A STUDY OF OFFENCES AGAINST PUBLIC TRANQUILITY:WITH RELEVANT CASE LAWS.

INTRODUCTION:

Public Tranquility refers to the state of peace and harmony in a society. It is important to maintain the peace and tranquility of a society. No act should try to disrupt the order and peace of the society. The Indian Penal Code (hereinafter referred to as IPC) deals with such offences which disrupt the peace and tranquility. Such offences are provided in Chapter VIII of the Code. It covers various offences from Section 141 to 160 like rioting, unlawful assembly, affray etc. in this article we will be discussing about the offences which disrupt public tranquility.

UNLAWFUL ASSEMBLY :

The Constitution has granted us the right to assemble peacefully. However, when such assembly is formed with an illegal intent, then such assembly becomes unlawful. The IPC defines Unlawful Assembly under section 141. According to section 141 of the IPC, when an assembly of five or more individuals come together with the intention to commit a crime or offence, such assembly is an unlawful assembly. An unlawful assembly is when a group of individuals come together with the intention to disrupt the peace and tranquility.

The key ingredients of an unlawful assembly are as follows:

• An unlawful assembly must have at least five persons. An assembly of less than five people does not make it an unlawful assembly. If in an unlawful assembly, less than five individuals have been identified and the remaining are unidentified, but their presence is certain, even then it shall be an unlawful assembly.

• There must be a common intention or object to commit a particular crime or offence. However in this case, it is not necessary that there is a prior agreement or meeting of minds. The common objective can be formed spontaneously during the assembly as well. 

• The object must be among those mentioned in Section 141. The common objects as mentioned in section 141 are as follows : 

1. Overawing the Government or their officer.

2. Resisting any legal proceedings. 

3. Committing mischief, criminal trespass or other offence.

4. Using criminal force to forcible take possession of property or deny incorporeal rights of a person.

5. Using criminal force to make someone do something which are not legally obligated to do or prevent from doing something legal. 

An assembly that was initially lawful when it first gathered can later become unlawful if its actions or purpose change in a way that violates legal standards. 

Section 142 states that a person who knowingly joins or stays in an assembly that is unlawful or has become unlawful shall be considered a member of that unlawful assembly. 

Section 143 deals with the punishment of members of an unlawful assembly. According to this section, a member of an unlawful assembly is liable for imprisonment which can be extended up to six months or with fine, or with both. According to section 144, punishment for someone who carries a deadly weapon or object which is capable to cause death when used and the said person is also part of an unlawful assembly is imprisonment for up to two years or fine or both. 

As per section 145, anyone who participates in or persists in an unlawful assembly with the knowledge that the assembly has been ordered to disperse in the way specified by law faces a period of imprisonment of any kind up to two years, a fine, or both.

Section 149 states that if a crime has been committed by a member of an unlawful assembly while pursuing the common object of the assembly, or if the members knew that the crime was likely to occur, every member of the unlawful members shall be held liable for the offence so committed, even if they personally didn’t commit the crime. 

Section 150 of the IPC holds those people accountable who facilitate or encourage others to an unlawful assembly as a member of the unlawful assembly. They will be held accountable as if they themselves had committed those crimes.

In the case of Moti Das versus State of Bihar, the Apex Court held that an assembly which begun as lawful may eventually become unlawful.

In the case of State of U.P. versus Dan Singh and Ors, the Court observed that it is not necessary for the prosecution to prove the specific actions of individual members of the assembly.

In Dharam Pal Singh versus State of Uttar Pradesh, the Court held that if the charge of unlawful assembly is brought against a group of five persons and some are eventually acquitted, the remaining cannot be convicted for being members of an unlawful assembly. For a conviction, it is required to be shown that the assembly, in addition to the convicted individuals, included other unidentified persons who were also part of the unlawful assembly.

RIOTING

Rioting is another offence which hampers public tranquility. Rioting as per Section 146 is the offence where five or more persons come together or assemble with the intention to use force or violence. Every individual of an assembly is liable for the offence of rioting. Rioting takes place when an unlawful assembly uses force or violence to pursue a common object. Section 147 prescribes the punishment for the offence of riot. A person guilty of the offence shall be liable for imprisonment for a term extendable to two years or with fine or both.

In a case where an armed person is found guilty of rioting, wherein the person is armed with a lethal weapon or object capable of causing death, such person shall be punished with imprisonment for a period up to three years, fine or both (section 148).

Section 151 provides punishment for a person who stays in any kind of assembly with people above five persons, which might disrupt the public even after being ordered to disperse. Such person shall be liable for imprisonment up to six months or fine or both.

In the case of Batan Lal & Ors. versus The State of M.P, the High Court of Madhya Pradesh observed that the formation of an unlawful assembly is a prerequisite for holding a person guilty of  riot. Therefore unless there is an unlawful assembly ,the individuals cannot be charged for rioting under Section 146.

ASSAULTING OR OBSTRUCTING PUBLIC SERVANT.

Section 152 of the IPC provides that when a person threatens to or assaults or obstructs or uses criminal force on a public servant who is performing their duty to suppress a riot or other similar offences, shall be liable to imprisonment for up to three years, fine or both. 

