Punishment
Section 143 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 deals with punishment. Whoever is a member of an unlawful assembly, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to six months, or with fine, or with both. 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 Repealed by section 358 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 (45 of 2023) with effect from 1 July 2024, but conduct before that date is still charged, tried and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 is a member of an unlawful assembly, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to six months, or with fine, or with both.
Section 143, The Indian Penal Code, 1860 (Act 45 of 1860).
Now in the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita
BNS 189 Unlawful assembly Close, with changes 70%
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 The repealed enactment still governs what happened while it was in force.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.
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.
-
Honnaiah T. H vs The State of Karnataka
Court's Decision & Legal Precedent
An informant/injured victim has the legal standing to file a criminal revision petition challenging an order passed during trial, provided the order is not merely interlocutory but substantially affects the rights of the parties or could result in gross miscarriage of justice. The test for determining whether an order is interlocutory is whether it is of a purely interim or temporary nature that does not decide or touch upon important rights or liabilities of parties. Any order that substantially affects the rights of parties, such as an order refusing to mark crucial evidence as an exhibit, is not interlocutory and is therefore subject to revision. The revisional jurisdiction of the High Court under Section 397 read with Section 401 CrPC can be exercised at the instance of a private complainant or informant where the trial court has wrongly shut out evidence or committed a manifest illegality that could result in gross miscarriage of justice.
On this section: Offences charged in the FIR, including rioting, criminal intimidation, voluntarily causing hurt, murder, attempt to murder, and abetment.
-
Commissioner of Police vs Shiv Singh
Court's Decision & Legal Precedent
Acquittal or discharge in criminal proceedings does not per se entitle a candidate to consideration for public service appointment, particularly in police recruitment. The Screening Committee has discretion to assess suitability based on the nature of charges, circumstances of the case, and whether acquittal resulted from serious flaws in prosecution or hostile witnesses. Judicial review of such decisions is limited to grounds of mala fides, illegality, or mindlessness; courts cannot conduct intensive factual scrutiny or second-guess the suitability determination made by the designated public employer authority.
On this section: Unlawful assembly; charge against Raj Kumar and Prem Singh Choudhary
-
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: Provides punishment for being part of an unlawful assembly. The Court noted that ingredients of Section 143 are implied in Section 147 and ingredients of Section 147 are implied when Section 149 is charged.
-
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: Punishment for unlawful assembly; cited contextually to explain species of the offence
-
Jagan Shravan Patil vs State of Maharashtra
Court's Decision & Legal Precedent
Section 34 IPC applies where two or more persons commit a criminal act in furtherance of common intention, requiring that common intention be established through direct or circumstantial evidence though direct proof is seldom available. The acts of persons need not be identical but must be actuated by the same common intention preceding the crime. No overt act is necessary from each accused, and the provision applies even if particular accused caused no injury. When evidence establishes factual matrix showing coordinated action, planning, incitement, use of different weapons, and prevention of intervention by family members in a killing, it suffices to establish common intention for murder under Sections 302 read with 34 IPC.
On this section: Punishment for unlawful assembly - Applied for conviction of accused persons for participating in rioting
-
State of Karnataka vs Bhaskar Kushali Kotharkar
Court's Decision & Legal Precedent
Non-examination of the investigating officer and the constable who recorded the First Information Report statement is not fatal to the prosecution case and does not cause prejudice to the accused when there are no material contradictions in the evidence of eye witnesses and when the eye witnesses have been directly examined and found to be credible. The High Court cannot reverse a Sessions Court conviction on purely technical grounds of procedural lapses without carefully examining the substance and credibility of the eyewitness evidence. When strong, direct, and corroborated eyewitness evidence exists from multiple credible witnesses who sustained injuries themselves and identified the accused, the lack of investigating officer's testimony does not prejudice the accused.
On this section: Punishment for unlawful assembly; foundational section for charges against collective accused
-
Goudappa vs State of Karnataka
Court's Decision & Legal Precedent
When several persons assemble together and one of them commits murder in furtherance of their collective purpose, those who merely hold or restrain the victim to facilitate the assault can be held liable as joint perpetrators under Section 34 IPC if the totality of circumstances, including the manner of crime, their conduct, the weapons used, and their failure to prevent the fatal assault, demonstrates that they shared a common intention with the actual perpetrator to cause death. Common intention can be inferred from such circumstances even without prior explicit agreement when the incriminating facts are incompatible with innocence and incapable of explanation on any other reasonable hypothesis.
