- Published on
KembaraXtra - Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita - Section 190: Every Member of Unlawful Assembly Guilty of Offence Committed in Prosecution of Common Object
Introduction
Section 190 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 (BNS) establishes an important principle of criminal law known as constructive or vicarious criminal liability.
Under this provision, when an offence is committed by a member of an unlawful assembly in prosecution of the assembly’s common object, every person who was a member of that assembly at the time of the offence may be held guilty of that offence.
The provision also extends liability to offences that the members of the unlawful assembly knew to be likely to be committed in prosecution of the common object.
The most important feature of Section 190 is that a person may be held criminally responsible for an offence committed by another member of the unlawful assembly, even though that person did not personally carry out the criminal act.
However, mere presence at the scene of an unlawful assembly is not sufficient. The prosecution must establish the accused’s membership and the necessary connection between the offence and the common object of the assembly.
Section 190 therefore balances two important principles:
FIRST — Collective responsibility for offences connected with an unlawful assembly’s common object.
SECOND — Protection against automatically imposing criminal liability upon innocent bystanders or persons who are not proved to be members of the unlawful assembly.
According to the supplied comments:
SECTION 190 BNS = SECTION 149 IPC
The provision has been retained without substantive change.
Central Memory Formula:
UNLAWFUL ASSEMBLY + MEMBERSHIP AT THE TIME + OFFENCE IN PROSECUTION OF COMMON OBJECT OR KNOWN LIKELY OFFENCE = SECTION 190
Part I — Meaning and Object of Section 190
Q1. What is the object of Section 190 BNS?
Answer:
The principal object of Section 190 is to impose criminal liability upon members of an unlawful assembly for offences committed in circumstances connected with their common object.
The law recognises that collective criminal activity may involve different roles.
One member may physically commit the offence, while others participate in the unlawful assembly without personally carrying out the particular act.
If criminal liability were restricted only to the person who physically committed the offence, other members who shared the unlawful common object could escape responsibility despite the connection between the offence and their collective activity.
Section 190 addresses this problem by establishing a rule of collective liability.
However, the liability is not unlimited. The prosecution must establish the statutory requirements concerning the unlawful assembly, membership, common object or knowledge of likelihood.
Memory
SECTION 190 = COLLECTIVE LIABILITY FOR OFFENCES CONNECTED WITH UNLAWFUL ASSEMBLY
Q2. What does Section 190 provide?
Answer:
Section 190 provides that where an offence is committed by any member of an unlawful assembly:
First: In prosecution of the common object of that assembly; or
Second: In circumstances where the members of the assembly knew that such an offence was likely to be committed in prosecution of that object;
every person who was a member of the same unlawful assembly at the time of the commission of the offence is guilty of that offence.
The provision therefore contains two alternative bases of collective liability.
Q3. What is the IPC equivalent of Section 190 BNS?
Answer:
According to the supplied comments:
SECTION 190 BNS = SECTION 149 IPC
Section 149 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860, previously governed the same principle of liability for offences committed by members of unlawful assemblies.
The supplied commentary states that the statutory language remains unchanged.
Q4. Has Section 190 introduced a new offence?
Answer:
Section 190 primarily operates as a rule of constructive or vicarious criminal liability.
It does not independently prescribe a new substantive offence with a separate fixed punishment.
Instead, it determines when a member of an unlawful assembly may be held guilty of an offence committed by another member.
For example, if murder is committed in circumstances satisfying Section 190, other members may also be held guilty of murder through the operation of Section 190.
The substantive offence supplies the punishment, while Section 190 supplies the basis for extending liability.
Memory
SECTION 190 = RULE OF LIABILITY
SUBSTANTIVE OFFENCE = PUNISHMENT
Q5. What is meant by vicarious criminal liability?
Answer:
Vicarious criminal liability generally refers to circumstances in which the law attributes responsibility to one person for conduct physically carried out by another.
In the context of Section 190, the liability arises because of membership in an unlawful assembly and the statutory connection between the offence and its common object.
A person may therefore be guilty of an offence even though another member performed the physical act constituting that offence.
However, this does not mean that every person standing near an unlawful assembly is automatically guilty.
The requirements of Section 190 must still be proved.
Q6. What is meant by constructive criminal liability?
