Every member of unlawful assembly guilty of offence committed in prosecution of common object
Section 190 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 deals with every member of unlawful assembly guilty of offence committed in prosecution of common object. If an offence is committed by any member of an unlawful assembly in prosecution of the common object of that assembly, or such as the members of that assembly knew to be likely to be committed in prosecution of that object, every person who, at the time of the committing of that offence, is a member The Act came into force on 01 Jul 2024.
If an offence is committed by any member of an unlawful assembly in prosecution of the common object of that assembly, or such as the members of that assembly knew to be likely to be committed in prosecution of that object, every person who, at the time of the committing of that offence, is a member of the same assembly, is guilty of that offence.
Section 190, The Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 (Act 45 of 2023).
Replaces a provision of the Indian Penal Code
IPC 149 Every member of unlawful assembly guilty of offence committed in prosecution of common object Text carried over almost unchanged 100%
Measured by comparing the text of the two provisions, not taken from an official correspondence table — there is no machine-readable one. See both texts side by side before relying on it.
Both regimes are live. The repealed enactment still governs what happened while it was in force. We never redirect one to the other.
Cross-references
Extracted from the operative text of the enactments themselves. Every destination below exists in our corpus.
How this offence is classified
From the First Schedule to the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, which classifies every offence under the Sanhita. Cognizable means a police officer may arrest without warrant; bailable means bail is a matter of right rather than of the court's discretion.
| Offence | Punishment | Cognizable | Bailable | Triable by |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Every member of unlawful assembly guilty of offence committed in prosecution of common object. | The same as for the offence. | According as offence is cognizable or non-cognizable. | According as offence is bailable or non-is bailable. | The Court by which the offence triable. |
Related judgements & precedents
These are some judgments that construed this section, and hold precedence value. They hold authority on how to read, interpret and use this section.
-
Vinubhai Ranchhodbhai Patel vs Rajivbhai Dudabhai Patel
Decided under Indian Penal Code 149, which this section replaces. The court did not have this Act before it.
Court's Decision & Legal Precedent
When an unlawful assembly is alleged in a criminal trial resulting in death or injury to multiple persons: (1) Charges must be framed distinctly and specifically for each victim and for each accused, particularly distinguishing which accused is alleged to have caused death of which victim and on what basis (direct liability or vicarious liability under Section 149); (2) The existence of an unlawful assembly as defined under Section 141 IPC (assembly of 5+ persons with common object to commit offence) must be established as foundational to any conviction under Sections 143, 146, 148, or 149; (3) The common object of the assembly must be inferred from the circumstances of gathering, time, place, and conduct as a group - not from individual overt acts alone; (4) The mere presence of an accused in an unlawful assembly is sufficient for vicarious liability under Section 149 for offences committed by other members if he had knowledge that such offence was likely to be committed; (5) Defective charge framing that fails to communicate to the accused with precision the nature of their alleged liability violates Article 21 of the Constitution and constitutes failure of justice warranting appellate intervention; (6) When, after substantial passage of time (such as 26 years), procedural defects and evidentiary degradation make fresh trial impracticable, public law damages awarded to victims by the State may be an appropriate remedy for state's failure in maintaining law and order.
On this section: Declares vicarious liability of members of unlawful assembly for offences committed by other members in prosecution of common object or known to be likely to be committed
-
Sadhu Saran Singh vs State of U. P.
Decided under Indian Penal Code 149, which this section replaces. The court did not have this Act before it.
Court's Decision & Legal Precedent
An appellate court has full power to review, reappreciate, and reconsider evidence upon which an order of acquittal is founded. While a double presumption of innocence exists in favor of an acquitted person, the paramount consideration is substantial justice and avoiding miscarriage of justice from acquitting the guilty. If two reasonable conclusions are possible on the basis of evidence, acquittal should not be disturbed. However, when the approach of the trial court in acquitting an accused is found to be clearly erroneous in its consideration of evidence and deduction of conclusions, the appellate court must interfere. Ocular (eyewitness) evidence has greater evidentiary value than medical evidence unless the contradiction is so extreme that medical evidence completely rules out all possibilities of the ocular evidence being true. The non-examination of a kidnapped and intimidated witness cannot be fatal to the prosecution case. Evidence of eyewitnesses, though interested parties, is trustworthy when reliable and internally consistent. Minor discrepancies in eyewitness testimony spanning long examination periods are immaterial when the core narrative remains consistent and corroborated.
