Rioting
Section 191 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 deals with rioting. Whenever force or violence is used by an unlawful assembly, or by any member thereof, in prosecution of the common object of such assembly, every member of such assembly is guilty of the offence of rioting. The Act came into force on 01 Jul 2024.
(1) Whenever force or violence is used by an unlawful assembly, or by any member thereof, in prosecution of the common object of such assembly, every member of such assembly is guilty of the offence of rioting.
(2) Whoever is guilty of rioting, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to two years, or with fine, or with both.
(3) Whoever is guilty of rioting, being armed with a deadly weapon or with anything which, used as a weapon of offence, is likely to cause death, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to five years, or with fine, or with both.
Section 191, The Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 (Act 45 of 2023).
Replaces a provision of the Indian Penal Code
IPC 146 Rioting Text carried over almost unchanged 90%
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 The repealed enactment still governs what happened while it was in force.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. This section is classified 2 ways.
| Offence | Punishment | Cognizable | Bailable | Triable by |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Rioting. | Imprisonment for 2 years, or fine, or both. | Cognizable. | Bailable. | Any Magistrate. |
| Rioting, armed with a deadly weapon. | Imprisonment for 5 years, or fine, or both. | Cognizable. | Bailable. | Magistrate of the first class. |
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.
-
Bharat Soni Etc vs State of Chhatisgarh
Decided under Indian Penal Code 146, which this section replaces. The court did not have this Act before it.
Court's Decision & Legal Precedent
Members of an unlawful assembly cannot be held liable for a substantive offence (such as murder) committed by another member under Section 149 IPC unless there is clear, consistent, and convincing evidence establishing either: (a) that the accused shared the common object to commit that specific substantive offence, or (b) that the accused knew that the offence was likely to be committed in prosecution of the common object. The mere fact of presence at the scene, participation in general violence, or use of force to accomplish a lesser common object (such as teaching someone a lesson) is insufficient to establish constructive liability for a substantive offence like murder. Eyewitness testimony must be consistent between the FIR and court deposition, and the evidence must clearly establish the nexus between each accused's actions and the fatal injury, or must establish knowledge that murder specifically was likely.
On this section: Definition and punishment for rioting and related offences; cited to distinguish rioting from unlawful assembly
-
Sadhu Saran Singh vs State of U. P.
Decided under Indian Penal Code 147, 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: Rioting - applied to convict all accused for being part of armed assembly with common intention to commit violence
-
Shyam Narain Pandey vs State of U. P
Decided under Indian Penal Code 147, which this section replaces. The court did not have this Act before it.
Court's Decision & Legal Precedent
When an appellate court is inclined to release on bail a convicted person sentenced to death, life imprisonment, or imprisonment for ten years or more, it is mandatory for the appellate court to first give an opportunity to the Public Prosecutor to file written objections against such release. Service of appeal and bail application papers does not satisfy this requirement. The appellate court must affirmatively grant a specific opportunity for written show cause, wait for the Public Prosecutor's written response (if any), and then proceed to consider the bail application. The procedure is mandatory, not discretionary, and non-compliance renders the bail order procedurally defective and liable to be set aside.
On this section: The Act provisions under which convictions were recorded in the trial court; these offences involve rioting, murder and criminal conspiracy, attracting serious punishment
-
State Of West Bengal vs Mitul Kumar Jana
Decided under Indian Penal Code 147, which this section replaces. The court did not have this Act before it.
Court's Decision & Legal Precedent
Where a verification form for public employment asks for specific information regarding arrest, detention, or conviction, and does not expressly require disclosure of pending criminal cases, a candidate's failure to mention a pending case does not constitute suppression of material information. Upon acquittal in a pending case involving trivial offences not related to moral turpitude, the candidate cannot be denied public employment solely on the basis of alleged suppression of information about the pending case. However, the employer retains discretion to assess the candidate's suitability and antecedents before issuing the appointment order, though such discretion must be exercised judiciously and cannot be used to arbitrarily deny appointment.
On this section: Sections under which the respondent was accused in the criminal case at Kakdwip Police Station; Court noted these sections pertain to petty and trivial offences not involving moral turpitude
-
Parshuram vs State Of M.P.
Decided under Indian Penal Code 147, 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: Punishment for rioting - Applied to accused for participating in unlawful assembly
-
Vidhya Rattan vs The State of Haryana Home Department Chief Secretary
Decided under Indian Penal Code 146, 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: Defines rioting as an unlawful assembly which commits or attempts to commit an act of violence.
-
Sasikala Pushpa vs The State of Tamil Nadu Rep. by the Inspector of Police
Decided under Indian Penal Code 147, which this section replaces. The court did not have this Act before it.
Court's Decision & Legal Precedent
A clerical error or incorrect statement regarding date and place in a procedural document like a vakalatnama, where the party admits to the genuine signatures and provides a plausible explanation for the error, does not constitute forgery or fraud upon the court warranting criminal prosecution under Sections 193, 466, 468, and 471 IPC. Fraud requires mens rea (criminal intention) to deceive and cause wrongful gain or loss. Before exercising jurisdiction under Section 340 Cr.P.C. to direct a criminal complaint, the court must be satisfied that it is 'expedient in the interest of justice' by weighing the effect on administration of justice, not merely the injury to a person. A mere incorrect statement in a procedural document that has no bearing on the merits of the case and causes no demonstrable harm to the administration of justice does not justify criminal prosecution.
