The article is authored by Abhinaya Moses, II-year student of Government Law College, Coimbatore pursuing LLM in Taxation Laws. It covers the legal meaning of rioting according to the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS), its essential provisions, judicial observations, and important judgments that have formed India’s policy on public order and illegal assemblies.
Everyone thinks of changing the world, but no one thinks of changing himself.
-Leo Tolstoy
The crime of rioting holds maximum importance in Indian criminal law, especially under the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS), owing to the country’s past and ongoing experience with violence and instability. India has seen plenty of riots during its pre-independence and post-independence periods that have created trauma among citizens as well as endless and widespread perturbations in society.
To cite a recent instance, India’s national capital city of New Delhi experienced one such fatal riot on the controversial Citizenship Amendment Act, 2019 in the early months of 2020 that resulted in gigantic scale violence causing killings of innocent civilians, arson and destruction of public and private property. One riot has the potential to lead to long-lasting psychological and economic impacts, generation after generation.
This article analyses the legal framework of rioting under the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS), its provisions, punishments, consequences and compares them with the previous Indian Penal Code (IPC) to comprehend the development of the law regarding riot control in India.
Introduction
Offence of public tranquillity is not only an offense against the person and property of an individual but also against the state. According to it, if a number of individuals do an illegal act with a common intention, then all such individuals are held responsible for it. They are grouped into four as “unlawful assembly, rioting, promoting enmity between various groups and affray”.
The term “riot” was derived from the Old French term riote, which refers to “dispute”. It could have been derived from ruir, meaning “to create a disturbance”. Rioting is any offense that is committed by a group of individuals or any one of the individuals who are part of the group.
Rioting must involve at least five individuals. The offense usually takes place due to civic unrest and is characterized by spontaneous and provocative conduct. It is a sign of herd behaviour; that’s why even if the person in the guilty group is innocent of a violent act, he or she is guilty of Rioting anyway.
Riots in the past were carried out as a reaction to grievances against government policies, result of a sporting encounter, anger over any legal decision, taxation, oppression, racial struggle between the races or was an instrument for focusing the resentment by the masses on the government.
A common purpose and intent to commit a crime are two of the most essential prerequisites for Rioting to occur. Even if none of the group members committed the crime of Rioting, they are all liable to punishment because they have their very “common purpose”. Rioting under criminal law is important with regards to preserving public order, safeguarding lives and averting mass destruction.
Understanding Rioting Under Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita
Rioting, a serious crime prejudicial to public order and safety has been dealt with in a systematic manner under the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS) by well-framed provisions with the intention of preventing unlawful assemblies and violence.
Section: 191 – Rioting under BNS
The section explains rioting as;
(1) If the illegal assembly or any of its members employ violence or force in the achievement of their common objective, all members of the assembly shall be culpable of rioting.
(2) Any person found guilty of rioting shall be punishable by a maximum sentence of two years imprisonment, or fine or both.
(3) Whoever riots with an offensive weapon or with any article which he uses as a weapon and causes grievous hurt or death shall be liable to imprisonment for five years, fine or both.
Key Ingredients Constituting the Offence of Rioting
A literal reading of Section 191 of the BNS would imply that, in order to prove the guilt of an individual under section 191, the following ingredients should be proved:
a. There should be an unlawful assembly;
b. Application of force or violence by any member of the unlawful assembly; and
c. Violence or force has thus been applied in the pursuance of the illicit aim of the illegal assembly.
A. Unlawful Assembly
Section 189 of the BNS addresses the unlawful assembly. Article 19(1)(b) of the Indian Constitution,1950 gives a fundamental right to peacefully assemble but this section attempts to criminalize an unlawful assembly.
When 5 or more individuals gather with the intent to commit an unlawful offense, it is referred to as an unlawful assembly. A common intention to cause disturbance to public peace and tranquillity is a feature of an unlawful assembly.
In Moti Das Vs State of Bihar, it was judged that “an assembly, which was initially lawful, became unlawful the very instant one of the members invited others to beat up the victim and his associates and in response to his invitation all the members of the assembly began chasing the victim when he was fleeing away”.
The requirements for forming the offence of unlawful assembly can be stated as;
- Five or more individuals in a group;
- The assembled individuals should act with the intent to achieve their common objective; and
- The common objective should be to achieve one of the five illegitimate purposes listed under Section 189 of BNS.
In Dharam Pal Vs. State of Uttar Pradesh, the Supreme Court held that the five persons requirement under Section 141 of IPC is absolute and where an unlawful assembly is formed by five persons only and some or all of them have been acquitted, the remaining accused, being less than five in number, cannot be convicted under Section 143 of the IPC.
