BNS Chapter XI protects public peace and order. The central concept is the unlawful assembly (S.189), which, when combined with S.190 (constructive liability), creates a powerful mode of group liability: every member of an unlawful assembly is guilty of any offence committed by any other member in prosecution of the common object.
BNS S.189 = IPC S.141/S.142/S.143/S.144/S.145/S.148/S.150/S.151/S.152/S.153/S.154/S.157/S.158 (all consolidated into one section with nine sub-sections). BNS S.190 = IPC S.149. BNS S.191 = IPC S.146/S.147/S.148. BNS S.194 = IPC S.159/S.160. BNS S.196 = IPC S.153A. BNS S.197 = IPC S.153B.
Unlawful Assembly (S.189)
Definition (S.189(1))
An assembly of five or more persons is an unlawful assembly if the common object is any of:
| Object | Content |
|---|---|
| (a) | To overawe by criminal force the Central or State Government, Parliament, a State Legislature, or a public servant |
| (b) | To resist the execution of any law or legal process |
| (c) | To commit any mischief, criminal trespass or other offence |
| (d) | By criminal force to take or obtain possession of property, or deprive a person of a right of way, water or incorporeal right, or enforce a supposed right |
| (e) | By criminal force to compel a person to do what he is not legally bound to do, or to omit what he is legally entitled to do |
Explanation: An assembly lawful when it assembled may subsequently become unlawful.
Key Points
- Number: Exactly five or more. Four persons cannot constitute an unlawful assembly however violent.
- Common object: Not common intention. The object may be formed on the spot; it need not be pre-arranged.
- Membership: Whoever is aware of the facts rendering the assembly unlawful and intentionally joins or continues is a member (S.189(2)).
Punishment (S.189(2) to S.189(9))
| Sub-section | Situation | Punishment |
|---|---|---|
| (2) | Being a member of an unlawful assembly | Up to 6 months, or fine, or both |
| (3) | Continuing after being commanded to disperse | Up to 2 years, or fine, or both |
| (4) | Being armed with a deadly weapon as a member | Up to 2 years, or fine, or both |
| (6) | Hiring or engaging persons to join | Punished as a member + for any offence committed |
| (7) | Harbouring hired persons | Up to 6 months, or fine, or both |
Constructive Liability of Members (S.190)
"If an offence is committed by any member of an unlawful assembly in prosecution of the common object of that assembly, or such as the members of that assembly knew to be likely to be committed in prosecution of that object, every person who, at the time of the committing of that offence, is a member of the same assembly, is guilty of that offence."
Two Limbs
| Limb | Content | Example |
|---|---|---|
| First: In prosecution of the common object | The offence was part of the shared purpose | Assembly's object is to forcibly take land; one member commits criminal trespass |
| Second: Known to be likely | The offence was not the object itself, but the members knew it was likely | Assembly's object is forcible possession; one member kills the owner. If others knew murder was likely, all are liable |
Facts: A group of five or more attacked the deceased. The question was whether all were members of an unlawful assembly sharing the common object of causing death.
Issue: Scope of S.149 IPC (now S.190 BNS) and the second limb ("knew to be likely").
Held: The second limb does not require that the members desired the offence. It is enough that they knew it was likely to be committed in prosecution of the object. If a group arms itself with deadly weapons to enforce a claim, every member knows that murder is a likely consequence.
Relevance: Standard authority on the second limb of constructive liability.
Rioting (S.191)
Definition (S.191(1))
"Whenever force or violence is used by an unlawful assembly, or by any member thereof, in prosecution of the common object of such assembly, every member of such assembly is guilty of the offence of rioting."
Punishment
| Sub-section | Situation | Punishment |
|---|---|---|
| (2) | Simple rioting | Up to 2 years, or fine, or both |
| (3) | Rioting while armed with a deadly weapon | Up to 5 years, or fine, or both |
Affray (S.194)
"When two or more persons, by fighting in a public place, disturb the public peace, they are said to commit an affray."
Punishment: up to 1 month, or fine up to Rs. 1,000, or both.
Distinction from rioting: Affray is a fight between two or more in a public place. Rioting is force or violence by an unlawful assembly (five or more) in prosecution of a common object. Affray needs no unlawful assembly and no common object.
Promoting Enmity (S.196) and Imputations against National Integration (S.197)
| Section | Offence | Punishment |
|---|---|---|
| S.196(1)(a) | Promoting disharmony, enmity, hatred or ill-will between groups on grounds of religion, race, place of birth, residence, language, caste or community by words, signs, visible representations or electronic communication | Up to 3 years, or fine, or both |
| S.196(1)(b) | Acts prejudicial to maintenance of harmony, disturbing public tranquillity | Same |
| S.196(1)(c) | Organising drill or exercise with intent to use criminal force against any group | Same |
| S.196(2) | If committed in a place of worship or religious assembly | Up to 5 years + fine |
| S.197 | Imputations or assertions prejudicial to national integration (including false or misleading information jeopardising sovereignty, unity and integrity or security) | Up to 3 years, or fine, or both; if in place of worship: up to 5 years + fine |
S.197(1)(d) is new in BNS: Making or publishing false or misleading information jeopardising sovereignty, unity and integrity or security of India. This has no IPC equivalent and broadens the provision significantly.