On this section: Rioting; cited in property damage case
-
Brijendra Singh vs State of Rajasthan
Decided under Indian Penal Code 147, which this section replaces. The court did not have this Act before it.
Court's Decision & Legal Precedent
The power conferred by Section 319 Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 on courts to summon persons not arraigned as accused to face trial is discretionary and extraordinary in nature. This power must be exercised sparingly and only in those cases where circumstances warrant. A much stricter degree of satisfaction than the prima facie case standard (applicable at cognizance or charge-framing) is required. The court must be satisfied that strong and cogent evidence has occurred against the person from the evidence led before the court indicating that such person may be guilty of committing the offence for which such person could be tried together with already arraigned accused. Mere probability of complicity or weak oral testimony that has already been rejected during investigation is insufficient to invoke this extraordinary power. The trial court and High Court must carefully examine all material on record, including investigative findings, before invoking Section 319 powers, and the exercise of this power in casual or cavalier manner without such scrutiny cannot withstand judicial review.
On this section: Relating to rioting and unlawful assembly; charges framed against appellants
-
Fazar Ali vs State of Assam
Decided under Indian Penal Code 147, 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: Rioting - Applied as one of the initial charges in the FIR, indicating group violent conduct.
-
State(tr)central Bureau of Investigation vs Shri Kalyan Singh(former Cm of Up)
Decided under Indian Penal Code 147, 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: Rioting - Applied to charges against kar sewaks and others involved in the demolition.
-
Haji Mahboob Ahmad vs Kalyan Singh
Decided under Indian Penal Code 147, 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: Rioting - applied to charges against Kar Sewaks and some of the accused leaders
-
Soyebbhai Yusufbhai Bharania vs State of Gujarat
Decided under Indian Penal Code 147, 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: Punishment for rioting and rioting armed with deadly weapon - applied to establish the rioting nature of the unlawful assembly
-
Krishna @ Bala Krishnan vs State Tr. Insp. of Police
Decided under Indian Penal Code 147, 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: Punishment for rioting (unlawful assembly acting with violence). Applied as conviction head for all accused under Section 148 IPC (rioting armed with deadly weapon).
-
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 giving false evidence and fabricating false evidence. Possibly applied in context of witness statements or investigation findings.
-
State of Karnataka vs Hanamantappa Shivappa Havanur
Decided under Indian Penal Code 147, 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: Rioting - Court analyzed whether accused committed rioting but found insufficient evidence due to hostile witness testimony
-
Himanshu Alias Bansi vs State of Haryana
Court's Decision & Legal Precedent
When the investigation is complete, no life-threatening injury is certified by medical experts, and co-accused with similar roles have been granted bail, the applicants are entitled to regular bail on the ground of parity and the conclusion of investigation.
On this section: Applied to categorize the gravity of the offense and determine if the ingredients of attempt to murder/assault were met.
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.
Judgments citing this section
These may be obiter dicta or a precedent, for you to study. These are the judgments where this section is quoted.
-
… The occurrence which is the subject-matter of the said case took place on 21.09.2024 and the case was registered on the same day under Sections 189(2), 191(2), 191(3), 126(2) 115(2), 118(1), 324(4) read with Section 190 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS). The offence under Section 110 of BNS also was added in the case in the course of the investigation. The detenu is the first accused in the case. He …
-
… The last -: 4 :- prejudicial activity in which the detenu was involved is Crime No.290 of 2024 of Maranalloor Police Station registered on 07.07.2024 under Sections 189(2), 191(2), 190, 296, 74, 75(2), 76 and 115(2) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 (BNS). The detenu was arrested in connection with the said case on 07.07.2024 itself and he was enlarged on bail on 26.07.2024. The proposal for the detention under the Act was made by the competent authority on 26.07.2024 and the detention …
Questions about Section 191
What have the courts held on Section 191 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita?
Bharat Soni Etc vs State of Chhatisgarh (22 Nov 2012) is the leading judgment on this section among those set out below, though it was decided under IPC 146, which this section replaced -- the court never mentioned this Act: Definition and punishment for rioting and related offences; cited to distinguish rioting from unlawful assembly. Another 15 judgments on this section are set out below, 13 of them from the Supreme Court. They run from 2012 to 2026.
Is Section 191 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita bailable?
Bailable, under the First Schedule to the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023.
Is Section 191 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita cognizable?
Cognizable. "Cognizable" means a police officer may arrest without warrant; "non-cognizable" that they may not. An offence under this section is triable by Any Magistrate.
How do I find court cases under Section 191 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 191, section 191 BNS, section 191 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita. People searching for it also type bns 191 3 section in hindi and bns 191 2 section in hindi. 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 Bharat Soni Etc vs State of Chhatisgarh (22 Nov 2012).
What should I read with Section 191 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, and has it changed?
2 other provisions in this corpus refer back to it. It carries forward IPC 146 (Rioting), so the judgments decided under that provision are the case law on this one.
When did Section 191 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita come into force?
Section 191 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, cited as BNS 191, 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.