Section 148 of Indian Penal Code, 1860 – Rioting, armed with deadly weapon:
Whoever is guilty of rioting, being armed with a deadly weapon or with anything which, used as a weapon of offence, is likely to cause death, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to three years, or with fine, or with both.
Image Source: news.asiaone.com
ADVERTISEMENTS:
For conviction under Section 148, I.P.C., the prosecution must prove that the assembly was unlawful and that the common object of such assembly was one of the objects enumerated in Section 141, I.P.C. and one or more or all of the members of the assembly used violence or force in the prosecution of the common object of such assembly.
(a) Force or violence:
The word “force” has been defined in Section 349. The “violence” has not been defined in the Code. It is a word of wider importance than “force” and includes force used against inanimate objects also. The word “violence” in Section 146 is not restricted to force used against persons only, but extends also to force against inanimate object.
While “force” refers Jo a person being restricted by Section 350, violence is comprehensive and is used to include violence to property and other inanimate objects. If an unlawful assembly came together for the purpose of pulling down a man’s house, and proceeded to carry out the object, they could be said to have used violence.
ADVERTISEMENTS:
It is not necessary for purpose of Section 146, that the force or violence should be directed against any particular person or object. The use of any force, even though it be of the slightest possible character, by any one member of an assembly once established as unlawful, constitutes rioting.
If a husband and his friends take possession of wife by force and violence, they are guilty of rioting. The assemblage of 30 or 40 lathials at a place where the peaceable reaping of paddy is supposed to be in progress, indicates an intention to use force; and where the complainant, who felt himself aggrieved, did not take the law into his own hands but had recourse to the authorities and sought and obtained the assistance of those in local charge of the forces of law and order to attack such unarmed men, peaceably registering a protest in the very manner contemplated by law, does not call for any leniency.
(b) Unlawful assembly or any member thereof:
The offence of rioting may be committed by the unlawful assembly or by any member thereof. Section 141 defines an unlawful assembly; where there is no satisfactory evidence to prove formation of unlawful assembly conviction under this section cannot be upheld.
ADVERTISEMENTS:
Rioting may be committed by any member of the unlawful assembly. Whether only one or more than one of the persons assembled used force, the penal consequences apply equally to all.
(c) Common object:
The common object of the assembly must be illegal. Section 141 indicates what objects are deemed unlawful. If the common object of an assembly is not illegal, it is not rioting if force is used by any member of that assembly. Resistance to a search without search warrant does not amount to rioting.
The essence of the offence lies in the use of force to achieve a common purpose. This implies some degree of previous concert and deliberation. If a number of persons assembled for any lawful purpose suddenly quarrel without any previous intention or design, they do not commit a riot in the legal sense of the word.
For example, if a number of persons having met together at a fair market for any lawful purpose happen, on a sudden quarrel, to fight with each other, they are not guilty of a riot but only a sudden affray and those are guilty who actually took part in it because their meeting was lawful and innocent and breach of peace happened unexpected without any previous intention.
So also the Supreme Court in a case has had an occasion to observe that “…… we must say even at the outset that the accused cannot be convicted for the offence of rioting because the attack on the victims had taken place in the course of a sudden quarrel.
The accused had not formed themselves into an unlawful assembly in order to commit the offence of rioting. Hence, none of the accused can be convicted under Section 147 or 148, I.P.C.” So also where police resorted to violence while pursuing an investigation and the suspect was given beating when he tried to escape, and as a result he died, it was held that police was not pursuing an unlawful object and therefore Section 147 or 149 could not be attracted.
In Vikram and others v. State of Maharashtrathe question arose, as to whether in a given case common object has been made out or not, will depend upon the facts and circumstances thereof. Conduct of the parties and the manner in which the occurrence has taken place, will have some bearing on the question.
In Sheo Prasad Bhor v. State of Assam, Court held each person of the assembly not necessary should be assigned independent part in the commission of crime. If it is found that one of the member of an unlawful assembly assaulted the deceased which ultimately caused the death of the deceased, then all who were members of the unlawful assembly can be held liable under Section 302/149 of I.P.C.
But where a large scale rioting took place in a village in the course of which two persons died and several witnesses belonging to the deceased party received injuries, the Court would first scrutinise the evidence of injured witness and if the same is corroborated by the medical evidence that can be accepted as against those accused who caused injuries and they can be held to be members of unlawful assembly and therefore liable to be convicted. This is on the ground that the witnesses at least, would be in a position to identify their own assailants.
In an important decision of the Supreme Court, it is clear that in case of riot only those accused could be convicted who were present from beginning to end of the riot. Such things will be proved by the prosecution on the basis of evidence.
In the case of State of Karnataka v. Bhimappa, the Supreme Court has observed that a single accused cannot be convicted on the basis of eye-witness in riot if it is not proved that there was an unlawful assembly.
Disturbance of public peace:
Acts likely to disturb public peace may not necessarily be offences. It is not offence to pass with music in front of mosque but such music may, in some circumstances provoke tension feelings, produce an explosive situation and it may be expedient to ban it in the interests of public peace.
To act contrary to such a ban would be to act contrary to law and doing a punitive act. The ban is regulated by the principle that the restraint imposed must be the minimum restraint necessary for the purpose. Imminent likelihood may be resolved by no further restriction of freedom than by making the persons present disperse.
Whoever knowingly joins or continues in any assembly of five or more persons likely to cause a disturbance of the public peace, after such assembly has been lawfully commanded to disperse, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description upto six months or fine or both (Section 151).
If the assembly so ordered is an unlawful assembly within the meaning of Section 141, such person shall be punished under Section 145 for being a member of an unlawful assembly (Explanation to Section 151), punishable with imprisonment of either description upto two years or fine or both.
Ingredients:
Following are the essential ingredients:
(i) There is an assembly of five or more persons; and
(ii) The assembly is likely to cause disturbance of the public peace;
(iii) Such assembly has been lawfully commanded to disperse; and
(iv) The accused knowing this fact either joins or continues in such assembly.