. 2004 Cr LJ 635 (SC).
4. 2004 Cr LJ 635 (SC).
 Of OFFENCES AGAINST THE PUB
LIC TRANQUlllllY 337
~I
s. ire prior concert and comm
·t1 does not re; i: held that Secti on meeting of minds before tt ~
on 149 applies when presen a a •
It was a sns is established, bu ce of five or more
t only four are identified. Se
thaJl five_ i: :: t all the five ction 149 does
persons mu st be identified.
not reqUU'th persons where pre Non-id~ntificati~n of
sence of more than five pe
some of . e any way affect app rsons 1s established
licability of Section 149 of
does :ts :te of Karnataka v. Ch Indian Penal Code.
ikkahott_appa,1 it was observed
C. consists of .two parts. Th that Section 149
of I.P. t0 be committed m pro e ~rs t Pa rt of the section
secution of the common ob means tha t the
off~:e is conunitted with a vie ject mu st be one
w to accomplish the comm
whi th offence may fall un de on object. In order
r the first part, the offence
~at e;ately with the common must be connected
untn d was a member. Eveno~ifject of the unlawful assembly of which the
acc the offence committed is
rosuse
ecution of the common ob'1ect f th not in direct
P . 141 if it can be held o e assembly, it may yet fal
5ect1on ' that the offence was such as l un de r
was likely to be c0 Im?1.·tte d. d thi • · the members knew
an s is what 1s required by the
of the Section. ~e distinction second pa rt
between. the two parts of
•gnored or obliterated. In eve Section 149 cannot
ry case 1t would be an issue
:h~ther the offence committe to be determined
d
such as the members of the as_falls within the first part or it was an offence
sembly knew to be likely to
prosecution of the common be committed in
ob1ect an d falls within the
In this case the ~ccused pe rso second part.
~ allegedly formed unlawful
assaulted deceased wi th machu assembly an d
~, ~ticks etc. There were thr
and most of them were deep ee injuries on he ad
incised ~? un ds of varying
multiple fractures ?n the bas sizes. Additionally
~ of ocop1ta~ bone were no
assailants as established by ticed. Intention of
evidence of witnesses was
deceased and not to cause gri to cause death of the
evous injury. Accused person
held liable to be convicted s were, therefore,
un
of Sections 326 read wi th Se de r Section 302 read with Section 149 instead
ction 149/148.
It was also pointed ou t in thi
that in all cases of unlawful s case that it is not necessary
assembly, with an unlawful un de r law
must be translated into act common object, same
ion or be successful. Unde
Section 141, an assembly wh r the explanation to
ich was not unlawful when
subsequently become unlaw it assembled may
ful. It is not necessary tha
purpose which is necessary t the intention or the
to render an assembly an
into existence at the outset. unlawful one comes
The time of forming an un
material. An assembly which lawful intent is not
, at its commencement, or
thereafter, is lawful, may sub even for sometime
sequently become unlawful
can develop during the cou . In other words it
rse of incident at the spot
instant). eo instanti (i.e. at that
It was also ma de clear tha
t the expression in prosecuti
object' as appearing in Secti on of 'common
on 149 have to be strictly ~o
"in order to attain the co nst ru~d as equivalent
mmon object". It must be
with common object by vir 1mmed1ately connected
tue of nature of object.
The word I object' means the
purpose or design and in ord
common, it must be shared er to make it
by all. It may be formed at
a few members. It may be any stage by all or
modified or altered or aba
Common object may be ndoned at any st l.
forme d by express agreement after muage tua
1. (2008) 3 Cr LJ 3495 (SC
).
 338 INDIAN PENAL CODE