On this section: Criminal act by member of unlawful assembly - applied to hold all members of the assembly liable for the murders committed by individual members in prosecution of common object
-
Parshuram vs State Of M.P.
Decided under Indian Penal Code 149, which this section replaces. The court did not have this Act before it.
Court's Decision & Legal Precedent
When members of an unlawful assembly are convicted under Section 302 read with Section 149 IPC, the prosecution must prove beyond reasonable doubt that the common object of the unlawful assembly was to cause death. If the evidence does not clearly establish this common object, and if the prosecution fails to explain injuries sustained by the accused persons (which creates reasonable doubt about the prosecution's version), the conviction should be reduced to culpable homicide not amounting to murder under Section 304 Part-II IPC. The benefit of doubt must be given to the accused in such circumstances.
On this section: Act of member of unlawful assembly in prosecution of common object - Vicarious liability principle; not necessary that every member commits the actual offence
-
Rohtas vs The State of Haryana Home Department Home Secretary
Decided under Indian Penal Code 149, which this section replaces. The court did not have this Act before it.
Court's Decision & Legal Precedent
When an accused is charged under Sections 148 and 149 IPC as part of an unlawful assembly, but some members of the assembly are acquitted during trial such that the number falls below five, the conviction under Sections 148 and 149 cannot be sustained. However, the accused can be individually convicted under Section 307 IPC (or other applicable provisions) if the evidence establishes that his individual act caused the injury or death, provided that: (1) the facts to be proved and evidence to be adduced would be substantially the same as under the group charge; (2) the accused was expressly confronted with his specific role in the offence; and (3) no prejudice is caused to the accused by the charge alteration. Additionally, the credibility of eyewitness testimony from closely related family members (such as the victim's brother) can be relied upon in violent crime cases if the testimony is consistent, detailed, corroborated by medical evidence, and the gravity of injuries makes false implication inconceivable.
On this section: Vicarious liability of members of unlawful assembly. Court held that when the number of accused falls below five due to acquittals, conviction under this section cannot be sustained, but individual conviction under Section 307 IPC is permissible.
-
Vidhya Rattan vs The State of Haryana Home Department Chief Secretary
Decided under Indian Penal Code 149, which this section replaces. The court did not have this Act before it.
Court's Decision & Legal Precedent
For the application of Section 149 IPC, it is not necessary to explicitly invoke Section 141 IPC in the charge sheet. What is essential is that the ingredients of unlawful assembly as defined in Section 141 IPC must be proven. An unlawful assembly requires: (i) an assembly of at least five persons, and (ii) a common object to commit an offence or achieve any of the objects enumerated in Section 141. The common object is to be gathered from the circumstances of each case such as time, place, and conduct of the gathering. Once the existence of an unlawful assembly with a common object is proven, all members of that assembly are vicariously liable under Section 149 IPC for offences committed in prosecution of that common object, regardless of whether each member inflicted a specific injury or even any injury at all. Mere presence in the unlawful assembly with knowledge of the common object is sufficient for vicarious liability.
On this section: Provides vicarious liability for all members of unlawful assembly for offences committed in prosecution of common object. This is the key section applied in this case. The Court clarified that this section propounds vicarious liability in two contingencies: (i) if a member commits an offence in prosecution of common object, all members are guilty, and (ii) even if members do not share the same common object, if they knew that others are likely to commit the offence, they are liable.
-
Bannareddy vs The State of Karnataka Navalgund Police Station Police Sub Inspector
Decided under Indian Penal Code 149, which this section replaces. The court did not have this Act before it.
Court's Decision & Legal Precedent
The High Court should not interfere with a well-reasoned order of acquittal passed by the trial court unless strong and compelling reasons exist in the evidence itself which can dislodge the findings. When two views are reasonably possible from the evidence on record, one favouring the accused and one against the accused, the High Court is not expected to reverse the acquittal merely because it would have taken the view against the accused, as the very fact that two views are possible makes it clear that the prosecution has not proved the guilt of the accused beyond reasonable doubt and consequently the accused is entitled to benefit of doubt. The prosecution must establish guilt beyond reasonable doubt through consistent, reliable, and corroborated evidence; material contradictions in witness statements, hostile witnesses, suspicious recovery procedures, and dubious victim conduct collectively render the prosecution case insufficient to sustain conviction.
