Rioting
Section 146 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 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 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 Repealed by section 358 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 (45 of 2023) with effect from 1 July 2024, but conduct before that date is still charged, tried and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.
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.
Section 146, The Indian Penal Code, 1860 (Act 45 of 1860).
Now in the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita
BNS 191 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 The repealed enactment still governs what happened while it was in force.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.
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.
-
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 rioting as an unlawful assembly which commits or attempts to commit an act of violence.
-
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: Definition and punishment for rioting and related offences; cited to distinguish rioting from unlawful assembly
-
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: Defines rioting as use of force or violence by unlawful assembly; use of force need not achieve common object
-
State vs Salman Khan& ORS.
Court's Decision & Legal Precedent
Damage caused to wildlife, even if not calculable in monetary terms, constitutes loss to ecology and society at large. Therefore, provisions of Chapter VIII of the Indian Penal Code, specifically Section 149 IPC read with Section 141 IPC (Clause Thirdly covering 'other offence'), can be applied to offences under the Wildlife Protection Act when committed by an unlawful assembly. However, Sections 147 and 148 IPC (rioting and rioting with deadly weapons) cannot be applied to wildlife hunting as they require use of criminal force against persons, not animals. Criminal force under Section 349 IPC is limited to force causing motion or change of motion in another person.
On this section: Definition of rioting - Court noted that rioting requires use of force by unlawful assembly members
-
State vs Saif Ali
Court's Decision & Legal Precedent
The provisions of Chapter VIII of the Indian Penal Code, specifically Sections 147, 148, and 149 IPC, can be applied to offences under special laws like the Wildlife Protection Act, but only to the extent that the underlying offence falls within the scope of the specific IPC provision. Section 149 IPC can be applied to wildlife protection violations when committed by an unlawful assembly because hunting protected animals constitutes 'mischief' under Section 425 IPC, which falls within Clause Thirdly of Section 141 IPC's definition of unlawful assembly. However, Section 147 IPC (rioting) cannot be applied to wildlife hunting because rioting requires use of criminal force on persons, not animals. The definition of 'offence' under Section 40 IPC extends to special laws when the offence is punishable with imprisonment of six months or more, and damage to wildlife constitutes loss to the public through ecological harm, thereby satisfying the mischief definition.
On this section: Definition of rioting - Court noted that rioting requires use of force by unlawful assembly members
-
State vs Dushyant Singh
Court's Decision & Legal Precedent
The provisions of Sections 147, 148, and 149 of the Indian Penal Code can be applied to offences under the Wildlife Protection Act to the extent that: (1) Section 147 (rioting) and Section 148 (rioting with deadly weapons) cannot apply because criminal force as defined in Section 349 IPC requires use of force on another person, not on animals; (2) Section 149 (act of member of unlawful assembly) can apply when an unlawful assembly is formed with the common object of committing mischief against wildlife, as 'mischief' under Section 425 IPC includes damage to wildlife which constitutes loss to ecology and public; (3) The definition of 'offence' under Section 40 IPC extends to special laws like the Wildlife Protection Act for purposes of Section 141 IPC (unlawful assembly), particularly Clause Thirdly which covers 'other offence'; (4) Damage to wildlife, even if not calculable in monetary terms, constitutes loss to the public and society, bringing it within the definition of mischief.
On this section: Definition of rioting - Court noted that rioting requires use of force by unlawful assembly members
-
State vs Neelam Kothari
Court's Decision & Legal Precedent
Damage caused to wildlife, even if not evaluable in monetary terms, constitutes loss to public ecology and society at large. Therefore, the provisions of Section 141 IPC (unlawful assembly) can be applied to offences under the Wildlife Protection Act, and consequently, Section 149 IPC (act of any member of unlawful assembly) applies to wildlife hunting offences when multiple persons act with common object to commit mischief. However, Sections 147 and 148 IPC (rioting and rioting with deadly weapons) do not apply to wildlife hunting as they require criminal force affecting persons, not animals.
On this section: Definition of rioting - Court noted that rioting requires use of force by unlawful assembly affecting persons
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.
-
… Prior concert by way of meeting of members of unlawful assembly is not necessary." 45. Further, an assembly which may be lawful at the inception may turn unlawful due to acts of violence, etc. at a later stage, as provided in the explanation to Section 146 IPC. This view is also supported by the decision of Hon'ble Apex Court in Moti Das v. State of Bihar 1954 Cri LJ 1708 , wherein it was held as under: "8. Now an assembly which was lawful when it assembled can become unlawful subsequently. That is the Explanation to Section 141 of the Indian Penal Code. The law …
Questions about Section 146
What have the courts held on Section 146 of the Indian Penal Code?
Vidhya Rattan vs The State of Haryana Home Department Chief Secretary (06 Aug 2019) is the leading judgment on this section among those set out below: Defines rioting as an unlawful assembly which commits or attempts to commit an act of violence. Another 6 judgments on this section are set out below, 3 of them from the Supreme Court. They run from 2012 to 2019.
How do I find court cases under Section 146 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 146, section 146 IPC, section 146 of the Indian Penal Code. Each opens the full list of orders on eCourtsIndia, where it can be narrowed by court, year and outcome. 7 reported judgments on this section are set out on this page, beginning with Vidhya Rattan vs The State of Haryana Home Department Chief Secretary (06 Aug 2019).
What should I read with Section 146 of the Indian Penal Code, and has it changed?
1 other provision in this corpus refers back to it. For anything done on or after 1 July 2024 the provision to read is BNS 191 (Rioting), which replaced it; conduct before that date is still charged, tried and appealed under this section.
When did Section 146 of the Indian Penal Code come into force?
Section 146 of the Indian Penal Code, cited as IPC 146, 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.