f s. 149
t is by no me ans nec ess ary. The effect of Sec.
cons~ltation. But tha tion 149 ~a
ent on dif fer ent me mb ers of the same assembly•
be dif fer in d Y
, It wa s als o ma de cle ar that common object is determ ping .
. and e b kee
, arms carried by members,
Vlew the na tur e of assembly ect' is d.f; haviour ~
of incident. 'Common obj
members at or ne ar scene
1
com erent fro~
on int ent ion '. It do es no t require a pri or concert and a ting
'co mm
tio n 149 the emphasis is on commomon6?1ee
of mi nd s before atta ck. In Sec n ° Ject anct
no t on common intention.
lawful assembly cannot rende
Further, mere presence in un ect ;fa Person
un les s he wa s act uat ed by common object. If common obj la~fu.J
liable
no t pro ved , acc use d can no t be convicted. In order to c~n
assembly is assembI n~ict a
only membership of unlawful
pe rso n un de r Section 149 I.P.C. stoo? that ass~[Link] was unla:fu
~s not
per son sho uld hav e un der
enou~h, the view of Se ~d
the acts which fall within pur
wa s1 likely to commit any of ction
141. the conun
n ob jec t.- "In prosecution of
In prosecution of the commo n obj ect of ~n
do no t me an "du rin g the prosecution of the commo that the
object " of the common object" sho w
Th e wo rds "in pro sec uti on
assembly".
me dia tel y con nec ted with the common object of the
offence committe d wa s im act must ~
ass em bly , of wh ich the accused were members. The
unlaw ful n object
e bee n do ne wi th a vie w to accomplish the commo
suc h as hav The words "in
of th~ unlawful assembly.
attributed to the members ed as equivalent
uti on of the com mo n obj ect " have to be strictly constru
prosec 2
n object. "
to "in ord er to attain commo that the
this section it mu st be proved
In ord er to bring a case within sh the common object of the unlawful
accompli
act wa s do ne with a view to do ne in prosecution of the common obje
ct
act tho ug h no t one
assembly or the would be likely
the un law ful ass em bly wa s one which the accused 3knew tion is never
of the common object. This sec
mi tte d in pro sec uti on of nce
to be com an un lawful assembly for any offe
nis h a me mb er of
int en de d to pu any member for
mi tte d by any me mb er of it. What is required to punish st have
com
mi tte d by any oth er me mb er of the assembly is that it mu
offence com
d in pro sec utio n of the com mo n object of the assembly and that
been committe er of the assembly
per son sou gh t to be pu nis hed must have been a memb proved in
the ence. Accordingly, it must be
e of com mi ssi on of tha t off ul
at the tim
per son con cer ned wa s no t only a member of the unlawf
each case tha t the the assembly at all
em bly at som e sta ge, bu t shared the common object of ever, not
ass
l sta ges . 4
Th e sha rin g of common object would, how
the crucia object to engage
er present and sharing the
necessarily require the memb5 ble in a case
f in do ing an ov ert act . Th erefore, this section is inapplica ility in
himsel
tua l fig ht bet we en tw o par ties. Constructive criminal liab
of sud de n mu mon object. The
because of the lack of a com
suc h cases cannot be imposed together in such cases and the
individuals
du al act s can no t be gro up ed
ind ivi 6
their individual acts.
are to be held responsible for
a, (2008) 3 Cr LJ 3495 (SC).
1. State of Karnataka v. Chikkahottapp
2. fit Singh, (1959) Punj. 50.
3. [Link] uil, AIR 1957 SC 572.
a, 1976 Cr LJ 1987.
4. Musakhan v. State of Maharashtr 1976 Cr LJ 800.
,Si m P ndey v. State of Bihar,
5
r• Rajasthan, 1976 Cr LJ 674.
 OF OFFENCES AGAINST THE PUBLIC TRANOUILLllY
339
s 149 I .
me Court in State of Pun1ab v. Sanjiv Khan 1 laid down the
ll'e Supre
h n vicarious liab'l' •
created und er Section '149 and held as
,f'\-,
1 ity is
rinciple w e
follo~s ::rder to fa~ten vicarious liability on any member of unlawful
In
bly eth prosecu tion must prove that the act constituting th ff
.
asseOl in pro secution of common obJect of that assembly or th e o tence was
d one 1s.
done th members of that assembly knew to be likely to b e ac
as e ·tt d .
5uch . n of common ob'1ect of that assembly. Then evee commib e mf
ecutto d
proawful assembly ren ers mself 1ia
5 hi • bl ry mem er o
e under Section 149 for the crimina l
unlt/acts of any other member/s of that assembly provided . d •
b'
ac ce of common o 1ect or such that every member kn same 1s one m
turtheran
commit
.
ted.
,, ew to be like1y
to be d • s· S
It was observe m .zyaram. v., tate of M.P.,2 that common ob.1ect •
J:a t from a 'common intention . 1t does not requi·re a • 1s
au1eren . • pnor conce rt and
nunon meeting of minds before the attack.
a co It was held in Madan Singh v. State o' Bihar 3 that m • an
'J ,
unlawful assembly cannot render a person liable unless there ere presence m
was a common
object and he shared the same or '":as actuated by that common object and
that ObJ'ect is one of those bset .out m Section 141 of Ip • .c. Where common
object of an .unlawful assem ly ? not proved, th~ accused persons cannot be
convicted with the help 0 ~ section .149• The crucral question to determine is
whether the assembly consisted of five or more persons and whether the said
persons entertained one or m~re of the common objects as specified in Section
141 of I.P.C. It ~~ot be laid down a~ a general proposition of law that
unless the comnuss1on of an overt act 1s proved against a person, who is
alleged to be a member of unlawful assembly, it cannot be said that he is a
member of an assembly. The only thing required is that he should have
understood that the assembly was unlawful and was likely to commit any of
the acts which fall ~ithin the. purview of Section 141. The word "object" means
the purpose or design and, m order to make it "common" it must be shared
by all. In other words, the object should be common to the persons, who
compose the assembly, that is to say, they should all be aware of it and
concur in it. A common object may be formed by express agreement after
mutual consultation, but that is by no means always necessary. It may be
formed at any stage by all or a few members of the assembly and the other
members may just join and adopt it, once formed it need not continue to be
the same. It may be modified or altered or abandoned at any stage. The
expression "in prosecution of the common objects" as appearing in Se~on 149
have to be strictly construed as equivalent to "in order to attain the common
object", it must be immediately connected with the common object by virtue
of the nature of the objects. There must be community of object and the object
may exist only upto a particular stage and no! thereafter. What th~ [Link]!1
object of the unlawful assembly is at a particular. sta?e ~f the mc1dent 1s
essentially a question of fact to be determined, keepmg m view ~e nature of
the assembly, arms carried by the members, ~d the behaviour of the
members at or near the scene _of the incident. It is not necessary un?er law
that in all cases of unlawful assembly, with an unlawful common ob1ect, the
1. (2007) 9 sec 791.
2. (2009) 2 Cr LJ 2071 (SC).
3. 2004 Cr LJ 2862 (SC).
 340 INDIAN PENAL CODE

