Public tranquility is an offence that is not just against an individual's person and property, but also an offence against the state. The characteristic or state of being tranquil is tranquility. These crimes are collective offences that are commonly committed by a wide number of offenders, resulting in general tranquility being interrupted. The public tranquility is the group of persons doing an activity that causes the disturbance of the peace in the society.[1]

According to this clause, if a significant number of people participate in an illegal act with a shared purpose, then each of the individuals is considered accountable. These crimes are categorized as unlawful assembly, rioting, spreading enmity between different groups and affray in four types.[2] In order to establish a culture, there must be harmony in the world. Hence the framers of the Code incorporated these provisions stating and defining the offences which are against the public tranquility.[3] This Project report will be dealing with the comparison between Unlawful Assembly and Rioting.

The provision related to Unlawful Assembly has been mentioned in Section 141[4] of the Indian Penal Code, 1860. Under this, there must be more than 5 members and the common intention of unlawful assembly must be unlawful. There should be some criminal trespass or other offence. By using a criminal force to compel any person to do any illegal act. As far as rioting is concerned, Section 146 and 147[5] of the IPC covers the act of rioting.

While section 146[6] covers the act of rioting, section 147[7] covers the punishment of rioting. A riot is a type of civil unrest frequently marked by disorganized gangs lashing out against power, property or individuals in a sudden and extreme rash of violence. While people may attempt to lead or control a riot, riots are typically disorderly and show the actions of herds, usually triggered by civil unrest.

Research Problem
The research problem is to investigate the distinction between an unlawful assembly and rioting in the context of criminal law. While both are offenses related to public disorder, there is a legal difference between the two, and it is important to understand this difference in order to ensure that individuals are not wrongfully convicted or punished.

Research Questions

1. What is an unlawful assembly and how is it defined in criminal law?
2. What is rioting and how is it defined in criminal law?
3. What are the key differences between an unlawful assembly and rioting?
4. How do law enforcement agencies distinguish between the two offenses in practice?

Rationale Of The Study
This study aims to investigate the distinction between an unlawful assembly and rioting in criminal law, and the practical and societal implications of this distinction. Understanding the legal differences between these two offenses is crucial to ensure appropriate and effective law enforcement responses to different types of public disorder situations. The study will examine the legal definitions and consequences of these offenses, as well as their enforcement and prosecution in practice, and contribute to a more informed and nuanced discussion about public disorder and social order, informing policy decisions in this area.

Objectives Of The Study
The project tries to achieve the following objectives:

• To examine the legal definitions of unlawful assembly and rioting.
• To highlight the key differences between the two offenses.
• To analyze the practical implications of the legal distinction between the two offenses.
• Understand how law enforcement agencies distinguish between them in practice.
• To assess the legal consequences of being convicted of unlawful assembly or rioting, including the potential penalties.

Research Design:

Nature of Study: The research project is descriptive and analytical in nature. Sources of Data: The project is largely based on secondary sources of data; however, tertiary and electronic sources of data have been referred to a great extent. Books, case laws, journals have been used as references. Method of Data Collection: The method of data collection is non-doctrinal. Method of Citation: A uniform mode of citation (20th Bluebook) has been adopted and followed consistently throughout this project. Chapterisation At A Glance
Following chapters have been discussed in this project:

• Chapter I - Unlawful Assembly
• Chapter II - Rioting
• Chapter III - Comparison Between Unlawful Assembly And Rioting

Limitation Of Study
Although the project has been done with utmost sincerity and attention to detail, there are a few limitations present, without which the research project could not have been enhanced. The issue of the submission deadline has forced the researcher to limit the ambit of my research topic avail the immediate present sources only.

Unlawful Assembly
Bare Provision
141. Unlawful assembly[8]. An assembly of five or more persons is designated an "unlawful assembly", if the common object of the persons composing that assembly is:

1. To overawe by criminal force, or show of criminal force, [the Central or any State Government or Parliament or the Legislature of any State], or any public servant in the exercise of the lawful power of such public servant; or
2. To resist the execution of any law, or of any legal process; or
3. To commit any mischief or criminal trespass, or other offence; or
4. By means of criminal force, or show of criminal force, to any person, to take or obtain possession of any property, or to deprive any person of the enjoyment of a right of way, or of the use of water or other incorporeal right of which he is in possession or enjoyment, or to enforce any right or supposed right; or
5. By means of criminal force, or show of criminal force, to compel any person to do what he is not legally bound to do, or to omit to do what he is legally entitled to do.

