Punishment for rioting
Section 147 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 deals with punishment for rioting. 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. 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 Repealed by section 358 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 (45 of 2023) with effect from 1 July 2024, but conduct before that date is still charged, tried and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 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.
Section 147, The Indian Penal Code, 1860 (Act 45 of 1860).
Now in the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita
BNS 191 Rioting Text carried over almost unchanged 87%
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 The repealed enactment still governs what happened while it was in force.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.
Referred to by 5
- Code of Criminal Procedure s. 220 Trial for more than one offence
- Code of Criminal Procedure Act s. 220 Trial for more than one offence
- Code of Criminal Procedure s. 220 Trial for more than one offence
- Crpc 1973 s. 220 Trial for more than one offence
- Karnataka Krishna Basin Development Authority Act s. 46 Amendment of Karnataka Act 34 of 1987
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
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 rioting; the appellants were convicted under this section, which was maintained by the Supreme Court
-
Sadhu Saran Singh vs State of U. P.
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
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
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.
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
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 rioting.
-
Sasikala Pushpa vs The State of Tamil Nadu Rep. by the Inspector of Police
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
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
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)
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
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
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
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).
-
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: Rioting - Court analyzed whether accused committed rioting but found insufficient evidence due to hostile witness testimony
-
Haricharan Ram& ORS. vs State of Bihar
Court's Decision & Legal Precedent
In criminal cases involving rioting and causing hurt, conviction cannot rest solely on the uncorroborated testimony of a single witness, particularly when key prosecution witnesses (such as the informant, investigating officer, and medical officer) are not examined. Furthermore, documents cannot be marked under Section 294 CrPC if their genuineness is disputed by the defense. When the informant is not examined in court, the prosecution cannot prove that the accused caused hurt to the informant with the requisite intention or knowledge as required under Section 323 IPC. The burden of proof remains on the prosecution to prove guilt beyond reasonable doubt, and procedural irregularities in the admission of evidence can render a conviction unsustainable.
On this section: Punishment for rioting - applied to Appellants Nos. 2 and 3; conviction set aside due to insufficient evidence
-
Gangadhar Lingu Bhuyare vs The State of Maharashtra
Court's Decision & Legal Precedent
When prima facie evidence in the form of witness statements exists indicating the applicants' involvement in an assault that resulted in death, anticipatory bail cannot be granted, notwithstanding the applicants' denials or allegations of witness intimidation, as the court must consider the totality of evidence collected during investigation.
On this section: Punishment for rioting - Applied to the charge of violent collective action
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.
-
… Respondents J U D G M E N T ABHAY S. OKA, J. FACTUAL ASPECTS 1. The present appeal is preferred by the State Government. The respondents were tried for the offences punishable under Sections 147, 452, 302, 325, and 323 read with Section 149 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (for short, 'the IPC'). The Trial Court held the respondents accused as guilty. The Trial Court convicted the respondents for the offences punishable under Section 147 and Sections 452, 302, 325, and 323 read with Section 149 of the IPC. …
-
… 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 December, …
-
… the facts leading to the present appeals are as under: 2.1 The First Information Report ("FIR" for short) was lodged on a written report given by informant Lokendra (PW-1), on 14th October 2003 at P.S. Babri, District Muzzafarnagar, which was registered as Crime No. 197 of 2003, for offences punishable under Sections 147, 148, 149, 302, 307, 323 and 452 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (hereinafter referred to as "IPC"). The incident took place at 5.30 PM and the FIR came to be registered on the same day at 7.40 PM. 2.2 The report was recorded by one, Naresh Pal s/o Vijay Pal r/o village Barwala, District Baghpat on the oral …
Questions about Section 147
What have the courts held on Section 147 of the Indian Penal Code?
Bharat Soni Etc vs State of Chhatisgarh (22 Nov 2012) is the leading judgment on this section among those set out below: Punishment for rioting; the appellants were convicted under this section, which was maintained by the Supreme Court. Another 15 judgments on this section are set out below, 13 of them from the Supreme Court. They run from 2012 to 2025.
How do I find court cases under Section 147 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 147, section 147 IPC, section 147 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 Bharat Soni Etc vs State of Chhatisgarh (22 Nov 2012).
What should I read with Section 147 of the Indian Penal Code, and has it changed?
5 other provisions in this corpus refer 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 147 of the Indian Penal Code come into force?
Section 147 of the Indian Penal Code, cited as IPC 147, 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.