Rioting, and the Offences Around It
Chapter Eighteen
Syllabus topic 1.1, "Notions of "force", "coercion", "violence""
Pages 68 to 71 of 663
In one line
Rioting is an unlawful assembly that has used force, and the moment it does, every member of the assembly is guilty of it whether or not that member lifted a hand.
In the wording a student can write in an exam: under section 191(1) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita 2023, whenever force or violence is used by an unlawful assembly, or by any member of it, in prosecution of the common object, every member of that assembly is guilty of the offence of rioting; the punishment under section 191(2) is imprisonment up to two years, or fine, or both, and under section 191(3), where the rioter is armed with a deadly weapon or with anything which used as a weapon of offence is likely to cause death, up to five years.
Why the law has this at all
The previous chapter established that an unlawful assembly is an assembly with a forbidden common object. Section 191 adds the element that turns the object into an event.
Notice what section 191 does not require. It does not require every member to use force. It requires force to be used by the assembly or by any member of it, and then convicts every member. This is section 190's logic applied to a named offence, and it exists because in a riot it is never possible to say who threw what.
Broken down: section 191
- There must be an unlawful assembly as section 189 defines it. Five or more, common object one of the five.
- Force or violence must be used, by the assembly or by any single member of it.
- The force must be used in prosecution of the common object.
- Then every member of the assembly is guilty of rioting.
The word "or" in the second element is the important one. One member throwing one stone converts an unlawful assembly of two hundred into a riot of two hundred rioters.
And the third element is the limit. Force used for a purpose of the member's own, not in prosecution of the common object, does not make the assembly a riot. A man in a crowd who takes the opportunity to settle a private score has committed his own offence and has not made the others rioters.
The two punishments
Section 191(2), simple rioting. Two years, or fine, or both.
Section 191(3), rioting armed. Five years, or fine, or both, where the rioter is armed with a deadly weapon or with anything which, used as a weapon of offence, is likely to cause death.
Read section 191(3) carefully. It punishes the rioter who is armed, not the assembly. So in a crowd of forty, ten of whom carried lathis, the ten face five years and the thirty face two.
Rioting, and the Offences Around It
The two offences nobody teaches
Two provisions sit either side of rioting and are almost never covered, which makes them useful in an answer.
Section 192, wanton provocation. Whoever malignantly, or wantonly, by doing anything which is illegal, gives provocation to any person, intending or knowing it to be likely that the provocation will cause the offence of rioting to be committed, is punished: one year if rioting is in fact committed in consequence, and six months if it is not.
This is the offence for the person who starts a riot without being in it. It requires an illegal act as the provocation, which is its limit: an inflammatory speech that is not itself illegal falls outside section 192, and has to be charged under section 196 or 197 instead.
Section 193, liability of the owner or occupier of the land. Whenever an unlawful assembly or a riot takes place, the owner or occupier of the land on which it is held, and any person claiming an interest in that land, is punishable with a fine not exceeding one thousand rupees if he, or his agent or manager, knowing that the offence is being or has been committed, or having reason to believe it likely, does not give the earliest notice in his power to the officer in charge of the nearest police station.
Section 193 is a rare thing in Indian criminal law: a duty to report imposed on a person who has done nothing. It exists because a riot needs a place, and the person who controls the place is usually the first to know.
Worked example
Two hundred people gather at a temple ground after a dispute over a procession route. The ground belongs to a trust whose manager is present. After an hour, the crowd decides to force its way down the disputed road. Forty of them carry lathis. Somebody throws a stone and a shop shutter is damaged.
- Unlawful assembly, from the moment the object became forcing the route: clause (e) of section 189(1), compelling a person to do what he is not legally bound to do, and clause (c).
- Rioting, from the moment the stone was thrown, because force was used by a member in prosecution of the common object. All two hundred are rioters under section 191(1).
- Section 191(3) for the forty who carried lathis: five years, not two.
- Section 193 for the trust's manager, if he knew or had reason to believe and did not give the earliest notice in his power to the nearest police station. A fine up to one thousand rupees.
- Section 192 for the man who, an hour earlier, tore down a notice board fixing the route, if he did so knowing that rioting was a likely consequence. One year, because rioting did follow.
- The damage to the shutter is mischief in its own right and, if the shop is public property, an offence under the Prevention of Damage to Public Property Act 1984.
Rioting, and the Offences Around It
Six provisions, one hour, one crowd. That is what a good answer on a riot problem looks like.
Distinctions
| Unlawful assembly, section 189 | Rioting, section 191 | |
|---|---|---|
| Force used | Not required | Required; it is the whole difference |
| Who is guilty | Every member who joined knowing the facts | Every member of the assembly |
| Punishment | Six months; two years after a command to disperse | Two years; five if armed |
| Relationship | The foundation | Cannot exist without it |
What it does NOT mean
Rioting is not a synonym for a violent crowd. Without an unlawful assembly there is no rioting, however violent the crowd. A hundred people fighting each other in a public place with no common object commit affray, not rioting.
Section 191(3) does not require the weapon to be used. Being armed is enough. This is why the sentence differs between members of the same crowd.
And rioting is not the offence for the killing. If a person is killed in a riot, the killing is murder or culpable homicide, and section 190 makes every member liable for it if it was in prosecution of the common object or known to be likely. Rioting is charged in addition, not instead.
Quick revision
- Section 191(1): force or violence used by an unlawful assembly or any member of it, in prosecution of the common object; every member is guilty of rioting.
- 191(2): two years, or fine, or both. 191(3): five years if armed with a deadly weapon, and it punishes the individual who is armed.
- Section 192: wanton provocation by an illegal act, intending or knowing rioting likely. One year if rioting follows, six months if not.
- Section 193: the owner or occupier of the land, or a person claiming an interest in it, fined up to one thousand rupees for failing to give the earliest notice in his power to the nearest police station.
- Rioting requires an unlawful assembly. Affray does not, and needs only two.
- Rioting is charged in addition to the substantive offences, never instead of them.
Test yourself
1. State the four elements of rioting. An unlawful assembly; force or violence used by it or by any member of it; used in prosecution of the common object; whereupon every member of the assembly is guilty.
Rioting, and the Offences Around It
2. Forty of a crowd of two hundred carry lathis and nobody uses one. What is the effect? The forty are liable under section 191(3) to five years, because that sub-section punishes the rioter who is armed and does not require the weapon to be used. The other one hundred and sixty face two years under section 191(2).
3. What does section 192 require that an inflammatory speech usually does not supply? An illegal act as the provocation. Section 192 punishes provocation given by doing something illegal, so a speech that is not itself an offence falls outside it and must be charged under section 196 or 197.
4. Who does section 193 punish, and for what? The owner or occupier of the land on which the unlawful assembly or riot takes place, and any person claiming an interest in it, for failing to give the earliest notice in his power to the officer in charge of the nearest police station, knowing the offence is being or has been committed or having reason to believe it likely. The penalty is a fine not exceeding one thousand rupees.
The rest of this subject
These notes are cut from the University's printed syllabus. Open the syllabus itself, or the past papers, for the same subject.