Recall Check
- How many persons are needed for an unlawful assembly?
- Name the five common objects that make an assembly unlawful.
- State the two limbs of constructive liability under S.190.
- What distinguishes rioting from affray?
Key Cases
Lalji v State of UP (1989) Lalji v State of UP 1989
Issue: Scope of the second limb of S.149 (now S.190).
Rule: Members are liable if they knew the offence was likely to be committed in prosecution of the object, even if they did not desire it.
Held: Armed assembly knew murder was likely; all liable.
Distinctions
| Basis | Common Object (S.189/S.190) | Common Intention (S.3(5)) |
|---|---|---|
| Number | Five or more | Two or more |
| Mental element | Object of the assembly; may be formed on the spot | Pre-arranged plan or prior concert |
| Participation | Membership at the time of the offence suffices | Active participation in the criminal act |
| Second limb | "Knew to be likely" (not need share the intention) | Must share the common intention |
| Proof | Easier (membership + knowledge) | Harder (prior concert inferred from conduct) |
| Basis | Unlawful Assembly (S.189) | Rioting (S.191) |
|---|---|---|
| Requirement | Five or more with a common object | Unlawful assembly + force or violence used |
| Force needed | No (the assembly is unlawful by its object alone) | Yes (force or violence is the defining element) |
| Punishment | Up to 6 months | Up to 2 years (simple); 5 years (armed) |
| Relationship | Every riot presupposes an unlawful assembly | Not every unlawful assembly involves rioting |
| Basis | Rioting (S.191) | Affray (S.194) |
|---|---|---|
| Number | Five or more (unlawful assembly) | Two or more |
| Place | Anywhere | Public place only |
| Common object | Required | Not required; mutual fight |
| Disturbance | Force in prosecution of common object | Fighting disturbs public peace |
| Punishment | Up to 2 years (or 5 if armed) | Up to 1 month |
Flashcards
How many persons are needed for an unlawful assembly?
Five or more.
What are the five common objects that make an assembly unlawful (S.189(1))?
(a) Overawe Government/public servant; (b) resist execution of law; (c) commit mischief/trespass/offence; (d) take property or deprive of a right by force; (e) compel a person to do/omit by force.
State the two limbs of S.190 (constructive liability).
(1) Offence committed in prosecution of the common object. (2) Offence the members knew to be likely to be committed in prosecution of that object.
What distinguishes rioting from affray?
Rioting needs an unlawful assembly (5+) using force in prosecution of a common object. Affray needs only 2+ persons fighting in a public place disturbing public peace.
What is new in S.197(1)(d)?
Making or publishing false or misleading information jeopardising sovereignty, unity, integrity or security of India. No IPC equivalent.
Exam Scenario
Problem: Eight persons, armed with lathis, march to the field of a rival faction intending to forcibly take possession of disputed land. During the confrontation, one member of the group strikes and kills the rival. The other seven did not intend the killing but knew, given the weapons they carried, that such a consequence was possible. The prosecution charges all eight with murder under S.103 read with S.190. Advise.
Step 1: Establish the unlawful assembly
| Element | On these facts |
|---|---|
| Five or more persons | Eight. Satisfied |
| Common object | Forcibly taking possession of land: S.189(1)(d). Satisfied |
| Membership | All eight marched together armed; all are members |
Step 2: Apply S.190 first limb
Was the murder committed in prosecution of the common object (taking possession of land)?
The common object was forcible possession, not murder. Murder is not the object itself. The first limb does not directly apply unless the object included violence sufficient to cause death. On these facts, the object was possession, not killing. First limb is arguable but not clear.
Step 3: Apply S.190 second limb
Were the members aware that murder was likely to be committed in prosecution of the common object?
| Factor | Assessment |
|---|---|
| Armed with lathis | Lathis can cause death |
| Marching to confront a rival faction | Violence was foreseeable |
| Did the members know death was likely? | Yes: carrying weapons to a confrontation means they knew lethal violence was a probable consequence |
The second limb of S.190 is satisfied. Apply Lalji v State of UP (1989): armed members knew murder was likely.
Step 4: Fix the liability
All eight are guilty of murder under S.103 read with S.190 (second limb). The actual striker is the principal; the other seven are constructively liable as members of the unlawful assembly who knew murder was likely.
The first limb is not satisfied unless murder was the object. Forcible possession is the object; murder is a consequence. The second limb (knew to be likely) is the correct route.
Carrying weapons establishes knowledge. A group that arms itself and marches to a confrontation cannot later claim it did not know lethal violence was possible. The weapons are the evidence of knowledge.
Conclusion. All eight are liable for murder under S.103 read with S.190 (second limb). The weapons establish that they knew murder was likely in prosecution of the common object of forcible possession.
See Also
- Offences against the State : waging war (S.147) is the graver offence where the object is to overawe the Government.
- General Explanations (BNS S.3) : S.3(5) common intention, the alternative group liability for two or more.
- Criminal Force and Assault : the force used in rioting is criminal force under S.129.