Home | Legal Advice | Criminal Law | Unlawful assembly

Unlawful assembly

Section 141 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) defines the unlawful assembly. An assembly of five or more persons is designated an “unlawful assembly” if the common object of the persons composing that assembly is to commit any of the activities mentioned in section 141.

Purpose of assembly is the crucial fact which converts a lawful assembly into an unlawful assembly. Unlawful means not conforming to, permitted by, or recognised by law or rules. Assembly means a group of people gathered together in one place for a common purpose. Section 141 and 149 create a specific offence co-jointly with the common object and unlawful assembly.

Section 149 creates a specific and distinct offence. It imposes constructive or vicarious criminal liability of the members of the unlawful assembly for the wrongful acts committed under the common object by any other member of the assembly. If an offence is committed by any member of such unlawful assembly in the pursuance of the shared object, all the members shall be liable for that offence.

Presence of a person in that assembly is the most vital fact to decide his liability for the commencement of that offence. In Baladin v. State of Uttar Pradesh, AIR1956 SC 181, the supreme court expressed that mere presence in an assembly does not make a person, who is present, a member of an unlawful assembly. If it is shown that he had done something or omitted to do something which would make him a member of an unlawful assembly, or unless the case falls under Section 142 IPC.

It must be proved that he was one of the persons constituting the assembly and he entertained long with (other members of the assembly) the common object as defined by Section 141 IPC.

Some overt act is necessary to implicate a person for the offence committed by the unlawful assembly. In Masalti v. State of U.P., AIR 1965 SC 202; the supreme court held that it must be shown that he had committed some overt illegal act or had been guilty of some unlawful omission in pursuance of the common object of the assembly. The same principle is reiterated by the supreme court in Om Prakash Vs. The state of Haryana, (2014) 5 SCC 753.

Lawyer’s advice

Embezzlement of paid electricity bills

Complaints regarding embezzlement of paid electricity bills were made by consumers in the division office of the electricity board against lower class employees. Statements of consumers were recorded in the division office. After that an FIR was lodged against the...

Contradiction in dying declaration : chances of conviction

Question: My brother is accused in a murder case. He is innocent but the police have falsely implicated him in this case. The dying declaration of the deceased does not support his role in the murder of Ramnaresh Kushwaha. There is a contradiction in the dying...

Friend filed criminal case of cheating : What I should do?

Question: I am doing a business of terrace farming. My friend is a partner in my business. He does not help me but comes on each week to take his share in profit. Yesterday he filed a false criminal case of cheating in XXX police station. He has alleged in the FIR...

Can I challenge the validity of sanction for prosecution?

Question: I want to challenge the validity of sanction for prosecution. The CBI obtained the sanction for prosecution by force and using undue means. My superior officer was working under pressure of the CBI and granted the sanction prosecution. Now I have retired and...

Kanoonirai established in 2014. It provides a facility to consult a lawyer through online media, telephonic consultation and video conferencing.

Contact

mail[at]kanoonirai.com
+91-91400-4[nine][six]54