same must be translated into action I S. 149

or be successful. Under the ex
to Section 141, an assembly which
was not unlawful when it assemb)1
subsequently become unlawful. It at\atiori
is not necessary that the intentio ed,
purpose, which is necessary to r:en Illay
der an a~sembly as unlawful on: ~~
into existence at the outset. The tim
e of fonrung an unlawful assembly
the
material. An assembly which, at . Illes
its commencement or even for som18
thereafter, is lawful, may subsequ~nt~ _riot
y become unlawful. .In o~e r wo ~:
can develop during the course of
mo den t at the spot eo mstantz (i.e.
• tan t).
ms at it
In Mangal Singh v. State of Bihar, 1 the that
incident happened because of
dispute. Accused party fired at the
deceased party after exchange of wo1
Many members except two of accuse ~d
d party were arme~ with firearms. Tho
two members who were unarme !
d had not committed any overt
Eye-witnesses did not say that any • was •
these two cannot be said to have sha
exhortation given by them. Therefo~•
red common object of assembly and
such they cannot be convicted. The re
Supreme Court held the conviction.
other members of the accused party :
proper.
In Ramesh v. State of Haryana,2 app
ellants who were variously armed
including firearms assembled at one
place and thereafter came to place
occurrence and started assault toge of
ther. Whe~ deceased protested, one
members_ of unlawful assembly sho of the
t him dead and some of them caus
injury by firearms, gandasa, lathi etc. ed
to others. All of them had come and
place of occurrences together. It was left
held that appellants are members
unlawful assembly and offences of
have been committed in pursuance
common object. Hence each of them of
was liable for offence committed by
other member of assembly. They are any
guilty with the aid of section 149 I.P.C
It was also held that common object .
gathered from the nature of the asse of an unlawful assembly has to be
mbly, arms possessed by them and
behaviour of the assembly at or befo the
re the occurrence. It is an inference
has to be deduced from the facts and which
circumstances of each case. To attra
the mischief of section 149 it is not ct
necessary that each of the accused com
some illegal overt act. When the asse mit
mbly is found to be unlawful and offe
is committed by any member ther nce
eof in prosecution of the common
every member of the unlawful asse object,
mbly shall be guilty of the offe
committed by another member of nce
the assembly. It has to be borne in
that an a~sembly which is not u.i:u mind
awful when assembled may subsequ
become an unlawful assembly. ently
In Amjad Ali v. State of Assam,3 on
3-8-1989 at about 4 p.m. when three
persons namely, Tara Mia, Saket Ali
and Owaz Khan were fishing in the
Dhameswari ]heel, the accused 26
in number armed with sticks, spears
other deadly weapons attacked and
those persons inflicting serious inju
resulting in their death and thereaft ries
er dragged the dead bodies and thre
them in the river. At the time of w
occurrence, hue and cry was also said
have been raised attracting crowd, to
which included Manowara Begum
Hussain Mia. The accused attacked and
even these two and caused injuries
their person. In the FIR twenty-four on
persons were named and the others
were
r. 2005 Cr LJ 3755 (SC).
2. (2011) I Cr LJ 80 (SC).
3. 2003 Cr LJ 3545 (SC).
 Of OFFENCES AGAINST THE PUBLIC TRANQUILLITY
341
149 1
s. f them died during pendency of trial. In all eleve
n witnesses
ot ,.,ain~~;~; ~y the prosecution•. There were factio
n ridden groups over
n ere exc111 ...... -. ht to fish. The eye Wttnesses were
from arou
w rcise of ng d bodies of two deceased were recovered nd that place of
e>'e after 2/3 days and
ct1rrence· Dea . d one was not recovered .
oC Of the thlr • mcor
•
that h ld that it 1s rect tO c1aim
• th
at prior formation of an
ltt-.i ::se; bly with a commbonf object. is athmust
and should
\ll'Uawrw ndition precedent e ore roping e accused with have been
in the fold of
found as ; c~dian Penal Code. No doubt the offen
14 ce comm itted
secti0n be immediately connected with the common object but must be
shown to the common object to cause the murd whether
er in a giv~n case would
they have d can rightly be decided on the basis of
any proved rivalry between
depend ~ns the nature of weapons used, the man
ner of attack as well as all
tw0 factid~ g' circumstances. Common object has alwa
ys been considered to be
[Link] n m
erent from co~ on mten •
_ti'on and that it
• does
not require prior concert
diff nunon meeting of rnmds before the attack. Common
and lco eo instanti and being a question of fact it object could
deve op can always be inferred and
deduced from the facts and arcu • t .
ms ances pro1e cted and proved in a given
case.
In the present case, th . e assailants formed an unlawful assembly and their
conunon' object was to kill the three_ deceased beca
use of dispute relating to
fishing, In any case, the common ob1ect must have deve
loped eo instanti, i.e.,
on the spot.1
It was held_ by .the _Supreme Court in Mu~na Chan
da v. State of Assam,2
that [Link] obJect _is different. from common ~ten
tion. In case of common
object prior concert 1s not reqwred. Common ob1ec
t can develop on spur of
the moment.
Common obje ct of an unlawful assembly.-In the case at hand, all
accused persons had come together armed with the
lathis. Het Ram, who died
during the pendency of the appeal, was armed with
a gun. The eye witnesses
who were natural witnesses, being brothers, had
deposed in an unequivocal
manner about the assault by all the accused perso
ns. The common object was
clearly evident. In such a situation, attribution of
specific individual overt act
has no role to play. All the requisite tests to attra
ct Section 149, IPC were
established by the prosecution.
The Court explained that the "common object of
an unlawful assembly
can also be gathered from the nature of the assem
bly, the weapons used by
its members and the behaviour of the assembly
at or before the scene of
occurrence. It cannot be stated as a general prop
osition of law that unless an
overt act is proven against the person who is alleg
ed to be a member of the
unlawful assembly, it cannot be held that he is
a member of the assembly.
What is really required to be seen is that the
member of the unlawful
assembly should have understood that the assem
bly was unlawful and was
likely to commit any of the acts which fall within
the purview of Section 141,
IPC. The core of the offence is the word "object" whic
h means the purpose
or design and in order to make it common,
it should be_ shared by ~-
Needless to say, .the burd en is on the prosecutio
n. It is required to eStablish
l. Amjad Ali v. State of Assam, 2003 Cr LJ 3545
(SC).
2. 2006 Cr LJ 1632 (SC).
 342 INDIAN PENAL CODE

