Rioting And Mob Violence Judgments
Rioting and Mob Violence: Legal Overview
What is Rioting?
Defined under Section 146 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC), rioting involves the use of force or violence by an unlawful assembly or any member of it, disturbing the public peace.
An unlawful assembly is defined under Section 141 IPC as a group of five or more persons with a common unlawful purpose.
Mob violence is typically spontaneous, collective violence by groups, often resulting in serious public disorder and damage.
Relevant Sections of IPC
Section 141: Unlawful assembly.
Section 146: Rioting.
Section 147: Punishment for rioting.
Section 148: Rioting armed with deadly weapon.
Section 149: Every member of unlawful assembly guilty of offence committed in prosecution of common object.
Section 302: Murder (if mob violence leads to death).
Section 353: Assault or criminal force to deter public servant from discharge of his duty.
Important Supreme Court Judgments on Rioting and Mob Violence
1. Arup Bhuyan v. State of Assam (2011)
Facts:
The accused were part of a mob that attacked a group of people, causing serious injuries and damage.
Issue:
How should courts apply the doctrine of common object under Section 149 IPC in rioting cases?
Judgment:
The Supreme Court held that every member of an unlawful assembly can be held liable for the offence committed by the group if done in furtherance of the common object, even if not directly involved in the act.
Significance:
This judgment reaffirmed that participation in an unlawful assembly carrying a common object makes one liable for crimes committed by the mob.
2. K.K. Verma v. Union of India (1981)
Facts:
This case involved a violent riot where several persons were killed, and the police failed to control the situation.
Issue:
Whether police negligence in controlling riots can attract constitutional and criminal liability.
Judgment:
The Supreme Court held that police have a constitutional duty to protect citizens and maintain law and order. Negligence or dereliction can lead to compensation for victims and penal action.
Significance:
This ruling emphasized police accountability in managing mob violence and riots.
3. Nathulal v. State of Rajasthan (1952)
Facts:
Several accused were charged with rioting and causing injuries during a public disturbance.
Issue:
What constitutes “use of force or violence” to amount to rioting under Section 146 IPC?
Judgment:
The Court held that the use of criminal force by members of an unlawful assembly to achieve their common object constitutes rioting. The intent to use violence or force is a key factor.
Significance:
Clarified the legal interpretation of “rioting” and the necessity of criminal force or violence.
4. Rajiv Goswami v. Union of India (1993)
Facts:
Riots broke out following protests, leading to widespread violence and destruction.
Issue:
Can individuals inciting mob violence be held responsible under criminal law?
Judgment:
The Supreme Court held that instigators and leaders who incite violence are equally liable as the direct perpetrators. They can be prosecuted for offences under Sections 141, 146, and 149 IPC.
Significance:
The judgment underscored accountability of leaders and instigators in mob violence.
5. Zafar Alam v. State of Bihar (2014)
Facts:
This case involved mob violence where police failed to intervene effectively.
Issue:
Whether failure of police to control riots amounts to violation of fundamental rights of victims.
Judgment:
The Supreme Court held that failure by law enforcement to prevent mob violence violates the victims’ fundamental rights under Article 21. It directed stringent action and compensation.
Significance:
Strengthened the enforcement of victim rights and police responsibilities during riots.
Summary
Rioting involves use of force by an unlawful assembly with a common unlawful purpose.
Every member of a mob is liable for actions done in furtherance of the common object.
Police and state authorities have a constitutional duty to control and prevent mob violence.
Instigators and leaders who incite violence are equally punishable.
Courts emphasize accountability and victim compensation for lapses in controlling riots.
RELATED Blog
0 comments