CHANAKYA NATIONAL LAW UNIVERSITY

Project on: Unlawful Assembly

Criminal Law-I
Faculty of Criminal law Sir Father Peter

Ms. Shweta Singh

ROLL NO 813 2nd year, 3RD SEMESTER

1|Page

I May be wrong, but I am always clear

---

Lord Denning

2|Page

ACKNOWLEDGEMET
The present project on the Unlawful Assembly. has been able to get its final shape with the support and help of people from various quarters. My sincere thanks go to all those persons who gave their precious time to me. Without the inputs from them the study could not have come to its present state. I am proud to acknowledge gratitude to my friends who facilitated my meetings with lawyers whom they knew. With immense pleasure, I express my deepest sense of gratitude to Sir Father Peter, Faculty of Criminal law, Chanakya National Law University for helping me in

preparing my project. I am also thankful to the whole Chanakya National Law University family that provided me all the material I required for the project. Not to forget thanking to my parents without the co-operation of which completion of this project would not had been possible. I have made every effort to acknowledge credits, but I apologies in advance for any omission that may have inadvertently taken place. Last but not least I would like to thank Almighty whose blessing helped me to complete the project.

Shweta Singh

3|Page

RESEARCH METHODOLOGY

AIMS AND OBJECTIVES: THE

AIM OF THE PROJECT IS TO PRESENT A DETAILED STUDY OF THE UNLAWFUL ASSEMBLY .

THROUGH THE BOOKS , SUGGESTIONS AND DIFFERENT WRITINGS AND ARTICLES .

SCOPE AND LIMITATIONS: THOUGH

THIS IS AN IMMENSE PROJECT AND PAGES CAN BE WRITTEN OVER THE TOPIC BUT

BECAUSE OF CERTAIN RESTRICTIONS AND LIMITATIONS TOPIC IN GREAT DETAIL.

WAS NOT ABLE TO DEAL WITH THE

SOURCES OF DATA: THE FOLLOWING SECONDARY SOURCES OF DATA HAVE BEEN USED IN THE PROJECT1. ARTICLES 2. BOOKS 3. WEBSITES METHODS OF WRITING : THE
METHOD OF WRITING FOLLOWED IN THE COURSE OF THIS RESEARCH PAPER IS PRIMARILY

ANALYTICAL.

MODE OF CITATION : THE

RESEARCHER HAS FOLLOWED A UNIFORM MODE OF CITATION THROUGHOUT THE COURSE

OF THIS RESEARCH PAPER .

4|Page

Table of contents

Introduction6 Objects of Unlawful Assembly..........7 Essentials of Unlawful Assembly......8 Illegal Objects.......10 Punishments for the members of Unlawful Assembly.........14 Conclusion....15 Bibliography.16

5|Page

Introduction

6|Page

Objects Of Unlawful Assembly

Section 141 of I.P.C. prohibits use of criminal force by five or more persons with a design to do any of acts set out in the section. It is the cardinal principle of law that the tumultuous assemblage of men shall be discouraged since prevention of offences involving the presence of a plurality of offenders becomes comparatively a difficult task for the law1 Hence in earlier times even the mere assemblage of people was regarded as a menace to the public peace and therefore regarded as unlawful.2 However, with the growth of democratic institutions and civilizations the assembling of men became a necessary recognized as one of the basic rights of men. Hence an assemblage of men, however, large is no per se illegal, it becomes so when the meet for an unlawful purpose, as stated in section 141, IPC, since the law regards such a gathering as conductive to rioting and disorder.