PROVOKING OR SPREADING HATE AMONG PUBLIC AT LARGE

Section 153 of the Code states that when an individual deliberately provokes others knowing that it is likely to cause riot, then if a riot is caused, the person who caused the provocation shall be liable to imprisonment for up to one year or fine or both. In situations where such provocation does not lead to riots, even in such case the person shall be punished however with a punishment of a lesser degree, i.e. imprisonment of up to six months or fine or both.

If a person uses words, signs, or other means to spread hostility or hatred among different groups based on religion, race, language, caste, or community, or if they organize or participate in activities which are intended to promote violence against these groups, they can be punished with up to three years in prison, a fine, or both. If this behavior occurs in a place of worship or during religious ceremonies, the punishment shall be increased to up to five years imprisonment along with a fine.(section 153A).

In the case of Patricia Mukhim vs. State of Meghalaya and Ors, the Court held that the intention to cause disorder or incite violence is essential for being an offence under section 153A IPC.  

Further, If a person by spoken or written words or signs suggest that any group of people, based on religion, race, language, caste, or community, cannot truly support the Indian Constitution or uphold India’s sovereignty, or if they assert that such a group should be denied their rights as citizens, or makes or publishes statements about the obligations of any group based on their religion, race, language, caste, or community, and those statements cause or are likely to cause enmity, or hatred between that group and others they can be punished with up to three years in prison, a fine, or both. If this happens in a place of worship or during religious ceremonies, the punishment is increased to five years imprisonment and a fine.  (Section 153B).

Further, Section 154 of the IPC places a duty on the occupiers of the land on which any unlawful assembly or riot takes place to actively try to prevent and inform the police station about the same. If they do not take such steps even after anticipating the riot or unlawful assembly, they shall be penalized with fine up to one thousand rupees. 

Section 155 of the IPC If a riot occurs to the advantage of someone who owns, occupies, or has an interest in the land where the riot happened, or in the issue that triggered it. If the person knowing that the riot or riot unlawful assembly was likely to take place, does not use all lawful means to prevent or disperse it, such person can be fined.  Similarly, Section 156 states that, if a riot benefits someone who owns, occupies, or has an interest in the land where the riot took place, or in the matter that caused it, the agent or manager of the person can be fined, if the agent failed to take preventive steps even after knowing that the riot shall take place.

HARBOURING PERSONS INVOLVED IN UNLAWFUL ASSEMBLY

As per Section 157, Anyone who harbours, receives, or gathers people in their house or premises, aware that these people have been hired or are about to be hired to participate in an unlawful assembly, may be punished with up to six months of imprisonment, a fine, or both.

Further, anyone who is involved or hired, or who offers to be hired for any of the acts outlined in Section 141, may face imprisonment for up to six months, a fine, or both. If such a person, while engaged or hired, carries a deadly weapon or any item likely to cause death when used as a weapon, they can be punished with imprisonment for a maximum of two years, a fine, or both.

AFFRAY 

An affray has been defined under Section 159 of IPC. It is a fight between two or more people in a public place. Such a fight or altercation disturbs the peace of the community. A person guilty of the same shall be punished with imprisonment for a term which can extend to one month or with fine or fine extendable to a hundred rupees or both.

In the case Babu Ram and Anr. Vs. Emperor,  A person who was attacked and overpowered by two others in a public place, while only able to defend himself, was found guilty of an offense. This was because their actions constituted fighting in a public place, which disrupted public peace.

DIFFERENCES BETWEEN AFFRAY, RIOT AND UNLAWFUL ASSEMBLY

CONCLUSION 

It is very important to maintain the peace and tranquility of a society. Therefore, the laws which maintain the order of a society are very important for maintaining a safe and stable society. These laws by properly defining and providing punishments act as a deterrent to such activities which hamper and disrupt public peace and welfare.

REFERNCES :

1. LawBhoomi, Offences Against Public Tranquility under IPC, https://lawbhoomi.com/offences-against-public-tranquility-under-ipc/

2. Centre For National Policy, Offences against Public Tranquility : An Overview, https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&source=web&rct=j&opi=89978449&url=https://cnpr.in/wp-content/uploads/2021/12/Vaishnavi-Kumari-Research-Paper.pdf&ved=2ahUKEwifkMH9w5yIAxVtxjgGHaI7HKQQFnoECDIQAQ&usg=AOvVaw04C07-H95CNvzcM7Le6jp6

3. iPleaders Blog, Notable Judgements on Offences against Public Tranquility, https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&source=web&rct=j&opi=89978449&url=https://blog.ipleaders.in/notable-judgments-on-offences-against-public-tranquility/&ved=2ahUKEwjlg-PExJyIAxUe-jgGHXcqFg84ChAWegQIFBAB&usg=AOvVaw3ZeuThh_8HDPOgOH_dDCTl

4. E-Justice India, Offences Against Public Tranquility, https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&source=web&rct=j&opi=89978449&url=https://www.ejusticeindia.com/offences-against-public-tranquility/&ved=2ahUKEwjlg-PExJyIAxUe-jgGHXcqFg84ChAWegQIERAB&usg=AOvVaw3iXW6G_x1u-lR1YWc88mzX