B. Use of Force/ Violence
While ‘force’is specifically defined under Section 128 of the BNS, ‘violence’ is not so defined. The Madras High Court explained the term “violence” in Lakshmi Ammal Vs. Samiappa, The Court ruled that the term violence does not apply merely to the application of force to persons but also to the application of force to objects. Violence, thus, has a broader meaning than force.
Accordingly, it must be observed that the turning point of the offence of rioting has been intentionally kept below offences where criminal force is a constituent. The use of even a smallest force by a member of an unlawful assembly for the purpose of advancing a common object will constitute the offence of rioting.
C. Common Object
The word “object” means design in or intention and in order to be “common” the individual should share and follow it. An unlawful assembly members should have a common object to form a particular offence. In contrast to common intention here is not essential prior meeting of minds, the common object can be formed on the spot.
Section 190 of the BNS provides for the common object. The term ‘knew’ has been employed in the latter half of this Section, i.e., more than a ‘possibility’ but less than ‘might have known’. Any offence thus committed by any member of the unlawful assembly is presumed that all the member must have at least known the possibility of such act. This sub-section also gives an indication that any offence made under the promotion of the common object has immediate relation to a common object in which all parties to the unlawful assembly are involved.
In Bhudeo Mandal v. State of Bihar, the Hon’ble Supreme Court established that “evidence is necessary to be brought out to ascertain that the overall object of members of an unlawful assembly was illegal in nature prior to convicting anybody for the crime of rioting”.
Therefore, the criminal common object of members of an illegal assembly and even minimal force/violence are enough in the eyes of the law to form the offence of rioting according to the BNS.
Section: 192 – Provoking riots under BNS
This section explains provoking riots as;
Any person who maliciously, or rashly by committing any act which is illegal, causes provocation to any person intending or knowing it to be likely that such provocation will result in the offence of rioting being committed, shall, if the offence of rioting is committed on such provocation, be punished with either of the descriptions of imprisonment for a term which may extend to one year, or with fine, or with both; and, if the offence of rioting is not committed, with either of the descriptions of imprisonment for a period which may extend to six months, or with fine, or with both.
The offense is Cognizable, Bailable and Triable by Any Magistrate.
Section: 193 – Liability of owner, occupier etc.
This provision explains liability of owner, occupier etc., of land on which an unlawful assembly or riot takes place.
(1) Duty to Notify and Prevent: If an unlawful assembly or riot takes place on a person’s land, the owner, occupier, or any person interested in the land are under an obligation to forthwith inform the nearest police station on becoming aware or having reasonable grounds to believe that such a thing is happening or is about to happen. They are also under a duty to use all lawful means to prevent or break up the assembly or riot. Not doing so will attract a fine not more than one thousand rupees.
(2) Liability When Riot is for Benefit of Landowner: Where a riot is done for the benefit or on behalf of the landowner or a person interested in the land and they or their agent/manager had reason to believe such a riot was likely but failed to take all reasonable means to prevent or suppress it, they can be fined.
(3) Agent or Manager’s Duty: The agents or managers of the landowner are also under obligation to a fine in case the riot takes place for the landowner’s benefit and they had reasons sufficient to assume so but failed to take every legal measure in preventing or suppressing the riot or illegal congregation.
These provisions also highlight the statutory obligation of property stakeholders to implement proactive steps against and discourage unauthorized assemblies or riots on their property in order to maintain public order.
Section: 195(1) – Assaultig or obstructing public servant
It explains assaulting or obstructing public servants when suppressing a riot, etc., as,
Anyone overpowering or hindering any public servant, or employing criminal force to any public servant in the performance of his duty in attempting to disperse an illegal assembly, or to or riot or affray, shall be imprisoned for either offence for a term which may be three years, or be fined which shall not be less than twenty-five thousand rupees, or with both.
Comparing Rioting and Unlawful Assembly
Unlawful assembly has a strong relationship with rioting. Rioting is identical to an unlawful assembly except for a slight difference which makes it the use of force where rioting demands the employment of weapons and thus there must be 5 or more people engaged in this as well like in the case of an unlawful assembly.
Therefore,
Rioting = Unlawful Assembly + Violence
Example
Unlawful Assembly
Six people come together with the common purpose of preventing a local store owner from selling something they disagree with using violence. The fact that they are together for this common purpose is an illegal assembly, even though they have done nothing yet about it.
Rioting
The moment this group goes on to use violence or force, like burning down the shop or physically attacking the shopkeeper in order to get their way, their actions turn the scenario into rioting.
An illegal assembly becomes rioting when the group uses force or violence to continue their common intention. This is significant in legal frameworks as the shift from illegal gathering to rioting includes the actual deployment of force or violence and, therefore warrants stricter legal repercussions.