On this section: Act of each member of unlawful assembly in prosecution of common object - Supreme Court held that collective liability cannot be established without proving overt acts of individual accused; mere presence or vague allegations insufficient
-
Fazar Ali vs State of Assam
Decided under Indian Penal Code 149, which this section replaces. The court did not have this Act before it.
Court's Decision & Legal Precedent
In criminal cases involving group violence with multiple accused armed with different weapons causing injuries and death, (1) minor inconsistencies and contradictions between eyewitness statements recorded under Section 161 CrPC and their court testimony do not materially undermine the credibility of core identification and presence of the accused at the scene; (2) it is unreasonable to expect a 'picture-perfect' account of the manner in which each accused inflicted specific injuries; (3) all members of an unlawful assembly are liable for criminal acts committed in furtherance of the common object of the assembly; (4) the mention of 'And Others' in an FIR coupled with subsequent investigation constitutes valid procedure for charge-sheeting additional accused not specifically named; and (5) conviction can be sustained based on eyewitness testimony despite minor contradictions when the core facts of identification, presence, participation, and causation of injury remain consistent and credible.
On this section: Constructive Liability In Unlawful Assembly - Applied to hold each member of the unlawful assembly liable for the murder committed in furtherance of the common object, even though not every member directly inflicted the fatal injury.
-
State(tr)central Bureau of Investigation vs Shri Kalyan Singh(former Cm of Up)
Decided under Indian Penal Code 149, which this section replaces. The court did not have this Act before it.
Court's Decision & Legal Precedent
The Supreme Court of India has the power under Article 142 of the Constitution to transfer criminal proceedings from one Special Court to another Special Court under the same High Court jurisdiction to achieve complete justice and remedy procedural defects, provided such transfer does not violate mandatory substantive provisions of law. In cases involving crimes that shake the secular fabric of the Constitution and where procedural defects have prevented a unified trial of accused persons charged with criminal conspiracy in the course of the same transaction, the Supreme Court can exercise this power to consolidate fragmented proceedings and ensure that all accused are tried together for the conspiracy charge, even if some had been previously discharged from separate proceedings. The absence of a non-obstante clause in the relevant statutory provision (Section 11(1) proviso of the Criminal Procedure Code) distinguishes this case from situations where such a clause exists, and therefore the transfer does not violate the fundamental right to appeal under Article 21 of the Constitution.
On this section: Act of person in furtherance of common object of unlawful assembly - Applied to charges against multiple accused.
-
Haji Mahboob Ahmad vs Kalyan Singh
Decided under Indian Penal Code 149, which this section replaces. The court did not have this Act before it.
Court's Decision & Legal Precedent
The Supreme Court of India has the constitutional power under Article 142 to transfer criminal proceedings from one court to another to remedy procedural defects and ensure complete justice, even when the High Court has statutory power under Section 407 of the Criminal Procedure Code to do so. This power can be exercised when crimes that shake the secular fabric of the Constitution have allegedly been committed and the accused persons have not been brought to book largely because of procedural defects and the conduct of the investigating agency. The transfer does not violate Article 21 of the Constitution because the procedure established by law itself contemplates such transfers under Section 407 of the Criminal Procedure Code, and the absence of a non-obstante clause in Section 11(1) proviso of the Criminal Procedure Code distinguishes this case from cases where substantive rights are infringed. Additionally, criminal conspiracy charges already contained in a joint charge sheet cannot be separated from the accused persons by discharging them, and all offences committed in the course of the same transaction to accomplish a conspiracy must be tried jointly.
On this section: Act of each member of unlawful assembly in prosecution of common object - applied in conjunction with other sections to establish liability of members of the unlawful assembly
-
Soyebbhai Yusufbhai Bharania vs State of Gujarat
Decided under Indian Penal Code 149, which this section replaces. The court did not have this Act before it.