Answer:
Constructive criminal liability means that responsibility for an offence is legally attributed to a person even though that person did not personally perform every physical element of the offence.
Section 190 applies this principle to members of unlawful assemblies.
For example, one member may carry out a violent attack while other members remain part of the unlawful assembly.
Where the attack is committed in prosecution of the common object, or falls within the statutory knowledge-of-likelihood alternative, Section 190 may extend responsibility to the other members.
Memory
PERSONAL COMMISSION NOT ALWAYS NECESSARY
STATUTORY CONNECTION WITH COMMON OBJECT IS NECESSARY
Part II — Essential Ingredients of Section 190
Q7. What are the essential ingredients of Section 190?
Answer:
The essential ingredients are:
- There must be an unlawful assembly.
- An offence must have been committed by a member of that unlawful assembly.
- The accused must have been a member of the same unlawful assembly at the time of the commission of the offence.
- The offence must have been committed in prosecution of the common object, or must have been one that the members knew was likely to be committed in prosecution of that object.
These requirements form the foundation of liability under Section 190.
Memory Formula
UNLAWFUL ASSEMBLY + OFFENCE BY MEMBER + MEMBERSHIP AT RELEVANT TIME + COMMON OBJECT/KNOWLEDGE = SECTION 190
Q8. Is the existence of an unlawful assembly essential?
Answer:
Yes.
Section 190 expressly requires the existence of an unlawful assembly.
Without an unlawful assembly, the provision cannot operate.
The assembly must satisfy the statutory requirements governing unlawful assemblies under Section 189 BNS.
Q9. How many persons are required to constitute an unlawful assembly?
Answer:
Under Section 189 BNS, an unlawful assembly generally requires five or more persons possessing one of the common objects specified by law.
The number of persons is therefore important.
However, the mere gathering of five or more persons does not automatically create an unlawful assembly.
The required unlawful common object must also exist.
Memory
FIVE OR MORE PERSONS + STATUTORY UNLAWFUL COMMON OBJECT = UNLAWFUL ASSEMBLY
Q10. Is every gathering of five or more persons an unlawful assembly?
Answer:
No.
A gathering may be entirely lawful.
For example, six persons peacefully attending a community meeting do not become members of an unlawful assembly merely because they are gathered together.
The prosecution must establish the unlawful common object required by Section 189.
Q11. Must an offence actually be committed before Section 190 applies?
Answer:
Yes.
Section 190 concerns liability for an offence committed by a member of an unlawful assembly.
It is not sufficient merely to establish that an offence was contemplated or feared.
The relevant substantive offence must actually have been committed, and the statutory conditions for extending liability must be established.
This is an important distinction between the existence of an unlawful assembly and liability under Section 190 for a further offence.
Q12. Must the offence be committed by a member of the unlawful assembly?
Answer:
Yes.
The provision expressly refers to an offence committed:
“BY ANY MEMBER OF AN UNLAWFUL ASSEMBLY.”
Therefore, the relationship between the person committing the offence and the unlawful assembly is essential.
Q13. Must the accused be a member of the unlawful assembly when the offence is committed?
Answer:
Yes.
The statutory wording specifically requires that the accused be a member of the same unlawful assembly at the time of the commission of the offence.
This timing requirement is important.
Membership at some unrelated earlier or later point does not automatically establish liability.
Memory
MEMBERSHIP AT THE TIME OF OFFENCE
Q14. Is mere presence at the scene sufficient?
Answer:
No.
Mere physical presence at the location where an unlawful assembly operates does not automatically establish membership.
The prosecution must prove that the accused was a member of the unlawful assembly.
A person may be present because of curiosity, coincidence, employment or another innocent reason.
Presence may be relevant evidence, but it is not by itself conclusive proof of membership.
Memory
MERE PRESENCE ≠ MEMBERSHIP
Q15. Must the accused personally commit the offence?
Answer:
No.
This is the central feature of Section 190.
The provision may extend liability to a member of the unlawful assembly even where another member personally commits the offence.
The accused cannot necessarily escape liability merely by arguing:
“I DID NOT COMMIT THE OFFENCE WITH MY OWN HANDS.”
However, the prosecution must first establish the statutory basis for collective liability.
Part III — Two Alternative Bases of Liability
Q16. What are the two alternative bases of liability under Section 190?