1 2

Kennys Outlines of criminal law, 19 Edn. th Gaur Hari Singh, Penal law of India, 11 Edn.

th

7|Page

Essentials of Unlawful Assembly

To constitute an Unlawful Assembly the following three conditions must co-exist:1. Assembly must be of five person: An Assembly of five or more than five persons, combined for one or other purposes indicated in section 141 of IPC is declared in law an unlawful assembly. In fixing he number of persons for an unlawful assembly at five, section 141, IPC, has made a departure from the English law, under which an assembly of only three persons constitute an unlawful assembly. 2. Assembly must have a common object: The law does not declare a mere assemblage of men, however large, illegal unless it is inspired by an illegal object. The mere presence of a person at the scene of the offence or in crowd does not make him a member of an unlawful assembly, unless it is proved that he did something or omitted to do something which would ake him a member of an unlawful assembly. In other words, it must be proved that the persons had a common object, that they were actuated by the common object, and that the object was one of those set out in section 141 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860. The word object means the purpose or design to do a thing aimed at and that the object must be common to the persons who comprise the assembly3. That is to say, the object must be shared and possessed by all the members of the assembly, or that they should all be aware of it, and concur in it. The same object is not necessarily a common object, and becomes so only when it is known to and shared by all the members of the assembly. For instance, where only four of the five accused assembled are found to have shared a common object and not the fifth, the assembly is not an unlawful assembly. A common object must be established and it must be common to at least five persons. The word assembly under section 141, IPC, implies a meeting of five or more persons in pursuance of a common unlawful object. So it is not every combination or assemblage of five or more persons which the law discourages, but rather the combination of five or more persons only for a common unlawful object which is discouraged. An assembly, which is lawful when it assembled, may subsequently become an unlawful assembly by the subsequent act of its members as stated in the Explanation clause attached to section 141, IPC. In Moti Das v. State of Bihar4 , it was held that an assembly which was lawful to start with, became unlawful the moment one of the members called on the others to assault the
3 4

Shiekh Yusuf v. Emperor, AIR 1946 Pat 127. AIR 1954 SC 657: 1954 CrLJ 1708.

8|Page

victim and has associates, and in response to his invitation all the members of the assembly started to chase the victim while he was running. 3. Mere presence of assembly is not sufficient: The Supreme Court has more than once reiterated the rule that mere presence of a person at the place where members of an unlawful assembly have gathered for carrying out their illegal object, does not incriminate him as a members thereof, unless it is shown that he did something or omitted to do something which would take him a member of an unlawful assembly, or unless the case falls under section 142 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860. In Baldin v. State of Uttar Pradesh5, all the appellants, who were original inhabitants of the village, were convicted for murder of some refugees settled there by the Government and also for other offences as members of an unlawful assembly. The lower courts convicted them all on the basis of omnibus (same) evidence in general terms to the effect that the original inhabitants of the village were all inimically disposed towards the refugees, and all those appellants and many more were the miscreants and were armed with deadly weapons, such as guns, spears, axes, etc. Their Lordships of the Supreme Court examined the case of each individual accused to satisfy themselves those mere spectators who had not joined the assembly and who were unaware of its motive had not been branded as members of the unlawful assembly which committed the dastardly crimes. Subsequently the Supreme Court set aside the conviction of four appellants (Thakur Das, Ishwari Prasad, Mulloo and Jagdish), to whom no overt act could be attributed, nor any particular part could be assigned in the occurrence; the convictions of the rest were maintained and their appeals dismissed.

AIR 1956 SC 181.

9|Page

ILLEGAL OBJECTS
As stated earlier, an assembly of five or more persons is designated as an unlawful assembly, if the common object of the persons composing that assembly is any one of the following five objects declared illegal under section 141 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860: (i) (ii) (iii) (iv) (v) To overawe Government by criminal force; To resist the execution of law or illegal process; To commit an offence; Forcible possession or dispossession of any property; or To compel any person to do illegal acts.