Court's Decision & Legal Precedent
When the fact of presence of five or more persons in an unlawful assembly is clearly established through credible eyewitness testimony, though identification of all five may not be possible due to circumstances like darkness, conviction of the identified persons under Sections 302, 147, 148 read with 149 IPC can still be sustained if the common object of the assembly to commit the offense is proved beyond reasonable doubt. Motive is immaterial when direct eyewitness evidence is available. A single credible eyewitness testimony, if detailed and reliable, is sufficient to establish guilt in murder cases.
On this section: Act of one member of unlawful assembly in prosecution of common object - court clarified that while five persons must be proven present, identification of all is not necessary if some are acquitted due to lack of specific evidence
-
Sheikh Juman Etc vs State of Bihar
Decided under Indian Penal Code 149, which this section replaces. The court did not have this Act before it.
Court's Decision & Legal Precedent
Members of an unlawful assembly share criminal liability for deaths caused by other members in furtherance of the common object of the assembly, even if they did not directly perpetrate the killing, provided they actively participated in the crime through facilitating acts such as preventing rescue efforts or demonstrating force with weapons, and this liability can be established through reliable eye-witness testimony corroborated by circumstantial evidence, and mere presence at the scene with knowledge of the common object is sufficient when combined with active facilitation.
On this section: Unlawful Assembly - Used to hold all members of the group liable for murders committed by other members sharing common object, even those who stood outside and did not directly throw bombs
-
Krishna @ Bala Krishnan vs State Tr. Insp. of Police
Decided under Indian Penal Code 149, which this section replaces. The court did not have this Act before it.
Court's Decision & Legal Precedent
Where eyewitness evidence establishes that members of an unlawful assembly of five or more persons came together with the common object of committing murder, attacked family members with deadly weapons and with common intent as evidenced by slogans and coordinated attack in quick succession, all members of such unlawful assembly are vicariously liable under Section 302 read with Section 149 IPC for all murders committed in prosecution of the common object, even if not all members physically perpetrated each murder. The High Court's modification of conviction from Section 34 to Section 149 is justified where the facts establish common object rather than merely common intention. While multiple life sentences can be awarded for multiple murders, they cannot be directed to run consecutively, but term sentences may precede and commence before life sentences in accordance with Section 31 CrPC.
On this section: Vicarious criminal liability for members of unlawful assembly. Applied to hold all members of unlawful assembly vicariously liable for eight murders committed by specific members in prosecution of common object. Court upheld substitution of Section 149 for Section 34 based on eyewitness evidence establishing common object.
-
Muthuramalingam vs State Rep. by Insp. of Police
Decided under Indian Penal Code 149, which this section replaces. The court did not have this Act before it.
Court's Decision & Legal Precedent
In cases involving unlawful assembly and mass murder, where eyewitnesses testify to the presence of multiple armed persons acting in concert with a common object to commit murder, and where the accused are heard shouting slogans indicating intent to kill, the conviction can be upheld under Section 302 read with Section 149 IPC even if the charge was originally framed under Section 34 IPC, provided the evidence establishes the common object of the assembly and the participation of the accused in the unlawful assembly. The vicarious liability of all members of the unlawful assembly for acts committed in prosecution of the common object is established when eyewitness testimony is credible and corroborated by other evidence such as recovered weapons and the nature of the attack.
On this section: Vicarious criminal liability for acts done in prosecution of common object of unlawful assembly; applied to hold all members of unlawful assembly liable for murders committed by any member
-
Yash Mahadeo Bhosale vs State of Maharashtra through Malegaon Police Station C R No 71 of 2026
Court's Decision & Legal Precedent
In cases involving serious violent crimes with allegations of conspiracy to commit murder (contract killing), where the investigation is ongoing, medical evidence shows grievous injury on vital parts of the body, witnesses have identified the accused, criminal antecedents exist, and there is demonstrable risk of witness intimidation and evidence tampering, bail should be refused even if the accused have undergone substantial custody period, as the nature and gravity of the offence and investigative requirements outweigh the right to bail at the investigation stage.
On this section: Relates to causing hurt. Applied to the injuries sustained by the victim.
