Unlawful Assembly under Indian Penal Code | Criminal Law for Judiciary Exams PDF Download

Introduction

• An unlawful assembly, as per Section 141 of the Penal Code, involves five or more individuals collectively committing an offense to maintain public peace and order.
• Vicarious responsibility is enforced to deter group criminal behavior, underlining an offense against public tranquility.

Essentials of Unlawful Assembly

• Assembly of Five People:
  • Legal precedent requires at least five identified individuals for an assembly to be deemed unlawful.
  • In the case of Dharam Pal Singh v. State of Uttar Pradesh, the Supreme Court emphasized the need for the identification of all members.
• Requirement of a Common Object:
  • An assembly's purpose must align with an unlawful common goal for it to be considered illegal.
  • Sheik Yusuf v. Emperor case established the necessity of a shared purpose among assembly members.
• Common Object Specification:
  • The common objective must be to commit one of the five illegal activities specified in Section 141.
  • Examples include overawing the government by criminal force, resisting law execution, committing an offense, and more.
• Forceful Acts:
  • Assembly engaging in forceful possession or dispossession of property is prohibited.
  • Acts like using criminal force to compel others to commit illegal actions are considered unlawful.

An unlawful assembly is a critical legal concept aimed at maintaining public order and preventing group-driven criminal activities. Understanding its components, such as the minimum number of members, the necessity of a shared unlawful objective, and the specified illegal activities, is vital for legal clarity and enforcement.

Understanding Legal Concepts Related to Unlawful Assembly

• The essence of being a member of an unlawful assembly hinges on the individual's awareness of its illegality and continued participation.
• Section 142 underscores that 'continues' in the context of an unlawful assembly means physically being present as a member, not merely as a bystander.
• Section 143 outlines the consequences for being part of such an assembly, with potential imprisonment up to 6 months or a fine, or both.
• Section 144 targets individuals in an unlawful assembly carrying offensive weapons, with penalties extending to 2 years of imprisonment, a fine, or both, to maintain public peace.
• Section 145 addresses those who knowingly join an unlawful assembly ordered to disperse, aligning with IPC sections 151 and 188 concerning public peace and legal orders.
• Section 129 of the Code of Criminal Procedure grants police officers the authority to disperse unlawful assemblies.
• Section 150 holds hired individuals accountable for unlawful assembly participation, treating them as if they were direct members committing offenses.
• Section 157 of IPC broadens the scope by penalizing those who harbor hired individuals involved in unlawful assemblies, with penalties including imprisonment up to six months, fines, or both.

Illustrative Examples

• Imagine a scenario where an individual knowingly remains in a gathering that turns violent and disruptive after being declared unlawful by authorities. This person could fall under the purview of section 142.
• Consider a situation where a person is found carrying a weapon in a crowd that has been deemed an unlawful assembly. Section 144 would come into play to address such a violation of public tranquility.
• Visualize a case where someone is hired to participate in an assembly that later engages in illegal activities. Section 150 would hold the hired individual accountable as if they were a direct member involved in the offenses committed.

Dispersal of Unlawful Assembly

By Use of Civil Force

• An executive magistrate or a police officer can order dispersal of an unlawful assembly under Section 129 of the Code of Criminal Procedure if certain conditions are met.
• Before using force, the assembly must be unlawful or likely to disturb public peace, and the order to disperse must be given.
• Only civil force like commands, orders, or warnings should be used according to the provisions of Section 129.
• For example, a situation not warranting firing led to the use of force, resulting in compensation to the victim's dependents without proper authority.

By Use of Armed Forces

• If an executive magistrate deems civil force insufficient for dispersal and public security is at stake, armed forces can be employed under Section 130.
• The armed forces should use minimal force and cause minimal harm to individuals or property.
• For instance, the magistrate can order the arrest of individuals from the Army, Navy, or Air Force to disperse the assembly.

By Certain Armed Forces Officers in Absence of Competent Authority

• Under Section 131, if public security is under threat by an unlawful assembly and no magistrate is available, commissioned armed forces officers can disperse the assembly.
• This provision applies when contacting a magistrate is not feasible and public security is at risk.

Case Laws on Unlawful Assembly

IBhanwar Singh v. State of M.P.

• The court emphasized that the common purpose of an unlawful assembly hinges on whether it aligns with the objectives outlined in section 141 of the law.
• It was clarified that this common purpose does not necessarily need pre-planning but can develop spontaneously.
• Determining the common purpose involves considering various factors such as the weapons present, the behavior of the assembly members, and the overall circumstances.

Karnataka state v. Padmanabha Beliya

• Illustrated a scenario where the State Government was held responsible for the actions of the district armed reserve police in a case where an unlawful assembly member was shot without lawful orders, leading to fatality.

State of U.P v. Sughar Singh

• Examined a case where five individuals, armed and positioned to ambush, collectively aimed to kill the victim, leading to a legal dispute.
• The trial outcomes varied between lower and higher courts, ultimately resulting in the Supreme Court upholding the conviction of the accused.

Moti Das v. State of Bihar

• Highlighted how a lawful assembly can transform into an unlawful one when members are incited to violence against specific individuals, leading to a pursuit and attack.

Allauddin Mian Sharif Mian v. State of Bihar

• Established the connection between a collective objective and criminal offense, emphasizing individual liability when an offense is committed with a shared intention.

Rajnath v. State of Uttar Pradesh

• Clarified that an assembly's common purpose can evolve, be modified, or even abandoned at any stage, with members joining or altering the objective as needed.

Lallan Rai and Ors v. the State of Bihar

• Emphasized the legal requirement for individuals sharing a common objective to be physically present at the scene of the incident to establish culpability.

Yunis alias Kariya, etc. v. State of Madhya Pradesh

• Addressed a case where the presence of accused individuals within an unlawful assembly was adequate for conviction, even if specific criminal actions were not attributed to each member.

Amar Singh v. State of Punjab

• Examined a scenario where the application of certain legal sections required a minimum number of individuals, leading to mixed outcomes in the conviction of accused parties.

These cases underscore the complexities of unlawful assembly situations, emphasizing factors such as shared intent, individual liability, the evolution of common purposes, and the legal requirements for establishing guilt in such scenarios.

Conclusion

In conclusion, the primary goal of every government is to uphold public order and ensure peace in public interactions. Our nation's legislators have taken commendable measures to protect public tranquility within society. Peace is crucial for the existence of a civilized society, and the emphasis on its prevalence is of utmost importance. Criminalizing unlawful assembly is primarily aimed at preserving public peace and order. The Penal Code incorporates vicarious liability as a deterrent, discouraging individuals from engaging in criminal activities as part of a group. Being knowingly associated with the objectives of an unlawful assembly renders an individual equally accountable for punishment, irrespective of their specific role within the assembly.