OFFENCES AGAINST PUBLIC TRANQUILITY- PART II
In the previous article, we saw how unlawful assembly altogether is banned. Now we will discuss other aspects of unlawful assembly i.e. the offences the unlawful assembly may commit or any assembly can commit. In the current article, we will discuss what is rioting.
Rioting
Definition of Rioting and its punishment – ss. 146-147
Punishment for rioting with deadly weapons – s. 148
Aiding riot in different ways – ss. 152, 154-156, 158
Punishment for owner or occupier of the land where an unlawful assembly is held or riot is committed – s. 154
Liability of person(s) who knew and were benefitted from the riot committed by unlawful assembly – s. 155
Liability of the owner or occupier who knew and was benefitted from the act or riot conducted by an unlawful assembly – s. 156
MEANING OF RIOTING
Section 146 of IPC provides that any force or violence used by any member(s) of the unlawful assembly in furtherance of the common object they possess, would be punished for rioting. It does not require all the members of the unlawful assembly to be participant, the only requirement is that the action should be done by a member and the act should fulfil the common object the unlawful assembly was made for.
INGREDIENTS OF RIOTING
The accused person(s) must be a part of an unlawful assembly with five or more members.
The unlawful assembly should have a common object or purpose.
The accused person(s) should have used force or violence
The force or violence must be in the prosecution of the common object.
Force and violence: The definition of force in this section is restricted to criminal force defined under section 350 of the IPC.
Section 350 states that “Whoever intentionally uses force to any person, without that person's consent, in order to the committing of any offence, or intending by the use of such force to cause, or knowing it to be likely that by the use of such force he will cause injury, fear or annoyance to the person to whom the force is used, is said to use criminal force to that other.”
The violence under this section is defined as violence against individuals as well as property and other inanimate objects.
In furtherance of the common object: The common object has to be an illegal one i.e. when a person resists the execution of an illegal warrant, such circumstance shall not be considered as rioting.
PUNISHMENT FOR RIOTING
When riot is committed/conducted by any member of the unlawful assembly, each member is held liable as if they themselves conducted the offence. The fact that only one member committed the offence is insignificant. Punishment for conducting riot is imprisonment for up to two years, or with fine, or with both.
RIOTING WITH DEADLY WEAPONS
Rioting with deadly weapons becomes more dangerous and stressful for the public. Hence, the punishment for rioting with a deadly weapon is a bigger punishment. Section 148 of the IPC states that if an unlawful assembly uses a deadly weapon that may cause or is likely to cause death, then in such case, the members would be punished with imprisonment for an increased period of up to three years, or with fine, or with both.
AIDING RIOTING IN DIFFERENT WAYS
Consider an example, where 11 people were committing the act of rioting punishable under criminal law. Soon a police officer from the nearby station came and started to suppress the riots. While he was unblocking the roads and arresting the unlawful assembly members, Rahul came and assaulted the police officer from suppressing the riots. Do you think such an act can be acceptable by law? The simple answer is no, whosoever obstructs or assaults or tries or attempts to obstruct or assault the public servant while he suppresses the riot or an affray is liable under section 152 of IPC with imprisonment for up to three years, or with fine, or with both.
Section 152 reads as, “Whoever assaults or threatens to assault, or obstructs or attempts to obstruct, any public servant in the discharge of his duty as such public servant, in endeavouring to disperse an unlawful assembly, or to suppress a riot or affray, or uses, or threatens, or attempts to use criminal force to such public servant, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to three years, or with fine, or with both.”
Rioting is one of the most common offences against public tranquillity. The landowners in India have the duty to prevent rioting on their land as specified under Cr. P.C section 45. And under section 154 of the IPC, it is stated that if a landowner on whose land rioting is committed was aware or had the knowledge or had the reason to believe that the offence of rioting would be committed on his land and despite it, the landowner did not prevent the offence by reporting it to the station nearby or any public servant, he shall be held liable for fine up to 1000 rupees.
Section 154 reads as, “Whenever any unlawful assembly or riot takes place, the owner or occupier of the land upon which such unlawful assembly is held, or such riot is committed, and any person having or claiming an interest in such land, shall be punishable with fine not exceeding one thousand rupees, if he or his agent or manager, knowing that such offence is being or has been committed, or having reason to believe it is likely to be committed, do not give the earliest notice thereof in his or their power to the principal officer at the nearest police station]**, and do not, in the case of his or their having reason to believe that it was about to be committed, use all lawful means in his or their power to prevent it and, in the event of its taking place, do not use all lawful means in his or their power to disperse or suppress the riot or unlawful assembly.”
Further, if the riot was committed in the interest of the landowner (owner of the land where the riot was committed), or the occupier of the land, and they had the reason to believe or knowledge about such happenings, they would be liable for fine according to facts and circumstances and discretion of the judge. Likewise, if a person who has an interest in the land where the riot was committed by the unlawful assembly, shall be held liable for such fine as well.
Section 155 reads as, “Whenever a riot is committed for the benefit or on behalf of any person who is the owner or occupier of any land respecting which such riot takes place or who claims any interest in such land, or in the subject of any dispute which gave rise to the riot, or who has accepted or derived any benefit therefrom, such person shall be punishable with fine, if he or his agent or manager, having reason to believe that such riot was likely to be committed or that the unlawful assembly by which such riot was committed was likely to be held, shall not respectively use all lawful means in his or their power to prevent such assembly or riot from taking place, and for suppressing and dispersing the same.”
To prove the guilt under section 155 the prosecution has to prove 4 things:
The accused is the owner of the land or the occupier of the land on which riot was committed;
The riot in question was committed for the benefit of the owner or occupier of the said land;
the accused accepted or derived benefits therefrom; and
he had the knowledge or reason to believe about the commission of the offence yet was not reported and did not use the lawful means to oppress, prevent or disperse such unlawful assembly from committing such offence.
Moreover, the law makes the agents and the managers of the owner or the occupier, liable in case the riot is committed in their interest and they had the knowledge or reason to believe about such happenings as stated under section 156 of IPC.
Section 156 reads as, “Whenever a riot is committed for the benefit or on behalf of any person who is the owner or occupier of any land respecting which such riot takes place, or who claims any interest in such land, or in the subject of any dispute which gave rise to the riot, or who has accepted or derived any benefit therefrom, the agent or manager of such person shall be punishable with fine, if such agent or manager, having reason to believe that such riot was likely to be committed, or that the unlawful assembly by which such riot was committed was likely to be held, shall not use all lawful means in his power to prevent such riot or assembly from taking place and for suppressing and dispersing the same.”
BY
Comments
Post a Comment