On this section: Punishment for unlawful assembly - applied to convict all five accused for being part of an assembly knowing that unlawful act would be committed.
-
In Re: Relating to Crl. Intimidation vs Union of India
Court's Decision & Legal Precedent
The Union of India and respective State Governments are under a constitutional and legal obligation to provide minimum courtesy and adequate security to all members of the Central Administrative Tribunal, and such security must be ensured within a period of eight weeks from the date of this judgment. This obligation arises from the fundamental duty of the State to maintain law and order, uphold judicial independence, and ensure a conducive atmosphere for the dispensation of justice by protecting judicial and administrative officers from criminal intimidation and harassment while performing their official duties.
On this section: These sections were cited in the FIR registered against Nirmala Choudhary and eight police personnel. Section 143 relates to unlawful assembly, 144 to unlawful assembly knowing it to be unlawful, 146 to rioting while armed with a deadly weapon, 323 to voluntarily causing hurt, 339 to wrongful restraint, and 352 to intentional insult or annoyance. These provisions formed the basis for criminal charges arising from the forcible entry and search incident
-
State of Kerala vs Anilachandran @ Madhu
Court's Decision & Legal Precedent
Where the First Information Report exhibits signs of tampering (deletion of signatures), is sent with unexplained delay to the Magistrate in violation of Section 157 of CrPC (which mandates sending 'forthwith'), and corroborated by inconsistencies in eyewitness testimony, the prosecution fails to meet its burden of proving guilt beyond reasonable doubt. The inability of the accused to prove an alibi does not relieve the prosecution of its fundamental duty to establish guilt beyond reasonable doubt through reliable and credible evidence. The genesis of the criminal incident must be established for conviction to be safe, even if the accused's participation in the actual assault is accepted.
On this section: Punishment for unlawful assembly - Applied to define the formation of the group with intent to commit the crime
-
Vinubhai Ranchhodbhai Patel vs Rajivbhai Dudabhai Patel
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: Punishment for unlawful assembly; mere assembly itself constitutes offence without requiring overt act
-
Shivanna vs State of Karnataka
Court's Decision & Legal Precedent
The right of private defence is a defensive right that cannot be invoked by the aggressor or after the reasonable apprehension of danger has ceased. The burden of establishing this right is on the accused, who must show preponderance of probabilities. The mere fact that injuries were sustained by the accused does not establish self-defence if the evidence clearly shows they were the aggressors. The number of injuries and non-explanation thereof by the prosecution are relevant but not conclusive factors. When prosecutorial evidence is clear, cogent, independent and credible, it can outweigh the unexplained injuries. The right must be examined pragmatically in its proper setting, considering the imminence of threat, the injuries sustained, and whether the accused had time to resort to public authorities, but it cannot be used as a pretext for vindictive or retributive assault.
On this section: Defines punishment for being member of unlawful assembly; conviction upheld for appellants
-
Firosuddin Basheeruddin vs State of Kerala
Court's Decision & Legal Precedent
Criminal conspiracy can be proved by circumstantial evidence. When two or more persons agree to commit an illegal act or legal act by illegal means, that agreement constitutes criminal conspiracy even if the substantive crime is not committed. Not all conspirators need know every detail of the conspiracy; unity of objective is essential while there may be plurality of means sometimes even unknown to each other. Once the existence of conspiracy is proved, every act, declaration and writing of any conspirator referable to common intention is relevant against all conspirators. In organized crimes involving division of labour, each conspirator may perform different tasks in furtherance of the common objective, and each is liable for crimes committed by co-conspirators in furtherance of the conspiracy regardless of whether that particular conspirator directly participated in the substantive offense. The prosecution must establish the agreement to commit an unlawful act through proved facts and circumstances from which reasonable inference of conspiracy may be drawn, and the court must guard against unfairness by ensuring cogent evidence of involvement of each accused.