Answer:
Section 190 operates through two distinct alternatives.
First Alternative — Offence in Prosecution of Common Object
An offence is committed by a member of the unlawful assembly in furtherance or prosecution of its common object.
Second Alternative — Knowledge That the Offence Was Likely
An offence is committed by a member of the unlawful assembly, and the members knew that such an offence was likely to be committed in prosecution of the common object.
These alternatives must be understood separately.
Memory
190 = COMMON OBJECT OR KNOWLEDGE OF LIKELIHOOD
Q17. What is meant by an offence committed in prosecution of the common object?
Answer:
It means that the offence is committed to advance, accomplish or carry out the common object of the unlawful assembly.
The offence must have a sufficient connection with the object shared by the members.
For example, where an unlawful assembly has the common object of forcibly taking possession of disputed property, an offence committed to achieve that objective may fall within the first alternative.
The relevant question is whether the offence was committed in prosecution of the assembly’s common object.
Q18. Must every member personally intend to commit the precise offence?
Answer:
Not necessarily.
Section 190 is based upon common object and the alternative requirement of knowledge that an offence was likely.
The prosecution must establish the relevant statutory connection.
The provision should not be interpreted as requiring every member personally to perform the offence or separately formulate an identical plan for every physical act.
Q19. What is meant by knowledge that an offence was likely to be committed?
Answer:
The second alternative concerns an offence that members of the unlawful assembly knew was likely to be committed in prosecution of their common object.
This knowledge requirement is important because the offence may not itself have been the precise object originally contemplated.
Nevertheless, the members may be liable where the statutory knowledge of likelihood is established.
Memory
KNOWN LIKELY OFFENCE + COMMISSION IN PURSUIT OF COMMON OBJECT = POSSIBLE SECTION 190 LIABILITY
Q20. Is a mere possibility that an offence might occur sufficient?
Answer:
No.
The statutory wording requires that the members knew the offence was likely to be committed.
A remote possibility or mere speculation should not automatically be equated with knowledge of likelihood.
The required knowledge must be established from the relevant evidence and circumstances.
Q21. Must both common-object prosecution and knowledge of likelihood be proved together?
Answer:
No.
The statutory provision uses the word “OR”.
The two alternatives provide separate bases of liability.
An offence may fall within Section 190 because it was committed in prosecution of the common object.
Alternatively, it may fall within the provision because it was an offence the members knew was likely to be committed in prosecution of that object.
Memory
COMMON OBJECT OR KNOWLEDGE — NOT NECESSARILY BOTH
Q22. Does the second alternative mean that every foreseeable offence creates liability?
Answer:
No.
The statutory requirement is knowledge that the offence was likely to be committed.
This should not be reduced to a general rule that every offence which might conceivably occur during a gathering becomes the responsibility of every member.
The prosecution must establish the required knowledge and the connection with the common object.
Q23. Can Section 190 apply where an offence was not expressly planned?
Answer:
Yes.
The second alternative may apply where the offence was not the precise common object but was known by the members to be likely to occur in prosecution of that object.
For example, members of an unlawful assembly may share the object of forcibly removing a person from property.
If they knew that a particular offence was likely to be committed while pursuing that objective, Section 190 may extend liability when that offence occurs.
The required knowledge must be proved.
Part IV — Common Object and Membership
Q24. What is meant by common object?
Answer:
Common object refers to the shared objective of the members of an assembly.
For Section 190, the assembly must possess an unlawful common object within the meaning of Section 189.
The common object provides the connection between the members and the collective criminal activity.
It is therefore central to determining whether liability may extend beyond the person who physically committed the offence.
Q25. Must the common object exist from the beginning of the gathering?
Answer:
Not necessarily.
An assembly may begin lawfully and subsequently acquire an unlawful common object.
The relevant question is whether the required unlawful assembly existed at the material time.
If the assembly becomes unlawful and an offence is later committed in circumstances satisfying Section 190, the provision may apply.
Q26. Can the common object change during an incident?
Answer:
Yes.
The common object of an assembly may develop or change as events unfold.
The prosecution must establish the relevant common object at the time of the offence.
It is not sufficient merely to identify an earlier object and assume that it remained unchanged throughout the incident.
Q27. How can common object be established?
