Documente Academic
Documente Profesional
Documente Cultură
Criminal Law-I
Faculty of Criminal law Sir Father Peter
1|Page
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
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.
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
1 2
Kennys Outlines of criminal law, 19 Edn. th Gaur Hari Singh, Penal law of India, 11 Edn.
th
7|Page
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.
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)
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)
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)
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
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;
16 | P a g e