(i)

To overawe Government by criminal force:

The gist of an offence under this clause consists in; (a) Overawing, (b) By show of criminal force, the Government servant or a public servant in the lawful discharge of his duty. The word overawe means more than the creation of apprehension or alarm or fear. A person is said to overawe another when he restrains him by awe, fear, or superior influence. Overawing merely by superior influence is not criminal, nor is overawing by fear illegal, unless it is attended by a show of criminal force. But where a person is terrified into doing what he had otherwise no mind to do, he is said tto be overawed, and when that fear is brought on by a show of force, he is said to be overawed by a show of criminal force. 6. When a procession is organized to give vent to popular indication against local police force, mere shouting of objectionable and provocative slogans by the members will not amount to overawing the police as such words are not likely to inspire terror. But when members also resort to pelting of stones on the police force, resulting in actual injuries to members of police force, such an act amounts to overawing them.7 It is important to note that the clause confers absolute protection to the Government inasmuch as mere overawing of Government by show of force by itself is illegal, whereas in the case of a public servant the use of criminal force to overawe him is only illegal if itt is used to obstruct him in the exercise of his lawful power.

Gaur, Penal Law of India, 11 Edn, Vol II, pp. 1303 to 1310. 7 Drga Das vs. State of Punjab, AIR 1970 Punj 271, where conviction of the appellants for shouting of slogans was held wrong.

th

10 | P a g e

(ii)

To resist the execution of law or illegal process:

Resistance to law or legal process connotes some overt act. Mere words with no inclination to put them into effect do not suffice to attract the provision of the clause. The execution of any law means the carrying out of the provisions of law, or the enforcement of any act warranted by law. And legal process would mean a measure in accordance with the law. For example, a notification issued in accordance with section 30 of the Police Act prohibiting processions without a license is one such process and resistance to it would amount to resistance to a legal process.8 Accordingly, where a crowd refuses to disperse at the command of the police, the refusal to disperse itself constitutes an over act.9 (iii) Commission of an offence:

The word offence in clause 3 is intended to include all offences both against body and property.10 and is not restricted only to mischief11, criminal trespass12 and offences ejusdem generis, as,, strictly speaking, it would seem to be in view of the preceding enumeration. The word offence in section 141 means a thing punishable under a special or local law, if it is punishable under such law with imprisonment for a term of six months or upwards whether with or without fine.13 Thus where a license is issued to organizers of a procession who defy conditions of the license, the assembly is not an unlawful assembly under clause 3 of section 141 as offence under section 32 of the Police Act is punishable with a fine of Rs 200 only.14 But where the complainant, a Harijan was maltreated by panchayat members for giving water to a high caste Thakur and was put under fear and wrongful confinement to enforcement practice of untouchability, the panchayat members where held guilty as members of an unlawful assembly for having committed an offence under section 7(1)(c) of the Protection of Civil Rights Act, 1955.15

8 9

King-Emperor v. Abdul Hamid, (1922) 2 Pat 134 (SB); Ramendra Chandra Roy vs. Emperor, (1931) ILR 58 Cal 1303. Emperor vs. Abdul Hamid, AIR 1925 Pat 1. 10 Ghansa Singh State of Rajasthan, AIR 1958 Raj 226. 11 IIPC, sec 425. 12 IPC, SEC 441. 13 rd Ratanlal and Dhirajlal, Law of Crimes, 23 Edn (1987), pp. 461-470. For definition of offence see IPC, sec. 40 at pp 87-92 supra. 14 Bhulchandra v. Emperor, AIR 1929 Bom 433. 15 Ram Babu v. Emperor, AIR 1955 Pat 381. Although in this case the assembly was not held to be unlawful assembly within the meaning of section 141 of IPC.

11 | P a g e

(iv)

Forcible possession or dispossession:

Clause 4 prohibits use of criminal force as well as show of criminal force by five or more than five persons, if their common object is: (a) To take or obtain possession of any property, or (b) To deprive any person of the enjoyment of the right of way, or of the use of water or other incorporeal right of which he is in possession or enjoyment, or (c) To enforce any right or supposed right.