Is
whether the accused person were present and whether th • 149
common object. It is also an accepted principle that number e~dshared th
injuries is a relevant fact to deduce that the common object has d nature e
the time of incident. 1
Members knew to be likely. - The second part relates to
eveioPed ~!
where the members of the assembly knew that the offence is lika S°1luatt011
committed in prosecution of the common object. A thing is likely 1Y to be
only when it will probably . happen or. may very ~el~ happen.2 n:aPPen
t
'knew' indicates a state of mind at the time of comrruss1on of an off \Vord
not later. 3 Knowledge must be proved.4 The word "likely" means so:ce a?ld
evidence that the unlawful assembly had such a knowledge. 5 The prosee cl~ar
must prove that the accused not only knew that the offence was likel CUtion
committed but also that it was likely to be committed in prosecutior{ ~o be
0
common object of the assembly. 6 the
In K.C. Mathew,7 people gathered at dead of night armed with crack
choppers and sticks to rescue persons who were guarded by armed poll ers,
was held that they must have known that murder will be committed ~~ It
conviction for murder-cum-rioting was justified. a
8
It was_ held in Gangadh~r ~ehera v. S~ate _of Ori~sa, that the expression
'in prosecution of common obJect as appearing m section 149 has to be StrictI
cons~ed as equivalent t~ {in order to attain _the comn:1on o~ject'. It must ~
immediately connected with the common obJect by virtue of nature of th
object. There must be community of object and the object may exist only upt~
a particular stage and not thereafter.
It was further held that section 149, Indian Penal Code consists of two
parts. The first part of section means that the offence to be committed in
prosecution of the common object m~st be one which is committed with ·a
view to accomplish the common object. In order that the offence may fall
within the first part, the offence must be connected immediately with the
common object of the unlawful assembly of which the accused was a member.
Even if I the offence committed is not in direct prosecution of the common
object of the assembly, it may yet fall under section 141 if it can be held that
the offence was such as members knew was likely to be committed.
It was also made clear that though no hard and fast rule can be laid
down under the circumstances from which the common object can be called
out, it may reasonably be collected from the nature of assembly, arms it
carries and behaviour at or before or after the scene of incident. The word
'knew' used in the second branch of the section implies something more than
a possibility and it cannot be made to bear the sense of 'might have been
known', positive knowledge is necessary.
1. Om Prakash v. State of Haryana, 2014 Cr LJ 2567 (SC); See also Lalji v. State of U.P.,
(1989) 1 SCC 437; Bhargavan and others v. State of Kera/a, (2004) 12 SCC 414; Debashis
Daw v. State of West Bengal, (2010) 9 SCC 111; Ramchandran v. State of Kera/a (2011}
9 sec 257. ,
[Link] Anjore, AIR 1975 SC 185.
3. Sindu Cope, AIR 1946 Pat. 84.
4. Hardeo Singh, AIR 1920 Pat. 795.
5. Maiyadin, 1973 Cr LJ 1203.
6. Mohammed, AIR 1946 Lah. 106.
7. AIR 1956 SC 241.
8. 2003 Cr LJ 41 (SC).
 OF OFFENCES AGAINST THE PUBLIC TRANQUILL
ITY
343
1
5_149 all members not nece ssar y.-l n Ram
ert act by l 1 seventeen accused gathered at the Chandran and others
ovstate 01.r Kera a, ropriate resid
time knowm • g 1·t we11 th • • dence of accused
ctr- -v. waited for arp Immediately after seeing him at m1u re witness would
r,O· l, froJll temp ew··.....," Before inJ·ured witness coul accu sed No. 1 shouted
t,..1111 "chase d enter the house he was
~ ase h~~
iu • •
b accused No. 1 with swor~ stick. Accused
•
,

.~icted U1Juryd [aused injuries ~f very senous appellants broke

nature to him and left him
iJ1 door an . that he had died. Accused were
o~ . ress1 on having one sword stick
der ifllP ne knife and twe Ive iron . d
ro s. All these weapons were used,
~o choppers, ~itt ing offences and and causing
L•• ...-, for CO • • • c•ircumst injuries to victim. Deceased
t,y the
1
any as 34 m1u nes.
•·
• ed asd tm ance s show that appellants had
receiv
O prosecute a common ob'1ect .
• ·pate
this case O ffence was committed by a mem
partlCl . •
held that m
It was sembly h • prosecuti ber of
1 thoug not in on of common object yet can fall
un}awfu 0as d part of section 149 l.P.C. if it can
be held that offence was such
under 5~ ; knew was likely to be committed.
Expression 'know' does not
aS rnem emere poss1'bili'ty' such as m1g • ht or m1g • h t not happen.
rnean~;wever, once it is established that the unla
wful assembly had common
. 1·tis not necessary that all persons forming
obJechown t, the unlawful assembly must
to have conum•tted some ~~ert act. For the
be sVlC • an·ous liability under the prov1s10n, the liabi purpose of incurring
the lity of other members of
the unlawful assembly for the offence committ
ed during the occurrence rests
the fact whether the other members knew befo
re hand that the offence
~=l ly committed was likely to be committed
in pros ecution of the common
object.2 . .
It was also held that m c~se of an offence com
mitted by a member of
unlawful assembly common O?Ject may form
on the spur of moment. Prior
concert in the sense of_ r:ie:ting of members
necessary, it is enough if 1t 1s adopted. of unlawful assembly is not
It was held in Siyaram v. State of M.P.,3 that
in order to hold a person
liable under Section 149 IPC a person alleg
ed to be member of unlawful
assembly should have understood that assembly
was unlawful and was likely
to commit any act. Mere presence in an unla
wful assembly cannot render a
person liable unless there was a common obje
ct and he was actuated by that
common object. The wor d 'common object'
under this section means the
purpose or design. In orde r to make it com
mon, it must be shared by all.
Unlawful assembly may be formed at any stag
e by all or a few members of
the assembly and other members may join
and adopt it. Members of an
unlawful assembly may have community of obje
ct upto a certain point beyond
which they may differ in their objects.
It was also pointed out that it is not necessary
that intention or purpose
which is necessary to rend er an assembl
y an unlawful one comes into
existence at the outset. Time of forming an
unlawful intent is not material.
Five or more persons. - For the applicati
on of this section it is ~ssential
to prove that there were at least five persons
sharing the common ob1ect. Th:
presence of five or more persons mus t be unqu
estionably proved although 1t
1. (2011) 4 Cr LJ 4845 (SC).
2. See also Daya Kisan v. State of Haryana, AIR
2010 SC 2147.
3. (2009) 2 Cr LJ 2071 (SC).

