Rioting under BNS: Section 191 with Sections 192, 193, 195 and Landmark Cases

When an unlawful assembly turns to violence, the offence is rioting. This is one of the most consequential collective offences in Indian criminal law: from communal riots to political violence to caste-based clashes, rioting prosecutions have shaped and been shaped by the political and social history of India. Section 191 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023, defines rioting as the use of force or violence by an unlawful assembly (or any member) in prosecution of the common object. Two-tier punishment applies: up to two years for ordinary rioting, up to three years where the accused was armed with a deadly weapon. Section 192 punishes wantonly provoking a riot. Section 193 imposes liability on landowners and occupiers. Section 195 punishes assault on public servants suppressing riots. Together the four provisions form the rioting framework. This module walks through Section 191 in detail, the related provisions, the constitutional context, and the landmark cases from Bhanwar Singh to Masalti.

1. Introduction

Rioting in Indian criminal law

Rioting is the classical offence of collective violence. Whenever an unlawful assembly turns from mere gathering to actual force or violence, rioting is committed. The offence is one of the oldest in the Indian criminal law, and its interpretation has been shaped by centuries of jurisprudence responding to India's specific experience of communal, political, and caste-based collective violence.

The four-provision framework

Rioting is addressed through four related provisions:

• Section 191: the main rioting offence.
• Section 192: wantonly provoking a riot.
• Section 193: landowner and occupier liability.
• Section 195: assault on public servants suppressing riots.

Section 190 (constructive liability) applies to all rioting prosecutions, imposing liability on all members of the assembly for offences committed by any member in prosecution of the common object.

Relationship with unlawful assembly

Rioting builds on unlawful assembly. Every rioting prosecution begins with establishing an unlawful assembly under Section 189. Only after this base is established does Section 191 come into play. Where the unlawful assembly does not turn to force or violence, the offence remains at unlawful assembly (up to six months); where it does turn to force or violence, rioting is added (up to two or three years). The additional punishment reflects the greater harm of actual collective violence over mere collective threat.

2. Section 191 BNS: Text and Structure

Text of Section 191

The three ingredients

The 'force or violence' requirement

Force and violence are the operative words. Force is broadly defined (any physical energy applied to a person or thing); violence typically refers to more severe or dramatic uses of force. Any use of force or violence by any member is sufficient, provided it is in prosecution of the common object.

3. Ingredients of Rioting in Detail

Ingredient 1: unlawful assembly

The prosecution must first establish an unlawful assembly under Section 189. This requires:

• Five or more persons.
• Common object among them.
• Common object one of the five specified in Section 189(1).

Where the unlawful assembly cannot be established, rioting also cannot be established. The two offences are inextricably linked.

Ingredient 2: use of force or violence

Force or violence must be actually used. This distinguishes rioting from unlawful assembly (which requires only that the common object exist, not that violence be used) and from affray (which requires fighting in a public place but not necessarily an unlawful assembly).

• Force may be against persons or against property.
• Force must be actual, not merely threatened.
• The specific degree of force is not decisive; even a single blow may suffice.
• The force must be attributable to the assembly, not to some entirely independent action.

Ingredient 3: in prosecution of the common object

This is the critical link. The force must be aimed at advancing or achieving the common object. Where a member acts independently for personal reasons (a personal quarrel, an individual grievance), the force may attract individual liability but not rioting.

4. Punishment Under Section 191(2): Basic Rioting

• Maximum: two years imprisonment (rigorous or simple), or fine, or both.
• No minimum specified.
• Fine at the court's discretion.

The punishment applies to every member of the unlawful assembly, not merely to the specific persons who used force. This reflects the constructive liability principle of Section 190.

5. Punishment Under Section 191(3): Rioting with Deadly Weapon

What constitutes a deadly weapon

Section 191(3) refers to being armed with:

• A deadly weapon: firearms, swords, spears, or similar weapons designed for causing death or serious injury.
• Anything which, used as a weapon of offence, is likely to cause death: this broader phrase captures ordinary objects (heavy sticks, iron rods, broken bottles, large stones) that are capable of causing death when used as weapons.

The enhanced sentencing framework

• Maximum: three years imprisonment, or fine, or both.
• Enhanced from the two-year maximum for basic rioting.
• Applies to any member of the assembly who was armed with a deadly weapon, not to all members.