Explanation. An assembly which was not unlawful when it assembled, may subsequently become an unlawful assembly.

Definition
An unlawful assembly is therefore an unlawful assembly of 5 or more individuals to commit an unlawful offence. [9] The existence of a shared purpose to disrupt public order and tranquility is an important feature of an unlawful assembly.[10] It is not punishable by the mere appearance of an individual in an assembly without any purpose to disturb the peace in the vicinity. The common objective is to determine the aim and nature of the assembly.[11]

Objectives
The Common Objectives Could Be[12]:

1. To overawe by use of criminal force or display criminal force, to Central or any State Government or Parliament or any State Legislation or any Public Servant;
2. To show agitation against enforcement of a law or legal process;
3. To perform any mischief or criminal trespass or any other offence;
4. Take possession of any property or deprive a person of the right to the way or the usage of water or any incorporeal right by some criminal force;
5. Compel a person to do an illegal act by display or use of criminal force.

In the case of Moti Das v. the State of Bihar[13], it was held that an assembly which was initially lawful can turn out to be unlawful at a later stage by happening of subsequent events. In Lallan Rai and Ors. v. The State of Bihar[14], the court held that, for getting considered as a member of Unlawful Assembly, the person having a common object must be physically present at the time and place of occurrence. In Bhanwar Singh v. the State of M.P[15]4, it was held that the intent can be formed at the moment but must be one listed in S.141. It is also possible that lawful assembly turns out to be an unlawful assembly. In Kripal Singh v. State of U.P.[16], the Hon'ble Supreme Court had held a similar observation regarding common intention.

Presence Of 5 Or More Persons
Unlawful assembly should consist of persons more than 5. If the number of people in a group is less than 5 then this section will not be applicable.[17] If the number of persons drops to less than 5 after the crime, the applicability of this section will not be attracted but Section 149[18] of the given Act as held in the case of Subramanian v. the State of Kerala[19] will be attracted in which vicarious liability was levied on the person.

In the case of Ram Bilas Singh v. the State of Bihar[20], the Supreme Court had laid down certain situations where when the number of persons in an unlawful assembly becomes less than 5, this section will be applicable. For this:

• Evidence must be given that other than the person convicted, there are other people who are involved at a given point of time.
• Evidence to show the presence of other unidentified persons that are part of the unlawful assembly.
• The first information report must reflect such to be the case even if there is no such charge formed at that given point of time.

Mohan Singh v. State of Punjab[21] is an exception of an unlawful assembly where the court held that that a gathering of five or more people is deemed to be an unlawful assembly only when the other objectives alluded to in section 141 of the IPC are present.

Rioting

Bare provision
146. Rioting[22] 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.

147. 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.[23]

Definition
When a crime is committed by a group of individuals or any person belonging to that group, it is called rioting. The involvement of at least 5 persons is required for rioting.[24] Generally, this crime is based on social strife and is typically abrupt and provocative conduct. This reflects a herd-like attitude and this is the reason even if a person belonging to the offending party has not committed a crime and violence, he/she will be guilty for rioting even then.[25]

Riots have traditionally arisen because of unfair working or working standards, government, injustice, taxes or internment, racial disputes, basic necessities or the result of a sports competition or dissatisfaction with legal platforms to express grievances.[26]

Essential Conditions
The essence of the offence of rioting lies in the use of force to achieve a common purpose.

The essentials of S.146 are the following:

• That an unlawful assembly was created by the accused people, five or more in number;
• Which was motivated by a common unlawful object;
• And the members resorted to use of violence;

And that such force or violence was incorporated for achieving of their common unlawful objective.[27]

A primary goal and intention of committing the offence is to constitute rioting, one of the most key attributes.[28] Particularly while they have not even committed the crime themselves in the rioting, this very 'common intention' makes all individuals in the community liable to be punished.[29]

Under section 148[30] of the IPC, penalty for rioting is provided and is a description of a period of 3 years or a fine or both. This offence is cognizable and the first class magistrate will undertake it.[31]

In Maiku v. State of Uttar Pradesh[32], when in duty, the sub-inspector was prosecuted, it cannot be argued that he was performing an illegal act and thus, under section 147 of the IPC, he cannot be punished. In the case of Allauddin Mian Sharif Mian v. State of Bihar[33], there is a relationship between a common object and an offence that is formed when the offence is committed with a common object, for which every party is responsible. It has also been held that active participation is not necessary for actual violence.