a
 344 INDIAN PENAL CODE

I s. 149
may h appe n that Some of them are unid . enti fiab le or that their -d
1 entih,
d btfu l • In such cases even less than five pers ons may be convicted
•tOU
• d btfu l that ther e wer e at 1east fi ve pers . n - . B"twas
i''
1 1s ou ons no convictio \.( if
und er this Section. Onc e it is show n that. an o t·i:1ence h as been comn-. .tPoss·b
18
som e mem bers of an unla wfu l asse mbl y in
pros ecu
ti
. on
f h •• ,1 tect1h..le
then whe ther the prin cipa l offe nder has been o t e common ob· "Y
conv icted for that ,offe )ect
not, the othe r mem bers may be pun ishe d
prov ided they are founct t~c~ or
had the nece ssar y inte ntio n or kno wled ge.
Cas es.- in Bharwad Mepa v. State of Bombay,2 a,.,e
char ged with havi ng form ed unla wfu l asse twel ve nam ed perso ns
mbl y with the com mon obje;e~e
com mitt ing the mur der of thre e pers ons.
Out of twel ve only four wer!
conv icted by the Hig h Cou rt and ther efor
e an appe al was made to th
Sup rem e Cou rt, amo ng othe rs, on the. grou
cann ot be sust aine d und er this sect ion.
nd th~t conv ictio n ot
less than fi,.,:
In this case the Hig h Court has
reac hed to the conc lusio n that thou gh the
n~m b~r of pers ons composing the
asse mbl y was defi nite ly five or mor e the
iden tity of all of them was not
esta blish ed and ther efor e less than five pers
ons wer e conv icted . The Supreme
Cou rt held that conv ictio n of four.. only
circ ums tanc es was main tain able . How ever by the Hig h Cou rt in such
in Ramaswami v. State of Tamil
Nad u, 3 the six accu sed pers ons coul d not
be cons ider ed conf eder ates in the
com mon obje ct beca use thre e of them had
been acqu itted by trial court.
The abov e prin cipl e has been reite rate d
Dharampal v. State of U.P., 4 the Sup rem e by the Sup rem e Court in
Cou rt held that if the cour t holds
that the assa ilan ts wer e actu ally five in num
ber but ther e coul d be doubt as
to the iden tity of two of the alleg ed assa
ilan ts and ther efor e acqu its two of
them , the othe rs will not get the bene fit
of dou bt abo ut the iden tity of the
two accu sed so long as ther e a firm find
ing base d on goo d evid ence and
sou nd reas onin g that the part icip ants wer
e five or mor e in num ber.
In Kallu v. State of Madhya Pradesh, 5 27 pers
ons wer e tried for assaulting
com plai nant . The y wer e carr ying vari ous
wea pon s with the com mon object
of caus ing inju ry. It was clea r from evid ence
that mor e than five pers ons took
part in the inci dent . But only four of them
wer e foun d guil ty and convicted.
It was held that conv ictio n of four only und
er Sect ion 149 IPC doe s not mean
that ther e was no unla wfu l asse mbl y. The
mer e fact that seve ral accu sed were
:1cquitted doe s not enab le the four who
are foun d guil ty to cont end that
,ecti on 149 IPC is inap plic able .
In Jadu Sahani v. State of Bihar, 6 prio r to the
occu rren ce ther e was no
-iction betw een the two part ies. The accu
sed pers ons cam e to the spo t duly
:me d thou gh not with a purp ose of caus ing
any inju ry to any bod y:bu t had,
: is usu al with villa gers , carr ied wea pon s
whi le out on a fish ing spot . They
ere obje cted to by com plai nan t part y resu
lting in exch ang e of hea ted wor ds.
was held that it cann ot be conc eive d that
the unla wfu l asse mbl y whic h
!W up spon tane ousl y had the
sole obje ct of caus ing mur ders but it can
ed inst antl y that the com mon obje ct of the be
asse mbl y was to caus e assa ult
. Dalip Singh, AIR 1954 SC 364.
. (1960) 2 SCR 172.
. 1976 Cr LJ 1563.
AIR 1975 SC 1917.
2006 Cr LJ 799 (SC).
1999 Cr LJ 593 (SC).
 Of OFFENCES AGAIN
ST THE PUBLIC lR
ANQU\llllY
345
5 149 I ty. The degree an
cornplain~t P:grou d gravity of assa
nd . It th ult would have to
0 n the ed in thi 5 bda en transpires that th
ea sed was attributed e so le fatal injury on
pe gat1gl)dgar s·ingh ecinju ' to Laxm i
[Link]'l a11d the so1
ry on B•iku s·mgh d Y ad av by means of
an
e an s of ecease d was attr
0
arr ~ ; again by ~ e at an arro w . T he respective arro ib ut ed to Ja du
5ahc:u ~, ion of both the de ws were detected
ex an
t-tnortern d and un ceas ed. T refore it lo on
Jadu Sahan i• were • d"1 1•d he gically follows
:; t L ~ Yap~~-
each and they ha m v ua11Y guilty fo
d ~ghtly been co r offence un de r
section 302,}·h with nvicted for offenc
the ai~ of the se e of
fl'\urder thoff~nce un ction 149, l.~.C. Th
der section 302 an ey are in di vi du ~
gtrllty for -~ t touc d not read with se
ct
y
acc\lsed di_ no 0 /1 h deceased at all. Therefore they w ion 149. Remaimng
49, Indian Penal ere acquitted of ch
sectton 3 7
\lf\derln Bh
Code. arge
arosi v. State of M.P i b f
., a out our mon
h d taken place be
tw ths [Link] to the in
quarrel a in relatio ee n the dece cident some
n to raising of bo ased Baburam and the appellant N
4 D at :~ ec ea se d undary wall. On o.
accompanied. by R 12-4-1983 at abou
[Link]. some labour am het ha d ?one to V t 7
ers for cutting cr id ya ram (PW -8) to
engVa?de ram when op and while retu
of 1 ya ' the deceased cam rning from the ho
h uted to the rem • • e ne ar the chabutara of use
auung accused wh appellant No. 4
:e : ~nemy and he o were there that
sh the deceased was
No. 6 Ramjilal assa ould not be allowe~ to go an~ ki
ulted the deceased ll him. The appella
fell down on the gr with the lathi on nt
ound all _the appe his head. When
intervening, the ap lla he