The distinction between armed and unarmed members is significant. In a mixed assembly (some armed, some not), the armed members are liable under Section 191(3) while the unarmed members are liable under Section 191(2). Prosecutions must establish specifically which members were armed.

6. Section 192 BNS: Wantonly Provoking a Riot

Text of Section 192

The mens rea: malignantly or wantonly

• Malignantly: with ill will or vicious intent.
• Wantonly: with reckless disregard for consequences, without lawful purpose or moderation.

Either mens rea suffices. The provision reaches persons who deliberately or recklessly provoke situations that lead to rioting. Classical examples: incendiary speeches at politically tense gatherings, provocative religious displays in sensitive contexts, deliberate insults to communities.

The two-tier punishment

• If the riot is actually committed in consequence: up to one year, or fine, or both.
• If the riot is not committed (the provocation fails to trigger a riot): up to six months, or fine, or both.

The provocation must be by doing something illegal. Lawful conduct that happens to provoke a response does not attract Section 192.

7. Section 193 BNS: Landowner and Occupier Liability

Section 193 imposes three duties on landowners and occupiers:

• Give the earliest notice to the police at the nearest station.
• Use lawful means to prevent the offence if there is reason to believe it is about to occur.
• Use lawful means to disperse or suppress the assembly or riot when it takes place.

Failure to perform these duties attracts fine up to one thousand rupees. The provision is rarely invoked in practice but reflects the classical common law view that landowners bear responsibility for what happens on their property.

8. Section 195 BNS: Assault on Public Servant Suppressing Riot

Section 195 provides specific protection to public servants attempting to disperse unlawful assemblies or suppress riots. The offence covers:

• Assault or threatened assault on the public servant.
• Obstruction or attempted obstruction.
• Use, threat, or attempted use of criminal force.

Punishment: up to three years, or fine, or both. The enhanced punishment (compared to Section 121 BNS which addresses assault on public servants generally at up to five years) reflects the specific danger of crowd-control situations. The public servant may be a police officer, a magistrate, or any other public servant lawfully engaged in dispersing the assembly.

9. Distinction from Affray Under Section 194

10. Constructive Liability in Rioting Cases

Section 190 BNS applies to rioting prosecutions. Where an unlawful assembly turns violent, and one member commits, say, murder, every member of the assembly is guilty of murder (if the murder was in prosecution of the common object or was known to be likely). This dramatically expands liability:

• The assembly gathers with a common object of attacking a specific person.
• One member kills the victim; others cause hurt.
• Under Section 190, every member is guilty of murder (Section 101 BNS), not merely of rioting.

This constructive liability principle is why rioting prosecutions are often the vehicle for prosecuting mass violence: even where individual killers cannot be identified, all members of the assembly can be prosecuted for the deaths that occurred.

11. Constitutional Framework

• Article 19(1)(b): freedom to assemble peaceably and without arms. The rioting provisions restrict this freedom by criminalising assemblies that turn violent.
• Article 19(3): reasonable restrictions in the interests of public order. This is the primary constitutional basis for rioting provisions.
• Article 21: personal liberty. Applies to procedural safeguards in rioting prosecutions.
• Article 25 to 28: freedom of religion. Sometimes engaged in communal riot cases where religious dimensions are involved.

The rioting provisions have generally been upheld as reasonable restrictions on freedom of assembly. The constitutional concern focuses on the application: prosecutions must be for actual force or violence, not for mere peaceful assembly.

12. Landmark Cases and Consolidated Judgments

Consolidated Landmark Judgments

• Bhanwar Singh v. State of Madhya Pradesh, (2008) 16 SCC 657. Force must be in prosecution of common object.
• Masalti v. State of Uttar Pradesh, AIR 1965 SC 202. Four-element framework.
• Maina Singh v. State of Rajasthan, (1976) 2 SCC 827. 'Knew to be likely' standard.
• State of Uttar Pradesh v. Sughar Singh, (1978) SC. Common object must be genuinely common.
• Amerika Rai v. State of Bihar, (2011) 4 SCC 677. Individual identification required.
• Ram Bilas Singh v. State of Bihar, (1964) SC. Common object may emerge.
• Krishnappa v. State of Karnataka, (2000) 4 SCC 75. Coherent interpretation.
• Sikandar Singh v. State of Bihar, (2010) 7 SCC 477. Anonymous mob violence.
• Chikkarange Gowda v. State of Mysore, AIR 1956 SC 731. Distinction from Section 34.
• Roy Fernandes v. State of Goa, (2012) 3 SCC 221. Application in labour disputes.
• Mohan Singh v. State of Punjab, AIR 1963 SC 174. Political violence framework.
• Ramesh Krishan Master v. State of Kerala, (2015) 12 SCC 175. Subsequent unlawfulness.
• Gangadhar Behera v. State of Orissa, (2002) 8 SCC 381. Modern application.
• State of Rajasthan v. Nathu, (2003) 5 SCC 537. Framework for rioting armed with deadly weapon.
• Nanak Chand v. State of Punjab, AIR 1955 SC 274. Application in family disputes.

