Being member of unlawful assembly
Section 142 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 deals with being member of unlawful assembly. Whoever, being aware of facts which render any assembly an unlawful assembly, intentionally joins that assembly, or continues in it, is said to be a member of an unlawful assembly. The Act came into force on 01 Jan 1862. Repealed by section 358 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 (45 of 2023) with effect from 1 July 2024, but conduct before that date is still charged, tried and appealed under it.
Whoever, being aware of facts which render any assembly an unlawful assembly, intentionally joins that assembly, or continues in it, is said to be a member of an unlawful assembly.
Section 142, The Indian Penal Code, 1860 (Act 45 of 1860).
Now in the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita
BNS 189 Unlawful assembly Text carried over almost unchanged 85%
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 The repealed enactment still governs what happened while it was in force.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.
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.
-
Parshuram vs State Of M.P.
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: Membership of unlawful assembly - Whoever, being aware of facts which render any assembly an unlawful assembly, intentionally joins or continues in it
-
Vidhya Rattan vs The State of Haryana Home Department Chief Secretary
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 membership of unlawful assembly. A person who is aware of facts rendering an assembly unlawful and intentionally joins or continues in it is a member.
-
State of Rajasthan vs Shvi Charan
Court's Decision & Legal Precedent
For conviction under Section 149 IPC (Constructive Liability), the prosecution must establish: (I) An assembly of five or more persons; (II) The assembly was unlawful with a common object; and (III) The common object consisted of one or more of the illegal objects specified in Section 141 IPC. Common object need not be formed prior to the incident but can be formed on the spur of the moment. Once such unlawful assembly with common object is proven, all members can be held vicariously liable for any offence committed by any member in prosecution of such common object, without requiring each member to commit an overt act. However, mere presence or association is insufficient; there must be evidence that each member intended to or knew of the likelihood of commission of the offence. Additionally, where injuries sustained by the accused are minor in nature, non-explanation of such injuries by the prosecution cannot be the sole basis to reject clear, cogent and creditworthy prosecution evidence.
On this section: Requirement that accused must have intended to aid or known likelihood of commission of offence as member of unlawful assembly; basis for determining vicarious liability
-
Bharat Soni Etc vs State of Chhatisgarh
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: Knowingly joining or continuing in unlawful assembly; relevant to establishing membership of the appellants in the unlawful assembly
-
Pandurang Chandrakant Mhatre vs State of Maharashtra
Court's Decision & Legal Precedent
In cases involving unlawful assembly with multiple accused persons where eyewitness evidence is partisan due to factional rivalry: (1) Interested witnesses may be relied upon if found otherwise trustworthy and their testimony is examined with utmost care and caution; (2) The court must apply a rule of caution and convict only those accused whose presence is consistently established and whose specific overt acts in commission of the crime are clearly proved; (3) When determining the common object of an unlawful assembly, the object can evolve during the course of incident, and different members may share different objects at different stages—some sharing mere intent for grievous hurt while others share intent for murder if they specifically chase and attack the victim; (4) Regarding causation of death, when doubt exists about which specific individual inflicted the fatal blow, the safe course is to convict under Section 326 or 304 Part II IPC rather than Section 302 IPC, unless there is clear evidence of murderous common object shared by at least five members of assembly.
On this section: Membership in unlawful assembly—requires awareness of facts making assembly unlawful and intentional joining or continuation in assembly
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 142
What have the courts held on Section 142 of the Indian Penal Code?
Parshuram vs State Of M.P. (11 Jan 2021) is the leading judgment on this section among those set out below: Membership of unlawful assembly - Whoever, being aware of facts which render any assembly an unlawful assembly, intentionally joins or continues in it. Another 4 judgments on this section are set out below, all of them from the Supreme Court. They run from 2009 to 2021.
How do I find court cases under Section 142 of the Indian Penal Code?
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: IPC 142, section 142 IPC, section 142 of the Indian Penal Code. Each opens the full list of orders on eCourtsIndia, where it can be narrowed by court, year and outcome. 5 reported judgments on this section are set out on this page, beginning with Parshuram vs State Of M.P. (11 Jan 2021).
What should I read with Section 142 of the Indian Penal Code, and has it changed?
For anything done on or after 1 July 2024 the provision to read is BNS 189 (Unlawful assembly), which replaced it; conduct before that date is still charged, tried and appealed under this section.
When did Section 142 of the Indian Penal Code come into force?
Section 142 of the Indian Penal Code, cited as IPC 142, came into force on 01 Jan 1862, having been enacted on 06 Oct 1860. It is no longer in force.
Other sections of this Act
- 499. Defamation1512 words
- 464. Making a false document1223 words
- 300. Murder1172 words
- 378. Theft980 words
- 108. Abettor745 words
- 403. Dishonest misappropriation of property727 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. Recovered from the consolidated text published by India Code (item 7b7d4fe6-206b-4e33-81f1-b98b018acaf6). This page is not a substitute for legal advice.