Rioting, armed with deadly weapon
Section 148 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 deals with rioting, armed with deadly weapon. 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 three 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 Repealed by section 358 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 (45 of 2023) with effect from 1 July 2024, but conduct before that date is still charged, tried and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, 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 three years, or with fine, or with both.
Section 148, The Indian Penal Code, 1860 (Act 45 of 1860).
Now in the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita
BNS 191 Rioting Close, with changes 77%
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 The repealed enactment still governs what happened while it was in force.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.
-
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: Rioting armed with deadly weapon; the appellants were convicted under this section, which was maintained by the Supreme Court
-
Md. Ankoos vs Pub. Pros. High Court of A. P. Hyderabad
Court's Decision & Legal Precedent
When appellants have been expressly charged under Section 148 IPC for rioting with deadly weapons and acquitted thereof by both the trial court and the appellate court, they cannot be legally convicted for the offence punishable under Section 302 read with Section 149 IPC which creates constructive liability based on membership of unlawful assembly with common object. The common substratum necessary for both Sections 148 and 149 (i.e., the unlawful assembly with common object) must exist for Section 149 constructive liability to apply. Further, a High Court cannot reverse a trial court's judgment of acquittal by using case diary statements recorded under Section 161 Cr.P.C. to verify witness credibility or overcome contradictions without following the mandatory procedure under Section 172 Cr.P.C. and Section 145 Indian Evidence Act.
On this section: Rioting armed with deadly weapons - charge against all accused which was acquitted by both trial and High 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 with deadly weapons - applied for conviction of accused who used firearms and sharp weapons in the violent attack
-
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: Rioting, armed with deadly weapon - Applied to accused for rioting while armed with lethal weapons
-
Rohtas vs The State of Haryana Home Department Home Secretary
Court's Decision & Legal Precedent
When an accused is charged under Sections 148 and 149 IPC as part of an unlawful assembly, but some members of the assembly are acquitted during trial such that the number falls below five, the conviction under Sections 148 and 149 cannot be sustained. However, the accused can be individually convicted under Section 307 IPC (or other applicable provisions) if the evidence establishes that his individual act caused the injury or death, provided that: (1) the facts to be proved and evidence to be adduced would be substantially the same as under the group charge; (2) the accused was expressly confronted with his specific role in the offence; and (3) no prejudice is caused to the accused by the charge alteration. Additionally, the credibility of eyewitness testimony from closely related family members (such as the victim's brother) can be relied upon in violent crime cases if the testimony is consistent, detailed, corroborated by medical evidence, and the gravity of injuries makes false implication inconceivable.
On this section: Rioting with deadly weapons. Court set aside conviction under this section as it requires the unlawful assembly to continue, which was not established after acquittal of three accused.
-
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: Deals with rioting armed with deadly weapon. Appellants were convicted under this section and sentenced to 2 years RI with fine of Rs. 200 each.
-
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 armed with deadly weapon; cited in property damage case
-
Bannareddy vs The State of Karnataka Navalgund Police Station Police Sub Inspector
Court's Decision & Legal Precedent
The High Court should not interfere with a well-reasoned order of acquittal passed by the trial court unless strong and compelling reasons exist in the evidence itself which can dislodge the findings. When two views are reasonably possible from the evidence on record, one favouring the accused and one against the accused, the High Court is not expected to reverse the acquittal merely because it would have taken the view against the accused, as the very fact that two views are possible makes it clear that the prosecution has not proved the guilt of the accused beyond reasonable doubt and consequently the accused is entitled to benefit of doubt. The prosecution must establish guilt beyond reasonable doubt through consistent, reliable, and corroborated evidence; material contradictions in witness statements, hostile witnesses, suspicious recovery procedures, and dubious victim conduct collectively render the prosecution case insufficient to sustain conviction.
On this section: Rioting with deadly weapon - accused were charged with this offence but acquitted by trial court and later convicted by High Court; Supreme Court found conviction unsustainable due to weak evidence
-
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 Armed With Deadly Weapons - Applied to convict the accused of carrying and using weapons like daos, lathis, and daggers in the group attack. Court sentenced accused to one year rigorous imprisonment for this offense.
-
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: Rioting armed with deadly weapon. Applied to convict all accused who participated in the violent unlawful assembly with weapons.