pellants di d no t st nts ass~ulted him. In spite of Ram
deceased had died op assaulting. Whe het
the appellants dr n they found that
near Tiwaria of ap a~ged his body fr the
pellant No. 1 Bha om the spot to pl
(PW-10) brother of r~s1. ~e re af te r th ace
de ey ran
and l(alicharan (f W ceased lodged ~rst_ information repo away. Bachchulal
-13) were eye witn rt.
The trial court ac esses of the incide Vidyaram (PW-8)
quitted them bu t nt.
acquittal and held the High Court re
them guilty unde versed the order
The Supreme Cou r section 302/149, of
rt, in appeal, held In di an Penal Code.
that it is appellant that it is clear from
No. 6 who hit th the evidence
on that account th e deceased with
e deceased died. lathi on his head
The doctor has al an
that the cause of
death of the dece so categorically op d
is nothing in evid ased was due to ined
ence to indicate this head injury.
of incident on the th at the deceased was T here
date of occurrence to go to the plac
as per the prosecut at the given time. e
ion version ha d la The appellants ev
injuries other than this in their hands. en
the head injury Having regard to
and the parts of th
injuries were caused
, it could not be the body on which e
intention or know said that the appe the
ledge to kill the llants 1 to 5 ha d ei
of appellant no. deceased. Appella ther
1 and appellant nts 3 and 6 are th
Appellants 4 and no. 2 is the brot e sons
5 belong to a diff her of appellant
be held guilty fo erent family. The no. 1.
r an offence un appellants 1 to 5
individual acts an der Section 147 could
d no t for an offe having regard to
as there was no co nc e under Section 30 their
mmon object to at 2, Indian Penal C
appellant no. 6 R tr ode
amji Lal was he act Section 149, l~dian Penal ~ode.
Code. ld guilty under Se But
ction 302, Indian
In Bhimrao v. State Pe nal
of Maharashtra,2 the
appellant/accused
along with some
1. 2002 Cr LJ 43
22 (SC).
2. 2003 Cr LJ 1204 (SC).
 346 INDIAN PENAL CODE
.
others formed an un1awfu1 assemb_ly Wlth a ~ommon . I S. l49
murder of Prabhakar Gawande. Wtth that ob1ect they ob1ec t of comm it.
went to his houstlng th~
members of the unlawful asse~~ly_ entered the
assaulted him causing grievous m1unes, consequenthouse ~f Prab hat Soll\e
to
six days Jater. Original common object ~f ac_rused. perso which he die ar ~d
ns was Only tad ~[Link]
Prabhakar but some of them afte~ ~nt~nng mto his
hous
common object to cause grievous tnJunes. Accused and e developed d~[Link]
standing outside the house and could not know whatsome others weteren_t
house. It was held that the act of those me~ bers transpired i . e Ol'\}y
assembly who entered the house cannot be attributed of original ~e the
to the memb awftt1
stood outside. Therefore, the aJ?pellan~ will be
sharing the original common obJect which was_ only liable to be puru :! "Who
They will be liable to be convicted unde r section to assau lt the deed for
352 read with s . ec\sed.
and not under section 326 read Wt"th secti•on 149• ection 1
In Racham Reddi Chenna Reddy v. State of Andh 49
ra Pradesh 1 b
months prior to the date of occurrence there was .
some dispute 'betw a out •
six
deceased and the accused relating to the passage to
the house of accus:~n the
1 to 3. The two deceased persons who were broth
ers of PW-1 natuNos.
supported PW-1. Again a week before occurrenc
e also there had b rally
altercation between the two factions on acco ~t of
some theft. On th:~ an
of occurrence PW-1 went to the house of his br?th
~r who is one of ate
deceased and both of them went _together to their
returning, the accused persons ten m num ber arme fi~ld. ~le they w~e
d with sickle, battle re
daggers and sticks, mercilessly assaulted the dece
ased. Accused No. ~es,
hacked the deceased with a sickle and then 1
others attacked with thr~t
weapons. PW-1 start ed runn ing away to save his
life. He was chased b::
could not be caught. The accused persons then bruta
lly assaulted the sec d
deceased who was returning with PW-3. It was held
that the manner in w~~
the accused persons appe ared at the scene of occu
rrence with lethal weapo
in their hand s and mercilessly assaulted the dece
ased after surrounding ~
clearly exhibits their common object to kill the dece
ased. Deceased No. 2 was
also killed almo st in identical situation and circumsta
nces. Therefore there was
no erro r in convicting the accused unde r section
302/149, Indian Penal Code.
In Rajendra Shantaram Todankar v. State of Maharashtra,2
one Mukesh Puran
and Asho k Gaur av were residing in two adjoining
localities of Bombay and
were ring lead ers of their respective gang s
invo lved in various illegal
activities. Five of the eigh t accused pers ons were
arme d severally with deadly
weap ons. They initially assa ulted the dece ased whe
n he was standing on the
grou nd floor of a mult istor ied build ing. Afte r assa
ultin g they chased him by
follo wing him on the stair case lead ing to four
th floor till the deceased fell
in a pool of bloo d. It was held that in this case
inference can be drawn that
accu sed pers ons were mem bers of unla wful
asse mbly formed with the
com mon object of fatally injur ing dece ased so as
to caus e his death. Therefore,
their conv ictio n unde r secti on 302 read with secti
on 149 of Indian Penal Code
is susta inab le. It was also obse rved that defin
ite and specific finding as to
whic h parti cula r accu sed caus ed fatal injur y need
not be recorded in such a
situa tion .

