UNIT 15
Section 141. Unlawful assembly.--An assembly of five or more persons is designated an "unlawful
assembly"
1. Shows criminal force
2. To resist the execution of any law, or of any legal process
3. To commit any mischief or criminal trespass
4. To take or obtain possession of any property,
5. To compel any person to do anything illegally
INGREDIENTS :-
1. That there was an assembly of five or more persons;
2. They must have a common object; and
3. The common object must be one of the five specified in the section
Assembly of five or more persons: -
At least five or more persons, who should meet for a common object.
All need not have the same object to begin with; it is enough, if the common object is developed
subsequently
If there is less than 5 then, Section 141 is inapplicable, unless there are some other unidentified
or unnamed persons involved in the commission of the crime
Mohan Singh v State of Punjab ,
Wherein five named persons were charged under section 302 read with section 149, IPC, for
committing murder as members of unlawful assembly, and two of them were acquitted by the
high court by giving them the benefit of doubt
The Supreme Court held that the remaining three accused, in the absence of any evidence to
show that there were, besides those five named, some other unnamed or unidentified persons
involved in the act, could not be convicted as members of the unlawful assembly
Subran Subramanian v State of Kerala .
In this case, six named accused were alleged to have formed an unlawful assembly and
killed the deceased.
While the first accused was convicted under s 302, others were convicted for
committing offence under s 326 read with 149, IPC, amongst other offences.
The High Court of Kerala, however, acquitted two persons without a finding that there
were some other unknown persons also involved in the offence, implying that the two
persons were not part of the assembly.
Unlawful assembly is not proved
However, opined that the acquittal of some of the five or more persons named in the charge and
tried, and thereby reducing the number less than five, does not necessarily either displace or
affect the validity of the charge under section 149
Common Object
The word 'object' means purpose or design
“Common', all the persons who compose an unlawful assembly must share it.
The 'same' object may not necessarily be 'common' object as it becomes common object
when everybody in the room knows it
The presence of common object is a sine qua non of unlawful assembly
A mere meeting of five or more than five persons to only deliberate or arrange some plans for
future actions to be carried does not constitute as an unlawful assembly
Test to find unlawful common object: -
1. from the nature of the assembly,
2. the kind of arms it carried and the manner they are used,
3. behaviour of the assembly members prior or at or after the incident, and
4. acts and language the members used while using the arms carried
If only four out of five assembled persons have the common object and not the fifth, it is not
an unlawful assembly
Allauddin Mian v State of Bihar ,
The Supreme Court considered the case of the six accused persons forming an unlawful
assembly with the common object of killing the father of the deceased girls (victims), and since
they could not achieve this, two of the accused killed the young daughters of the person the
accused originally wanted to kill.
The court sought to examine whether all members shared the same object
Reasoning :-There must be a nexus between the common object and the offence committed and if
it is found that the same was committed to accomplish the common object, every member of the
assembly will become liable for the same
1) Illegal Compulsion
It applies to all the rights a man can possess, whether they concern the enjoyment of property or
not
No one can use criminal force to illegally compel another to do or forbear from doing any act
connected or unconnected with property
It could not be unlawful unless use of force was accompanied by some criminal intent.
2) Overawing the Central or a State Government or its Officers
'overawe' means the creation of apprehension or alarm or fear.
A person is said to overawe another when he restrains the other by awe, fear or superior
influence.
However, from the mere presence of a crowd, intention to overawe will not be presumed
Mere shouting of objectionable and provocative slogans by the members does not amount to
overawing the police but pelting stones at them resulting in actual injuries to members of police
force would be
To re-arrest a person who escaped from his custody, a crowd of villagers carrying lathis began to
assemble and the sub-inspector arresting the man considered their appearance formidable; is
not considered overawing
3. Resistance to the Execution of Legal Process
word 'resistance' connotes some overt act
Mere words with no inclination to put them into effect do not amount to 'resistance
Execution of law or legal process' connote the carrying out the provisions of law or execution of
an act warranted by law and measures according to law
To prove resistance:
a. there was a law that could be executed,
b. there was execution of the law, and
c. there was resistance to it
4. Commission of Mischief, Criminal Trespass or Any Other Offence
The clause is not restricted only to 'mischief' and 'criminal trespass'
In view of s 40, IPC, the clause is held to cover all offences, both against person and property.