(a) First:- This clause prohibits use of criminal force or show of criminal force to any person, when five or more than five persons join in taking or obtaining possession of any property. Possession is the most important factor in determining the applicability of this clause. Even taking of possession of ones own property by force is unlawful.16 The clause upholds possession compared to mere right to property, since possession is considered ninety-nine per cent ownership in the eyes of the law. The law upholds possession as paramount in order to preserve peace and order in the community as against the mere right to property.

(b) Second:- This clause prohibits use of criminal force or show of criminal force to any person, when five or more than five persons join in depriving any person of the enjoyment of a right of way, or of the use of water or other incorporeal right of which he is in possession or enjoyment. In the case of incorporeal rights, such as a right of way, or a right to use water, etc, no one is said to be in possession of it except during the actual moment when he is peacefully exercising it. If any person during the actual moment of peaceful enjoyment of right of way, or of use of water, or other incorporeal right, is deprived of such use or enjoyment by five or more than five persons by force, they can be convicted for constituting an unlawful assembly. So where an assembly of five or more persons came with the object of destroying a bundh and thereby depriving the cultivators of the use of water from a certain channel of which the latter were in lawful enjoyment, it was held that the assembly was an unlawful assembly.17

16 17

Fayaz Khan v. Rex, AIR 1949 All 180. Dy. Legal Remembrancer vs. Matukdhari Singh, AIR 1917 Cal 687.

12 | P a g e

(c) Third:- This clause prohibits use of criminal force or show of criminal force to any person, when five or more than five persons join in enforcing any right or supposed right. The distinction between the two terms any right and supposed right depends upon the actual existence of a right and the supposed existence of that right. Supposed right is no right at all. It is mere pretention to a right which does not exist. And, therefore, no one has the right to vindicate his supposed right. So when a crowd of Muslims gathered near a mosque on the highway, where a number of men assembled and forcibly interrupted a procession on the ground that they had a right to do so because it caused them annoyance and was a nuisance,18 or when a toddy shop was pulled down by cutting and destroying the spathes of trees,19 or when more than fie persons joined to humiliate their adversaries,20 the accused persons were held to have constituted an unlawful assembly because they used force in vindication of their supposed rights. (v) To compel to do illegal acts:

It is illegal for five or more than five persons, if their common object is to compel any person to do what he is not legally bound to do, or to omit to do what he is legally entitled to do, by means of criminal force or show of criminal force. Clause (5) is very comprehensive and applies to all the rights a man can possess. It is not sufficient to bring a case under this clause that the accused should have merely used criminal force or show of criminal force to take possession of property, unless the use of force was accompanied by some criminal intent. So where a person sees another persons committing theft, the former is entitled to arrest the latter under section 43 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973. If other persons intervene to secure the release of the thief from the person arresting him, they constitute an assembly within the meaning of clause (5) of section 141 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860.21

18

In English law the use of force even in the assertion of supposed right is protected. Gour , Hari Singh, Penal Law th of India, 11 Edn., Vol. II, 1317 to 1319. 19 Marrimuthu Naidu (in re), AIR 1923 Mad 606. 20 Ram Sahay Ram, (1920) 57 IC (C) 278. 21 Mohd. Hasnain vs. Rex, AIR 1949 All 351.

13 | P a g e

Punishments for the members of the Unlawful Assembly

Those five or more than five persons or whoever is guilty of the member of an unlawful assembly, as defined in section 141 and section 142 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860, as an offence, shall be punishable under section 143 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to six months, or with fine, or with both.

14 | P a g e

CONCLUSION

15 | P a g e

BIBLIOGRAPHY

BOOKS REFERED; Kennys Outlines of criminal law, 19th Edn. Gaur Hari Singh, Penal law of India, 11th Edn Ratanlal and Dhirajlal, Law of Crimes, 23rd Edn. Pillai PSA, Criminal Law, Lexis Nexis, 3rd Edn. Gaur K.D., Indian Penal Code, 4th Edn.

WEBSITES REFERED;

www.vakilno1.com www.indiakanoon.com www.lexisnexis.com

www.manupatra.com www.westlaw.com

16 | P a g e