Some may encourage by words, others by signs and others again may actually cause hurt and yet all would be equally guilty of rioting. The Supreme Court has further recognized that It is well known that separate considerations such as the arms with which the members were armed, their movements, the acts of aggression perpetrated by them and the effects thereof must be derived from the collective item.

Section 153[34] punishes provocation for rioting. The crime demands that a person conduct an unlawful action with the purpose or awareness that the offence of riot is likely to be the product of such provocation, either with malignant intent or wantonly. It is worth remembering that it was one of the few provisions incorporating a standard of incompetence to address the lack of proof required at least partly, to prove all the components of the offence.

Comparison Between Unlawful Assembly And Rioting

A strong connection occurs between unlawful assembly and rioting. The recent innovation is an important ingredient of all crimes, and there must be five or more people.[35] Their differentiation is in degree instead of form. Rioting is the same as an unlawful assembly with a slight exception which constitutes the use of force in which rioting requires the use of weapons, so the involvement of 5 or more people is required in this too, as in the case of an unlawful assembly.[36]

Therefore,

Rioting = Unlawful Assembly + Violence

An unlawful assembly is an assembly of five people whose common intent is to overpower the government by unlawful force, or to resist the compliance of the statute, or to commit any violation or criminal crime or use of criminal force in order to gain control of any property or to induce any person to perform unlawful actions by the use of criminal force.[37] However, if force or violence is used by an unlawful assembly or by any member thereof, each member of that assembly is guilty of the crime of rioting in prosecuting the general purpose of that assembly.[38] It is only the use of force that separates rioting from the illegal assembly of the popular item from punishment.[39]

The offence of unlawful assembly is genus while rioting is a species. Rioting is an aggregated form of unlawful assembly. In unlawful assembly, violence and force are fewer, while intimidation are more in rioting. For unlawful assembly, penalty is lighter, i.e. six months in jail or with a fine or with both while punishment for rioting is extreme than in unlawful assembly. The punishment for rioting is two years' imprisonment or with fine, or with both.

In Gangadhar Behera & Others v/s State of Orissa[40] it has been stated that the existence of the accused as part of an unlawful assembly is sufficient for prosecution, even though no direct conduct is assigned to a single party while the offence is under Section 149. The principle of this Section has been explained by the Supreme Court in the case Lalji and Others v. State of Uttar Pradesh[41], a specific and exclusive crime is created in section 149.

Once the Court determines that an unlawful assembly has been organized by a certain convicted person and a crime is committed by any participant of that assembly in pursuit of the general purpose of that assembly, it is to be maintained by any person who was a part of the same unlawful assembly at the time of the act. After such a finding, it would not be open to the Court to see as to actually did the offensive act or require the prosecution to prove who which of the members did which of the offensive acts. The prosecution will have no obligation to prove it.[42]

Criminal law focuses on the intent to commit a crime, when a mob acts, it becomes extremely difficult to specifically attribute culpability to any individual members.[43] In deciding such matters, reference must be sought to the decision of the Supreme Court in the landmark case of Zahira Habibulla H. Sheikh and Another v. State of Gujarat and Others[44] , where it was observed as follows "Ultimately, the duty of the Court is to arrive at the truth and sub serve the ends of justice".