Rioting under IPC and BNS
| BNS Section | Aspect | IPC Section | Comparison |
| 191 (1) | Rioting-Offence defined. | 146 | Definition of offence which is included in BNS as a sub-section. |
| 191 (2) | Rioting-Punishment rioting. | 147 | A section of IPC is included as a sub-section in BNS, without a heading. |
| 191 (3) | Rioting- Being armed with deadly weapon. | 148 | Section of IPC is included as a sub-section in BNS, without a heading. The upper limit of imprisonment is enhanced from three years to five years. |
| 192 | The section is rendered a sub-section in BNS. Words “Liability of” and “or riot” are added in the heading. | 153 | No change. |
| 193(1) | Liability of owner, occupier, etc., of land on which an unlawful assembly or riot is committed. | 154 | The section is rendered a sub-section in BNS sans heading. |
| 193(2) | Liability of person for whose benefit riot is committed. | 155 | Section is rendered a sub-section in BNS sans heading. |
| 193(3) | Liability of agent of owner or occupier on whose behalf riot is committed. | 156 | No changes. |
| 195(1) | A section of IPC is included as a sub-section in BNS, without heading. | 152 | The Section 152 of the IPC relating to assaulting or obstructing public servants when suppressing riots, etc. has been split and included in Section 195 of the new law (BNS): one for the offence of assaulted in the section of public servants and the other for threatening to assault or attempt to obstruct, with varying punishments and fines. There is a minimum of twenty-five thousand rupees for a fine and or uses criminal force on any public servant is included. |
Case Laws
I. Vijay Singh Mankotia v. State of Himachal Pradesh
The political party members came together in the solidarity of over 200 individuals for a “dharna” against the state government on a public highway. Other individuals who were to travel on the highway were illegally held in this manner. It was an offence of Rioting and public nuisance, according to the Himachal Pradesh High Court. A preliminary inference was made that the petitioners had committed offences under Section 147 of the IPC.
II. Anant Kathod Pawar v. State of Maharashtra
The Court held that the people assembled for some judicial purpose would not be held to have committed Rioting if they suddenly quarrelled with one another without being possessed of some pre-conceived plan or scheme. The accused would be considered liable for their individual acts in such a situation and not be held vicariously liable.
III. State of Uttar Pradesh v. Dan Singh
In a Riot case, there is no doubt that all the witness’s testimony will not match if there are a large number of witnesses or attackers. It should be ensured that the witness testimony matches with the actual description of the act’s performance.
Law Commission of India’s Recommendations on Rioting Under IPC
In its Forty-Second Report, the Law Commission of India proposed various recommendations concerning rioting which have not yet been implemented. Some of the suggestions are;
- With a view to preventing rioting at the initial stage itself, it proposed that pre- fortification activities such as picking up sticks, knives and other offensive weapons, acid bulbs, brickbats etc, by antisocial elements with the view to indulging in mischief should (under suggested new section 147A) be made punishable with imprisonment for a period not exceeding one year or with fine or with both.
- The Law Commission, referring to Section 153, believed that the adjectives malignantly and wantonly used there, in the context of tenor and tone of the provision and which do not add anything to the other conditions of the section are unnecessary and hence must be eliminated.
- Holding the view that punishment required for the offences under sections 154-156 and 160 is light, it suggested that the sentences required in these sections should be substituted by sentence of six months imprisonment of either description or fine or both.
Conclusion
The offence of rioting cannot be confused with unlawful assembly because the individual will only be charged with offence of rioting if the individual is engaged in the pursuit of a common object of such unlawful assembly. A sudden quarrel is not offence of rioting because the ingredient required for rioting is absent in a sudden quarrel. Force and violence in rioting are used against the public at large.
The accused individuals can go to the High Court under Section 482 CrPC for redressal. As the aim is to dispense justice and to convict the guilty and acquit the innocent, the trial must be a pursuit of the truth and not of technicalities, and must be held according to such rules as will acquit the innocent and convict the guilty.
References
- The Indian Penal Code, 1860, Ratanlal and Dhirajlal 33rd edition by Jst K.T. Thomas, M.A. Rashid
- https://www.myjudix.com/post/riot-and-affray-under-bns-bharatiya-nyaya-sanhita
- https://acadpubl.eu/hub/2018-120-5/2/101.pdf
- https://www.drishtijudiciary.com/to-the-point/bharatiya-nyaya-sanhita-&-indian-penal-code/offences-against-public-tranquility
- https://legallyin.com/bns-section-191-rioting/
- https://ijlmh.com/paper/to-riot-or-not-to-riot-a-sectional-analysis-of-section-153-ipc-with-section-192-bns/
- https://cdnbbsr.s3waas.gov.in/s3ca0daec69b5adc880fb464895726dbdf/uploads/2022/08/2022082456.pdf
- https://bprd.nic.in/uploads/pdf/COMPARISON%20SUMMARY%20BNS%20to%20IPC%20.pdf