Imprisonment for a term of six months or upwards whether with or without fine
Section 149. Every member of unlawful assembly guilty of offence committed in prosecution of
common object
Communal violence:-----
Sukhdeo v State of Maharashtra ,
there was an attack by about 40 armed members of the Wanjari community on the
members of the Budha community (a Dalit or Harijan community).
There was prior tension between the communities, as the Wanjaris believed that the later
community was involved in committing thefts and dacoities in nearby villages, thereby
earning a bad name for the village.
In the attack, four Buddhas died, and as many as six persons had sustained serious injuries.
The Supreme Court held that the evidence of eye witnesses, though all belonging to the
victim community, could not be disbelieved on that ground alone. Evidence of
eyewitnesses was proved by medical evidence.
The courts therefore had to exercise caution, and, if after close scrutiny of the evidence, a reasonable
doubt arose with regard to participation of a particular person or persons alleged to be part of the
assembly, then the benefit of doubt has to be given to the accused persons
Free Fight :-
Determination of common object:-
1. number and nature injuries
2. nature of weapons used
3. manner and sequence of attack
4. nature of common object was unlawful
5. exact sequence of events
Common knowledge of offence likely to be committed:-
1. the offence must be connected immediately with the common object of the unlawful
assembly of which the accused was a member
2. the commission of an act which may not necessarily be the common object of the assembly,
if members of the assembly knew that the act is likely to be committed. The word 'knew'
used in the second limb of the section implies something more than a possibility and it
cannot be made to bear the sense of 'might have been known'.
3. Positive knowledge is necessary. If such knowledge cannot be reasonably attributed to
others of the unlawful assembly, then their liability for the offence committed in prosecution
of common object does not arise
Common intention vs common object :-
Common intention (section 34) Common object (section 149)
No fixed number Section 149 requires an assembly of five
persons
Section 34 'Common object' must be one specified in s 141
It need not be a criminal act in actual The offence actually committed is required by s
furtherance of the common object 149 to be one which the members of the
unlawful assembly knew to be likely to be
committed in prose
Section 34 requires some act, however small, to Mere membership is required
be done, is sufficient as its essence lies in
simultaneous consensus of the minds of
persons
Section 34 enunciates a mere rule of evidence Creates specific offence
or a principle of liability, but creates no distinct
offence
Need to have There is no need to have prior concert and
meeting of minds of the parties before
committing offence
Effect of Omission to Charge Accused for Substantive Offence When Charge Using Section 149 Fails
Nanak Chand v State of Punjab
One Sadhu Ram was killed on 5 November 1953, and it was alleged by the prosecution that
his death was due to the assault by the appellant and his associates.
The charge of rioting was not proved and the accused and his companions were acquitted of
the specific charge under s 302/149, IPC. But the accused was convicted under s 302 alone
and sentenced to death
Since s 149 by itself creates a specific offence, and when an accused who was charged under
that section is acquitted, it is not open to the trial court to alter ss 302/149, into one of s 302
He was sought to be punished as being a member of unlawful assembly which caused the
death of an individual.
There was no evidence that the accused actually caused the death of the deceased by
inflicting the injuries found on the body of the deceased caused by a blunt iron weapon
called takwa
The Supreme Court held that this conviction was wrong and quashed it allowing the appeal
of the accused
Willie (William) Staney v State of Madhya Pradesh .
The accused in this case, who was 22 years old, was in love with the sister of the deceased,
who did not like his intimacy. On the day of occurrence, there was a quarrel between the
deceased and the accused, and the accused was asked to go away from the house.
Shortly afterwards, the accused returned with his younger brother and called the sister to
come out. Instead of the sister, the deceased brother came out. There was heated exchange
of words.