Since the aim is to deliver justice and punish the accused and uphold justice, the trial has to be a search for the facts and not a dispute over technicalities, and therefore should be held within laws protecting the innocent and prosecute criminals. The proof of an allegation that must be beyond reasonable doubt must rely on the judicial review of the entirety of the evidence, oral and circumstantial, and not by an isolated test.[45]

Conclusion
For human rights and a democratic society, protests are necessary. It sets up a review by the dominants on the unlawful and misuse of authority. Public protests, like any other thing, often work for social development, but sometimes lead to death and destruction of public order.[46] Different procedural requirements have been made in order to preserve public order with a view to maintaining a check on such assemblies. That's from these minute nuances which we will evaluate if the crime was of unlawful assembly or rioting or affray and then decide the punishment route to be offered to the criminals who violated the public peace or intended to disrupt the public peace.[47]

In the politics of the global economy, public order is not just any other issue, it is the soul of it, comprising one of the fundamental components of democracy and the important framework of our nation's foundation as a whole. Every offence committed against a person, but also able to distort public harmony, will fall under the definition of a public offence. In comparison, the real offence should not need to be committed, so though there is a chance of inducing public disturbance, it is a punishable offence.[48]

Such crimes are divided into four, i.e. Unlawful assembly within distinct groups, rioting, affray and enmity. All of them are close to each other to a certain degree, with slight exceptions.

References
Bibliography

• Kumar Askand Pandey, B.M. Gandhi Indian Penal Code, 1st Ed., EBC (2018).
• PSA Pillai, Criminal Law, 13th Ed., LexisNexis (2017).
• Ratanlal And Dheerajlal, The Indian Penal Code, 35th Ed., LexisNexis (2017).
• K.D.Gaur, Textbook On Indian Penal Code, 6th Ed., Universal Law Publications (2016).

Webliography

• D. Vanitha, K.Roja, A study on offences against public tranquility, 120(5) IJPPAM (2018), https://acadpubl.eu/hub/2018-120-5/2/101.pdf.
• Darshita Yadav, Protection From Communal Violence In India: A Study, 5(2) IJRAR (2018), http://ijrar.com/upload_issue/ijrar_issue_866.pdf.
• Kriti M. Shah, Dealing with violent civil protests in India, Issue Briefs And Special Reports ORF (Apr 07, 2017), https://www.orfonline.org/research/dealing-with-violent-civil-protests-in-india/.
• Madhav Chandavarkar, Divij Joshi, Ajay Patri, A Framework for Countering Mobilised Violence, Takshashila Institution And Vidhi Centre For Legal Policy, December, 2018, https://takshashila.org.in/wp-content/uploads/2018/12/TDD-Mobilised-Violence-MC-AP-DJ-2018-03.pdf.
• Partha Pati & Sanjana Sinharoy, How to prosecute (and defend) a riot under Indian law, LEGALLY INDIA, 12 June 2014, https://www.legallyindia.com/the-bench-and-the-bar/how-to-prosecute-and-defend-a-riot-under-indian-law-20140612-4790.
• Parul Soni, Unlawful Assembly, Law Times Journal (2019), https://lawtimesjournal.in/unlawful-assembly/ (last visited Mar 5, 2023).
• Trial and court process in riot cases, Law Insider India (2021), https://www.lawinsider.in/columns/trial-and-court-process-in-riot-cases (last visited Mar 5, 2023).
• Unlawful Assembly, B&B Associates LLP (7 Nov, 2018), https://bnblegal.com/article/unlawful-assembly/ (last visited Mar 4, 2023).
• Vinod K. Jairath, Studying Communal Riots in India: Some Methodological Issues, 54(3) Sociological Bulletin, Special Issue on South Asia: The State Of Sociology: Issues Of Relevance And Rigour (2005), 443-462, https://www.jstor.org/stable/23620619.
• Vrinda Grover, Assessing India's Legal Framework On The Right To Peaceful Assembly, ICNL (Dec 2021), https://www.icnl.org/wp-content/uploads/India-freedom-of-assembly-report-2021-final.pdf.
• What is unlawful assembly and legal provisions relating to it?, Law Insider India (2021), https://www.lawinsider.in/columns/what-is-unlawful-assembly-and-legal-provisions-relating-to-it (last visited Mar 6, 2023).