-
State of Karnataka vs Hanamantappa Shivappa Havanur
Decided under Indian Penal Code 149, which this section replaces. The court did not have this Act before it.
Court's Decision & Legal Precedent
When the main prosecution witnesses, particularly the alleged victims of the crime, turn hostile and depose that no incident took place, and their testimony contradicts the statements given to police, the prosecution fails to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt. In such circumstances, the benefit of doubt must be given to the accused persons, and they must be acquitted. The credibility and reliability of witness testimony is paramount in criminal prosecutions, and the court cannot convict based on documents or circumstantial evidence alone when the direct witnesses deny the allegations.
On this section: Common object doctrine - Court applied this section in conjunction with other sections but found that common object could not be established due to lack of credible witness testimony
-
Karam Singh vs State Of Punjab
Decided under Indian Penal Code 149, which this section replaces. The court did not have this Act before it.
Court's Decision & Legal Precedent
In criminal cases involving non-compoundable offences such as Section 307 IPC (Attempt to Murder), while the conviction cannot be set aside merely on the basis of compromise between parties, the compromise is a relevant and significant circumstance that the court must consider when determining the quantum of sentence. When parties who are residents of the same village and apparently related have settled their disputes amicably after a prolonged period, the court should take a lenient view on sentencing to enable the parties to live cordially together, provided the conviction is maintained to uphold the rule of law. Additionally, acquittals recorded by the trial court should not be reversed on appeal at a belated stage when the evidence was insufficient at trial and the parties have subsequently reconciled.
On this section: Every Member of Unlawful Assembly Guilty of Offence Committed in Prosecution of Common Object - Cited in FIR
The holding above is the ratio decidendi as extracted from the judgment by eCourts India, reproduced unaltered — it is a rendering of the court's reasoning, not a substitute for its words. Read the order itself before relying on it.
Questions about Section 190
What have the courts held on Section 190 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita?
Vinubhai Ranchhodbhai Patel vs Rajivbhai Dudabhai Patel (16 May 2018) is the leading judgment on this section among those set out below, though it was decided under IPC 149, which this section replaced -- the court never mentioned this Act: Declares vicarious liability of members of unlawful assembly for offences committed by other members in prosecution of common object or known to be likely to be committed. Another 15 judgments on this section are set out below, 13 of them from the Supreme Court. They run from 2016 to 2026.
Is Section 190 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita bailable?
According as offence is bailable or non-is bailable, under the First Schedule to the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023.
Is Section 190 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita cognizable?
According as offence is cognizable or non-cognizable. "Cognizable" means a police officer may arrest without warrant; "non-cognizable" that they may not. An offence under this section is triable by The Court by which the offence triable.
How do I find court cases under Section 190 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita?
In judgments and charge sheets this section is written several ways, and each form finds a different set of orders. These search the full text of every order eCourtsIndia holds, best matches first: BNS 190, section 190 BNS, section 190 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita. People searching for it also type bns 190 in ipc and bns 190 bailable or not. Each opens the full list of orders on eCourtsIndia, where it can be narrowed by court, year and outcome. 16 reported judgments on this section are set out on this page, beginning with Vinubhai Ranchhodbhai Patel vs Rajivbhai Dudabhai Patel (16 May 2018).
What should I read with Section 190 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, and has it changed?
2 other provisions in this corpus refer back to it. It carries forward IPC 149 (Every member of unlawful assembly guilty of offence committed in prosecution of common object), so the judgments decided under that provision are the case law on this one.
When did Section 190 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita come into force?
Section 190 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, cited as BNS 190, came into force on 01 Jul 2024, having been enacted on 25 Dec 2023. It is in force as at the date shown on this page.
Other sections of this Act
- 2. Definitions2199 words
- 356. Defamation1543 words
- 335. Making a false document1318 words
- 101. Murder1177 words
- 303. Theft1104 words
- 3. General explanations858 words
Source and method. Compiled from the enactments of Parliament and of the State legislatures as published on India Code, and republished together with commentary and other original matter under section 52(1)(q)(ii) of the Copyright Act, 1957. Structured, cross-referenced and maintained by eCourtsIndia. Text as in force on 14 Oct 2026. This page is not a substitute for legal advice.