The accused slapped the deceased on the cheek. The accused then snatched a hockey stick
from his younger brother and gave one blow on his head with the hockey stick with the
result that his skull was fractured. The deceased died in the hospital 10 days late
The brother was not convicted under section 34 and 149 as the court failed to mention
section 149
OMISSION OF COMMON OBJECT (CASE STUDY)
Chikkarange Gowda v State of Mysore
Two brothers, who were found in the house of a concubine, were attacked by a mob of more
than hundred persons and were killed in the subsequent fire of the house and tumult. The
charges against four of the appellants were that they were members of the aforesaid mob
which caused the death of both the brothers.
The common object of the unlawful assembly was merely to administer a chastisement to
the deceased. The charge did not mention that the members of the unlawful assembly knew
that the deceased was likely to be killed in prosecution of that common object.
The deceased was killed by the fatal injury caused by certain members of the unlawful
assembly
The Supreme Court held that none of the members of the unlawful assembly had the
intention to kill the deceased nor did any of them know that the deceased was likely to be
killed in the prosecution of the common object of chastisement. Thus, as the charge gave no
notice to the accused
On Nature of Proof of Common Object in Group or Communal Clashes:-
Mahantappa v State of Karnataka .
In this case, the accused were alleged to have formed an unlawful assembly, assaulted the deceased
with sword and thereafter threw his dead body into a hut which was set on fire. The evidence of eye
witnesses was amply corroborated by the objective findings of the investigating officer about the
burnt houses and that of the doctor regarding injuries found on the person of the deceased
Court gave following establishments :-
1. There should be 2 or more witness establish the presence of a particular accused and also support
the allegation of specific role
2. One witness cannot be held as it would not be safe to sustain the conviction of the accused,
considering that a large number of persons involved
3. no witness means acquittal
Section 153A. Promoting enmity between different groups on grounds of religion, race, place of
birth, residence, language, etc., and doing acts prejudicial to maintenance of harmony
1. by words, either spoken, or written, or by signs or by visible representations or otherwise,
promotes or attempts to promote, on grounds of religion, race, place of birth, residence, language,
caste or community or any other ground whatsoever, disharmony
2. commits any act which is prejudicial to the maintenance of harmony between different religious,
racial, etc likely to affect tranquillity and peace
3. organises any exercise, movement, drill or other similar activity intending that the participants in
such activity shall use or be trained to use criminal force or violence or knowing it to be likely that
the participants against any religious, racial, language or regional group or caste or community
It takes in promotion of such feelings on other grounds such as race, place of birth, residence,
language, caste or community.
However, a fair and rational criticism of religious tenets, couched in temperate or restrained
language, will not make the criticism fall within the ambit of the section
Babu Rao Patel v State (Delhi Administration)
the accused had published an article in a newspaper that militant minorities thrive on
communalism and specifically referred to Muslims generally as a 'basically violent community',
apart from other aspersions to the Muslim community apart from other aspersions to the
Muslim community.
The author had also criticised the naming of roads in Delhi after Mogul emperors, who according
to the author, were lustful perverts, rapists and murderers
The court held accused guilty of spreading hate
Section 153AA. Punishment for knowingly carrying arms in any procession or organizing or holding or
taking part in any mass drill or mass training with arms
Section 153B. Imputations, assertions prejudicial to national-integration
(a)makes or publishes any imputation that any class of persons cannot, by reason of their being
members of any religious, racial, language or regional group or caste or community, bear true faith
and allegiance to the Constitution of India as by law established or upholds the sovereignty and
integrity of India, or
(b) asserts, counsels, advises, propagates or publishes that any class of persons shall, by reason of
their being members of any religious, racial, language or regional group or caste or community, be
denied or deprived of their rights as citizens of India, or
(c) makes or publishes any assertion, counsel, plea or appeal concerning the obligation of any class of
persons, by reason of their being members of any religious, racial, language or regional group or or
caste or community, and such assertion, counsel, plea or appeal causes or is likely to cause
disharmony or feelings of enmity or hatred or ill-will between such members and other persons caste
or community, and such assertion, counsel, plea or appeal causes or is likely to cause disharmony or
feelings of enmity or hatred or ill-will between such members and other persons
Imprisonment which may extend to three years, or with fine or with both