1. 1999 Cr LJ 1445 (S.C).

2. (2003) 2 sec 257.
 OF OFFENCES AGAINST THE PUB
LIC TRANQUILUlY
149 I 347
. bhai Desurbhai Wagh v. Vale~abha
In Na;a b unlawful assembly i Deganbhai Wagh & Ors.,1 there
leading to death of one and
as assau~e yfacts of the cas injuries to
e were that electric pole
otherinant (appellant) ~a s broke~ nea r hoµse of
oi:npla dow n by tractor of the res pondeht (one
The complainant cautioned the
ut of 14 tut the respondent too respondent to drive the trac
k it as offensive and came few tor
arefully, . n-pipe and spear and hours later
·th axe, iro . attacked the complainant and
ons. Co mp h d others with
ese. weaP lain ant par ty s oute for help and seeing
the accused persons fled from th villagers
oi:ntng, • • d e spot · In'Jured persons were
hospital where one in1ure per taken
0 son d. . ied w hile other undergoing trea
'al Court found all accused gm tment.
lty of
etn
.th Section 149/34 for causin • g dt hT h offence under Section 302 read
ea • ey were also held gui ' sin
juries to others and convicted lty of cau g
un der Sections 324 and 325, rea
49 of IPC. d with Section
On appeal, the ~upreme Co
urt . held that only one who
der could be held liable und er committed
Section 302 and others were hel
0 ur common object un der Section 149
d not liable
:wever, held guilty of offence to commit murder. Others we
und er Section 326, read with Sec re
In Mohd. Yakub v. State of And
hra Pradesh,2 the deceased and acc
tion 149 IPC.
,
ersons were friends. The dec used
eased and Mohd. Ghouse the
th had illicit intimacy wit h a accused No. 1
lady home guard whose brothe
s led to relations between the r is P.W. 1.
deceased and accused no. 1
;trained. On 14-10-1993 shortly becoming
after midday PW 1, PW 2 and
Sthers including the deceased PW 4 and two
had gone to cinema. When
~ccused No. 1 dealt a blow they came ou t
on the forehead of the deceas
;od. The deceased started run ed with an iron
ning_ away for his life toward
~ccused Nos. 2 to 8 who we s police club.
re differently armed and were
::hased the deceased and attacke lying in wait
d him. The deceased was assaul
1e had fallen down. Two of the accuse ted even after
md abdomen of the deceased d had cau sed inc ised inju ries on chest
wit h knife. Injuries affected hea
he deceased and proved fatal. rt and lung of
It was held tha t from the fac
ts and circumstances of the cas
hat the accused persons had e it is clear
formed an unlawful assembly
-vhereof were armed wit h dea , the members
dly weapons. The two accuse
1imed at vital organs of the bod d appellants had
y of the deceased while inflicti
njuries caused by the m have ng injuries and
proved fatal. The attack by the
vas indiscriminate and they accused persons
were determined to kill the
nflicting injuries they chased deceased. While
the deceased and did not allo
md they continued to assault w him to escape
him even after he had fallen on
1iew
of the matter the two accuse ground. In this
d appellants are liable to be con
nurder und er section 300 rea victed for
d with section 149.
In Tanaji Govind Misal v. Sta
te of Maharashtra,3 an open site
locally known as Padik) along of land
wit h babul trees standing thereo
1I1d was in possession of Shesh n _belong~d to
appa Vithoba Misal PW-15 and
iour of the accused A-1, A-3, his associates.
A-5, and A-6 cut some branch
md left them there. After som es of those trees
e days PW-15 and his associates
removed those
1. (2011) 3 sec 261.
2. 2002 Cr LJ 3731 (SC).
3. 1998 Cr LJ 340 (SC).
,
348 INDIAN PENAL CODE

branches from the Padik and brought them to another IS. 149
open
house of one Sida Pondurang A-6 when asked PW-15 about .
branches of babul, _the latter replied that the trees _belonged r Site near th
to e:ova} of the
also questioned the right of A-6 to cut them. On the
follow· elll and. he
twentynine accused persons along with three others came
to the inf llloll\ine
branches were stacked, armed with deadly weapons such
as axe P ace wher~
bars and sticks and started removing them. On gettin
g that :ars , iron
PW-15, his brothers and associates reached there and
asked th 0 rtnanon
persons not to remove the branches. Immediately thereupon
A-1 ~accused.
axe blow on the head of Ganpati felling him down. When
the rescue of Ganpati A-2 inflicted an axe blow on his Vitho b cted an
head· whoa _went to
slumped down. All the accused persons th~n started
assaulting ~tanuy
Vithoba and other members of the complamant party
as a conse anpati,
whereof Ganpati and Vithoba breathed their last on the spot,
while Kast°ce
(PW-8), Sarja Rao (PW-12), Murlidhar (PW-14), Shesh
appa (PW-IS) ath
Jalinder (PW-17) sustained injuries.. During the incident
accused A-3 to and.
also received injuries. It was held that the evidence show
ed that the m :-7
of accused party was to remove babul branches from field O
at any cost ve
cause such injury as may be necessary for that purpose.
Some of the acCU:~
started assault immediately after reaching the spot. Othe
r persons cannot be
conclusively said to have known that murders were likely
to be committed
in prosecution of their common object so as to attrac
t the second part of
section 149. Such accused would be liable to be convi
cted unc1~r section
326/149 and not unde r section 302/149, I.P.C. But accus
ed who acted beyond
common object of unlawful assembly, however were liable
to be convicted
unde r section 302 read with section 34, Indian Penal Code
.
In Bhagwan Singh v. State of M.P., 1 the accused persons
were on inimical
terms with complainant party and they came on the place
of occurrence with
some deadly weapons and attacked the complainant
party in which three
persons were killed. It was held that generally no direc
t evidence is available
regarding the existence of common object which, in
each case, has to be
ascertained from the attending facts and circumstances.
When a concerted
attack is made on the victim by a large number of perso
ns armed with deadly
weapons, it is often difficult to determine the actual
part played by each
offender ·and easy to hold that such persons attacking
the victim had the
common object for an offence which was known to be likely
to be committed
in prosecution of such an object. It is true that mere innoc
ent person, in an
assembly of persons of being a by-stander does not
make such person a
member of an unlawful assembly but where the persons
forming the assembly
are shown to be having identical interest in pursuance of
which some of them
come armed others though not armed would, under the
normal circumstances,
be deemed to be the members of the unlawful assembly.
In the present call
the accused persons were held to share common object.
In Kattukulangara Mahadevan v. Majeed & Ors., 2 there was 1
,-·"'f.
political rivalary
between CPI(M) and RSS political parties. Twenty-one
accused persons along
with others belonging to CPI (M) had assembled at the
place of occurrence
and were searching for RSS workers travelling in buses
passing through there
1. 2002 Cr LJ 2024 (SC).
2. (2017)s sec 568.
 Of OFFENCES AGAINST THE PUBLIC TRAN
QUILLITY
s 149 I 349
• . ct of unlawful assembly was to
cotrtJllon obJe passing through that attack RSS workers wh o were
place. Five accused persons attacke
BJP supporteulrshng in his death. The High Cou d the
ed res UJ.'
d rt held that merely because
deceas d'd not plan to mu r er a 'f
spe a ic person, there was no com
accused i mon
objectOn appeal, ~e Supreme Court
held this view of High Court erro
considenng that the accused had atta neous.
Bo~ever~imple injuries on non-vital cked the deceased with sticks
parts, they were liable to be con
cau;:rg5ection 326/149 and sentenced victed
to seven years imprisonment. The
un plained that mere presence of unlawf Apex
court cific
ex ove ·11 ul assembly without attribution
rt act may sti be enough to fasten · ·
~: ; Section 149, IPC. Common obje cnmmal liability vicariously
ct of unlawful assembly can be gat
from nature of _as~embly, arms _used by hered
them and the~_behaviour before and
at the time of madent. In the mstant case, mere participation
. the assembly was mc • ul t of the accused
pa ory.
m While considering the applica
bility of necessary ingredients of
149, IPC, the S~preme Court referred to th~ c~se of
Section
Bihar,1 wherein 1t was held that befo Kuld eep Yad av v. State of
~e convicting the accused with the
Section 149, the Court mu st have aid of
given a clear finding regarding nat
the common object, and that the said ure of
object was unlawful. The mere fact
the accused were armed wit h dea tha t
dly weapons would not be sufficie
prove common object unless there nt to
was an overt act on part of any of
In order to attract the provisions them.
of Section 149, every member of the
unlawful assembly must be shown
to have knowledge that an incrimi
act was done to acc?mflish the com nating
mon_ object of unlawful assembly or
knew about the likelihood of a they
particular offence being committed
furtherance of a common object. in
In the instant case, although the two
out of six accused were acquitted,
but the provision of Section 149 was
still attracted as they knew about
incriminating act being accomplished the
. •
The ratio of the case, therefore,
was that membership of unlawful
assembly falling below 5 due to acq
uittal of some, the remaining can still
convicted under Section 149 •if be
offence is proved to be commit
accomplish common object of the asse ted to
mbly which every member knew.
In Vinubhai Ranchodbhai Patel v. Raju
bhai Dudabhai Patel & Ors.,2 there
were 17 accused persons who had
allegedly murdered three persons
caused injuries to five others. There and
was omnibus accusation that all acc
committed offences falling und er Sec used
tions 143, 147 and 148 of IPC and
vicariously liable by virtue of Section were
149 for offence of murder under Sec
302, IPC. The Supreme Court stro tion
ngly depreciated the decision of the
Court for absence of clear finding trial
regarding existence o~ "w fu l asse
and number and identity of partici mbly
pants in the offence. -"Jt: .
The Supreme Court in Joseph v. Stat .