End-Notes:

1. D. Vanitha, K. Roja, A study on offences against public tranquility, 120(5) IJPPAM (2018), https://acadpubl.eu/hub/2018-120-5/2/101.pdf.
2. Vrinda Grover, Assessing India's Legal Framework On The Right To Peaceful Assembly, ICNL (Dec 2021), https://www.icnl.org/wp-content/uploads/India-freedom-of-assembly-report-2021-final.pdf.
3. Offences against Public Order  Working Paper no. 82, The Law Commission of India, 1982.
4. The Indian Penal Code, 1860, 141.
5. The Indian Penal Code, 1860, 146 and 147.
6. The Indian Penal Code, 1860, 146.
7. The Indian Penal Code, 1860, 147.
8. The Indian Penal Code, 1860, 141.
9. What is unlawful assembly and legal provisions relating to it?, Law Insider India (2021), https://www.lawinsider.in/columns/what-is-unlawful-assembly-and-legal-provisions-relating-to-it (last visited Mar 6, 2023).
10. Id, at 8.
11. Parul Soni, Unlawful Assembly, Law Times Journal (2019), https://lawtimesjournal.in/unlawful-assembly/ (last visited Mar 5, 2023).
12. Unlawful Assembly, B&B Associates LLP (7 Nov, 2018), https://bnblegal.com/article/unlawful-assembly/ (last visited Mar 4, 2023).
13. Moti Das v. the State of Bihar, MANU/SC/0167/1954.
14. Lallan Rai and Ors. v. The State of Bihar, MANU/SC/0998/2002.
15. Bhanwar Singh v. the State of M.P., MANU/SC/7728/2008.
16. Kripal Singh v. State of U.P., MANU/SC/0176/1954.
17. Supra, note 9 at 8.
18. The Indian Penal Code, 1860, 149.
19. Subramanian v. the State of Kerala, MANU/SC/0546/1993.
20. Ram Bilas Singh v. the State of Bihar, MANU/SC/0057/1963.
21. Mohan Singh v. State of Punjab, MANU/SC/0176/1962.
22. The Indian Penal Code, 1860, 146.
23. The Indian Penal Code, 1860, 147.
24. Vinod K. Jairath, Studying Communal Riots in India: Some Methodological Issues, 54(3) Sociological Bulletin, Special Issue on South Asia: The State Of Sociology: Issues Of Relevance And Rigour (2005), 443-462, https://www.jstor.org/stable/23620619.
25. Supra, note 9 at 8.
26. Darshita Yadav, Protection From Communal Violence In India: A Study, 5(2) IJRAR (2018), http://ijrar.com/upload_issue/ijrar_issue_866.pdf.
27. Karumanchi Veerangiah v Katta Mark, MANU/AP/0215/1976.
28. Partha Pati & Sanjana Sinharoy, How to prosecute (and defend) a riot under Indian law, LEGALLY INDIA, 12 June 2014, https://www.legallyindia.com/the-bench-and-the-bar/how- to-prosecute-and-defend-a-riot-under-indian-law-20140612-4790.
29. Id, at 12.
30. The Indian Penal Code, 1860, 148.
31. Trial and court process in riot cases, Law Insider India (2021), https://www.lawinsider.in/columns/trial-and-court-process-in-riot-cases (last visited Mar 5, 2023).
32. Maiku v. State of Uttar Pradesh, MANU/SC/0270/1988.
33. Allauddin Mian Sharif Mian v. State of Bihar, MANU/SC/0648/1988.
34. The Indian Penal Code, 1860, �153.
35. Supra, note 9 at 8.
36. Madhav Chandavarkar, Divij Joshi, Ajay Patri, A Framework for Countering Mobilised Violence, TAKSHASHILA INSTITUTION AND VIDHI CENTRE FOR LEGAL POLICY, December, 2018, https://takshashila.org.in/wp-content/uploads/2018/12/TDD-Mobilised-Violence-MC-AP-DJ-2018-03.pdf.
37. Id, at 14.
38. Kriti M. Shah, Dealing with violent civil protests in India, Issue Briefs And Special Reports ORF (Apr 07, 2017), https://www.orfonline.org/research/dealing-with-violent-civil-protests-in-india/.
39. Id, at 14.
40. Gangadhar Behera and Ors. v. State of Orissa, MANU/OR/0075/2001.
41. Lalji and Others v. State of Uttar Pradesh, MANU/SC/0283/1989.
42. Supra, note 38 at 14.
43. Supra, note 40 at 14.
44. Zahira Habibulla H. Sheikh and Another v. State of Gujarat and Others, MANU/SC/0322/2004.
45. Supra, note 40 at 14.
46. Supra, note 40 at 14.
47. Supra, note 2 at 7.
48. Supra, note 3 at 7.