On this section: Punishment for unlawful assembly - cited but accused ultimately found not guilty of this offence
-
Dasan vs State of Kerala
Court's Decision & Legal Precedent
When evidence does not consistently and certainly establish the use of a dangerous weapon in an assault case, and the recovered weapon and victim's own pleadings indicate use of a non-dangerous weapon (such as a wooden stick), the conviction for causing grievous hurt by dangerous weapon (Section 326 IPC) should be converted to voluntarily causing grievous hurt (Section 325 IPC). Once so converted, the court may grant permission to compound the offence under Section 325 IPC when the victim and accused have amicably settled, subject to strict compliance with Section 320 CrPC which governs the entire field of compounding of offences. The court's discretionary powers under Article 142 cannot be exercised to circumvent or override the statutory restrictions prescribed in Section 320 CrPC.
On this section: Unlawful assembly - charge against accused
-
State Of Rajasthan vs Dharam Raj
Court's Decision & Legal Precedent
An appellate court can interfere with an order of acquittal only when the judgment suffers from patent perversity, is based on misreading or omission to consider material evidence, or when no two reasonable views are possible and only the view consistent with guilt beyond reasonable doubt is possible from the evidence on record. In the present case, the trial court's acquittal was a possible view based on the evidence, and therefore the appellate court cannot reverse it merely because another view was also possible.
On this section: Unlawful assembly; initially charged but not pursued in final conviction
-
ABHI BHARASAGAR vs STATE OF ODISHA SAMBALPUR
Court's Decision & Legal Precedent
Bail may be denied where the accused has a history of absconding and the nature of the crime involves a violent attack on public servants and property, especially when the case is yet to be committed for trial.
On this section: Substantive offences including unlawful assembly, attempt to murder, and outraging modesty.
-
State of Karnataka vs Hanamantappa Shivappa Havanur
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: Unlawful assembly - Court examined whether accused formed an unlawful assembly with common object but found prosecution failed to prove this beyond reasonable doubt
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.
-
… question the judgment and order dated 28th September, 2011 of the Kerala High Court[1]( page-0-0) dismissing the appellant's appeal[2]( page-0-1) under section 374(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure. The impugned judgment upheld the conviction of the appellant by the Sessions Court, Thalassery[3]( page-0-2) under sections 143, 147, 148, and 302 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 ("IPC", hereafter) and, inter alia , the sentence of imprisonment for life together with fine. 2. Bare reading of the impugned judgment reveals that the appellant, who was part of an unlawful assembly, murdered Bobby[4]( page-0-3) in the evening of 26th …
-
… P-1 and others. For the occurrence, which took place at about 9.30 p.m. on 18.07.2002, the registration of FIR/complaint was done in Crime No. 237/2002 at about 11.00 p.m. against six named accused and other identifiable ones for the offences punishable under Sections 143, 147, 148, 427, 452, 302 read with 149 of the Indian Penal Code (for short 'IPC') and Section 3 of the Explosives Substances Act. The registered complaint reached the jurisdictional Magistrate at about 4.15 p.m. the next day. - 5. P.W.64 took up the investigation, and accordingly arrested the accused, A-10, …
-
… Sessions Case No.162 of 2003 is a case chargesheeted by Shahbad Police Station in the State of Karnataka against the Digitally signed by NEETU KHAJURIA Date: 2021.03.26 19:01:59 IST Reason: Signature Not Verified appellantsaccused under Sections 143, 147, 148, 324, 326, 307, 302 read with 149 of Indian Penal Code (IPC). For the aforesaid offences, they were tried by the Fast Track CourtIV at Gulbarga and by judgment dated 20.06.2005, the appellants/accused nos.2 to 5 and accused no.6 were acquitted for the charges framed against them. As the accused no.1 died …
Questions about Section 143
What have the courts held on Section 143 of the Indian Penal Code?
Honnaiah T. H vs The State of Karnataka (04 Aug 2022) is the leading judgment on this section among those set out below: Offences charged in the FIR, including rioting, criminal intimidation, voluntarily causing hurt, murder, attempt to murder, and abetment. Another 15 judgments on this section are set out below, 13 of them from the Supreme Court. They run from 2001 to 2025.
How do I find court cases under Section 143 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 143, section 143 IPC, section 143 of the Indian Penal Code. 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 Honnaiah T. H vs The State of Karnataka (04 Aug 2022).
What should I read with Section 143 of the Indian Penal Code, and has it changed?
2 other provisions in this corpus refer back to it. 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 143 of the Indian Penal Code come into force?
Section 143 of the Indian Penal Code, cited as IPC 143, 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.