-
Muthuramalingam vs State Rep. by Insp. of Police
Court's Decision & Legal Precedent
In cases involving unlawful assembly and mass murder, where eyewitnesses testify to the presence of multiple armed persons acting in concert with a common object to commit murder, and where the accused are heard shouting slogans indicating intent to kill, the conviction can be upheld under Section 302 read with Section 149 IPC even if the charge was originally framed under Section 34 IPC, provided the evidence establishes the common object of the assembly and the participation of the accused in the unlawful assembly. The vicarious liability of all members of the unlawful assembly for acts committed in prosecution of the common object is established when eyewitness testimony is credible and corroborated by other evidence such as recovered weapons and the nature of the attack.
On this section: Rioting armed with deadly weapon; applied to convict accused for rioting with weapons
-
Muthuramalingam vs State Rep. by Insp. of Police
Court's Decision & Legal Precedent
When an unlawful assembly of five or more armed persons with a common object attacks and kills multiple persons in a coordinated manner demonstrating shared purpose through actions like shouting incitements to kill, the members of such assembly are all vicariously liable under Section 302 read with Section 149 IPC for the murders committed in prosecution of the common object, even without proof of a pre-arranged plan required for Section 34. The conviction does not become fatal merely because originally charged under Section 34 if the evidence establishes the elements of Section 149 and no prejudice is shown.
On this section: Offence of being member of unlawful assembly armed with deadly weapon; all accused convicted under this section
-
Abdul Waheed vs State of U. P
Court's Decision & Legal Precedent
When a firearm is used to inflict an injury, the person using the gun must be presumed to have knowledge and intention that such an injury is sufficient to cause death in the ordinary course of nature, and therefore the offence constitutes murder under Section 302 IPC, regardless of the specific anatomical location of the gunshot wound (whether a vital organ or a limb). This is distinguishable from cases involving stabbing with knives or daggers where an ordinary person might not be presumed to know the precise location of arteries in human limbs.
On this section: Applied to convict accused Abdul Hai, Abdul Waheed and Shafiq for unlawfully assembling with deadly weapons knowing that the assembly is for committing a common purpose.
-
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 armed with deadly weapon - Court examined allegations of rioting with iron rod and wooden stick but found no credible evidence
-
Karam Singh vs State Of Punjab
Court's Decision & Legal Precedent
In criminal cases involving non-compoundable offences such as Section 307 IPC (Attempt to Murder), while the conviction cannot be set aside merely on the basis of compromise between parties, the compromise is a relevant and significant circumstance that the court must consider when determining the quantum of sentence. When parties who are residents of the same village and apparently related have settled their disputes amicably after a prolonged period, the court should take a lenient view on sentencing to enable the parties to live cordially together, provided the conviction is maintained to uphold the rule of law. Additionally, acquittals recorded by the trial court should not be reversed on appeal at a belated stage when the evidence was insufficient at trial and the parties have subsequently reconciled.
On this section: Rioting, Armed With Deadly Weapon - Cited in FIR but not separately addressed in conviction
-
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: Rioting armed with deadly weapon - applied to Appellant No. 1; case abated due to death
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.
-
… There were a total of 9 accused. The trial court acquitted the accused no. 4. The rest of them were convicted. The trial court convicted the appellants for the offences punishable under Sections 148 and 302 read with Section 149 of the Indian Penal Code (for short, 'the IPC'). The appellants were sentenced to undergo life imprisonment. The High Court confirmed their conviction vide judgment dated 24th September 2010. 3. As far as accused no.9 is concerned, this Court ordered him to be released on bail by …
-
… While A-5 was acquitted, conviction of A-1, A-2, A-3 and A-4 and the sentence imposed upon them were maintained by the High Court. The Trial Court convicted A-4 under sections 148, 302, 307 of the Indian Penal Code[7]( page-1-2) and section 27 of the Arms Act, while A-1, A-2 and A-3 as well as A-5 were convicted under sections 148, 302, 307 IPC read with section 34 IPC. All the accused were sentenced to life in prison. 2. The appeal was heard in the presence of learned advocates for …
-
… 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, 1999 …
Questions about Section 148
What have the courts held on Section 148 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: Rioting armed with deadly weapon; 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 2009 to 2025.
How do I find court cases under Section 148 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 148, section 148 IPC, section 148 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 148 of the Indian Penal Code, and has it changed?
4 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 148 of the Indian Penal Code come into force?
Section 148 of the Indian Penal Code, cited as IPC 148, 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.