along with Shayam & Ors. v. State and e (Rep. by Inspecto : of Police),
3
~ecrded
Edwinson & Ors., reiterated requiremen
for invoking vicarious liability und er t
Section 149 and held that once the Cou
finds that ingredients of Section 149 rt
are fulfilled, every person who at
the
1. (2011) AIR sew 2404.
2. (2018) 7 sec 743.
3. (2018) 12 sec 283.
 350 INDIAN PENAL CODE
I s. lSO
time of committing that offence will be a member of the unlawful
and held guilty of the offence. After that, it will not be open to the ~ selllhiy
see as to who actually committed the offence (act). However, before re 0 llrt_ to
conviction under Section 149 essential ingredients of Section 141 ; 0rding
established. Whether members' of unIawful assemblY reaIIY had common ·• ustb' he
1

to cause offence has to be decided in the light of facts and circumstan ° Ject
ces of
the case including :-
(i) nature of weapons used by such member;
(ii) manner and sequence of attack made by these members on Viefun.
(iii) circumstances under which occurrence took place. '
In the instant case, there was dispute between ~he two families With
regard to fishing at sea and appellant Joseph alo~g with others_ had ·heared
a bomb to kill the opponents. Held, common obJect under Section 149 was
not proved hence the appellant (accused) could not be convicted under Section
302, read with Section 149, IPC, instead, he was convicted under Section
302/109 of IPC.
Distinction between Section 34 and 149.-In Virendra Singh v. State of
Madhya Pradesh, 1 the distinction between section 34 and 149 of Indian Penal
Code was made clear as follows :
When several persons numbering five or more do an act or intend to
do it both sections 34 and 149 I.P.C. may apply. Section 149 I.P.C. is of wider
import than section 34 I.P.C. and in case where section 149 applies a
constructive liability arises in respect of those persons who do not actually
commit the offence. The distinction between the two lies in-
(i) section 34 does not but itself create any specific offence whereas
section 149 does so.
(ii) Some active participation especially in crime involving physical
violence is necessary under section 34 but Section 149 does not require
it and the liability arises by reason of mere membership of the unlawful
assembly with a common object and there may be no active participation
at all in preparation and commission of crime.
(iii) Section 34 speaks of common intention but Section 149
contemplates common object which is undoubtedly wider in its scope
and amplitude than intention; and
(iv) Section 34 doe_s not_ fix a minimum number of persons who
must share the common mtention whereas Section 149 requires that there
must be at least five persons who must have some common object.
150. Hiring, or. conniving at hiring of persons to join uni,wful
assembly.-Whoev er hires or engages, or employs, or promotes or c • t
. • engagement or empl oyment of any _pers ' or ODDJves
the h 1ring, to join become a8
member of any unlawful assembly, shall b~ punish, a member of such
unlawful assembly, and for any offen which may itted b
person as a member of sueh. unIaw
_.r b . Y any such
em ly 1n e of such hiring,
engagement or employment, in t~ been a member
of such unlawful assembly, or lu ~e.. -

Ingredients. - The follow· :~.

(1) The accuse~ mu

l. (20l 1) I Cr LJ 952 (SC).