Frequently Asked Questions

What is rioting under Section 191 BNS?

Section 191 BNS (formerly Sections 146 and 148 IPC) defines rioting as the use of force or violence by an unlawful assembly, or by any member, in prosecution of the common object of the assembly. Every member of the assembly is guilty of rioting. Three ingredients: (i) unlawful assembly; (ii) use of force or violence; and (iii) force or violence in prosecution of the common object. Punishment: up to two years, or fine, or both (Section 191(2)); up to three years where the accused was armed with a deadly weapon (Section 191(3)).

What is the punishment for rioting armed with a deadly weapon?

Section 191(3) BNS provides enhanced punishment where the accused was armed with a deadly weapon, or with anything which used as a weapon of offence is likely to cause death: up to three years, or fine, or both. The provision applies to specific members who were armed, not to all members of the assembly. In a mixed assembly (some armed, some not), the armed members are liable under Section 191(3) and the unarmed members are liable under Section 191(2). Prosecutions must establish specifically which members were armed.

How does rioting differ from affray?

Rioting (Section 191) requires an unlawful assembly of five or more persons with a common unlawful object; the force or violence must be in prosecution of the common object. Affray (Section 194) requires only two or more persons fighting in a public place that disturbs public peace. Rioting may occur in any place (public or private); affray must occur in a public place. Rioting attracts up to two or three years imprisonment; affray attracts up to one month or fine up to one thousand rupees. Rioting attracts constructive liability under Section 190; affray attracts individual liability.

What is Section 192 BNS on provoking a riot?

Section 192 BNS punishes anyone who, malignantly or wantonly, by doing anything illegal, gives provocation intending or knowing it to be likely that the provocation will cause rioting. Two-tier punishment: if the riot is actually committed, up to one year, or fine, or both; if the riot is not committed, up to six months, or fine, or both. The provision addresses persons who deliberately provoke situations that lead to rioting, whether by incendiary speeches, provocative religious displays, or deliberate insults to communities. The provocation must be by doing something illegal.

What is the Masalti test?

In Masalti v State of Uttar Pradesh, AIR 1965 SC 202, the Supreme Court laid down the framework for constructive liability under Section 149 IPC (now Section 190 BNS), applicable to rioting prosecutions. The prosecution must establish: (i) the existence of an unlawful assembly; (ii) the common object of the assembly; (iii) the accused's membership; and (iv) the connection between the specific offence and the common object. The specific offence must have been committed 'in prosecution' of the common object, meaning to advance or achieve it. The Masalti test remains the foundational framework.

How does Section 190 BNS apply to rioting cases?

Section 190 BNS imposes constructive liability on every member of an unlawful assembly for offences committed by any member in prosecution of the common object. Applied to rioting: where the assembly gathers with a common object of, say, attacking a person, and one member kills the victim while others cause hurt, every member is guilty of murder under Section 101 BNS (through Section 190), not merely of rioting. This dramatically expands liability and is the primary tool for prosecuting mass violence where specific offenders cannot always be identified. Bhanwar Singh v State of Madhya Pradesh, (2008) 16 SCC 657, emphasises that the connection between the specific offence and the common object must be established.

Related Topics on The Legal Bridge

For a fuller picture, read these companion notes on adjacent doctrines and provisions:

• Unlawful Assembly under BNS: Section 189 and the five common objects that form the base of rioting prosecutions.
• Offences Against Public Tranquillity under BNS: Chapter XI overview including all nine provisions.
• Common Intention under Section 3(5) BNS: the alternative joint liability framework for smaller groups.
• Constitutional Rights: Article 19(1)(b) freedom of assembly and Article 19(3) reasonable restrictions in the interests of public order.