Answer:
Common object may be inferred from the circumstances surrounding the assembly.
Relevant considerations may include:
- The conduct of the members.
- The purpose of their gathering.
- The weapons or instruments carried.
- Statements made before or during the incident.
- The manner in which the members acted together.
- The sequence of events.
- The conduct of members during the commission of the offence.
No single circumstance should automatically replace proof of the statutory requirements.
The evidence must be considered as a whole.
Q28. Is an express agreement between members always necessary?
Answer:
No.
Common object need not always be established through an express written or verbal agreement.
It may be inferred from conduct and surrounding circumstances.
However, the prosecution must still establish that the relevant common object existed.
Q29. Does every member have to perform an overt act?
Answer:
No.
The principle of Section 190 does not require proof that every member personally performed an overt criminal act.
A person may be liable through membership of the unlawful assembly where the remaining statutory requirements are established.
Nevertheless, the absence of an overt act may be relevant when deciding whether the accused was genuinely a member of the unlawful assembly.
Q30. Can a passive member be held liable?
Answer:
Potentially, yes.
A person who does not personally commit the substantive offence may still be liable if membership and the relevant common-object or knowledge requirements are proved.
However, a person should not be labelled a member merely because that person remained physically present near the assembly.
The distinction between passive membership and innocent presence must be maintained.
Q31. Can a person who joins an unlawful assembly later be liable?
Answer:
Yes, where the person was a member at the time the relevant offence was committed and the other statutory requirements are established.
However, later membership does not automatically create liability for an offence completed before that person joined.
Memory
LIABILITY DEPENDS ON MEMBERSHIP AT THE MATERIAL TIME
Q32. Can a person who leaves an unlawful assembly before an offence is committed be liable under Section 190?
Answer:
If the person genuinely ceased to be a member before the offence occurred, the express requirement of membership at the time of the offence would not be satisfied.
Whether the person had actually withdrawn is a question of fact.
Liability for any separate offence already committed must be considered independently.
Q33. Does every offence committed by a member automatically become the liability of all members?
Answer:
No.
This is one of the most important limitations of Section 190.
The offence must fall within one of the two statutory alternatives.
An unrelated personal offence committed by one member does not automatically become the responsibility of the entire assembly.
Memory
MEMBERSHIP ALONE DOES NOT MAKE EVERY PERSONAL OFFENCE A COLLECTIVE OFFENCE
Part V — Principle of Vicarious Liability
Q34. Why is Section 190 described as a provision of vicarious liability?
Answer:
It extends criminal responsibility beyond the individual who personally performs the prohibited act.
The law recognises that members of an unlawful assembly may collectively pursue an unlawful object.
When an offence is committed in the circumstances specified by Section 190, every qualifying member may be held guilty of the substantive offence.
The liability is therefore constructive because the offence committed by one member may be attributed to others.
Q35. Is vicarious liability under Section 190 unlimited?
Answer:
No.
It is limited by the statutory requirements.
The prosecution must establish:
UNLAWFUL ASSEMBLY
- ●
MEMBERSHIP AT THE RELEVANT TIME
- ●
OFFENCE COMMITTED BY A MEMBER
- ●
COMMON OBJECT OR KNOWLEDGE OF LIKELIHOOD
Without the required elements, liability cannot be imposed merely because the accused was associated with some members of the assembly.
Q36. Is Section 190 based on guilt by association alone?
Answer:
No.
The provision requires more than general friendship, acquaintance, association or physical proximity.
The accused must be proved to be a member of the unlawful assembly at the relevant time, and the substantive offence must satisfy one of the two statutory alternatives.
Therefore, the provision should not be reduced to a rule that everyone associated with an offender is automatically guilty.
Q37. What is the difference between personal liability and collective liability?
Answer:
Personal Liability
A person is responsible for an offence because that person personally commits the relevant criminal act with the required elements.
Collective Liability under Section 190
A person may be responsible for an offence committed by another member because of membership in an unlawful assembly and the statutory connection between the offence and the common object.
Memory
PERSONAL LIABILITY = OWN CRIMINAL ACT
SECTION 190 LIABILITY = QUALIFYING MEMBERSHIP + COMMON OBJECT/KNOWLEDGE
Q38. Can Section 190 apply to serious offences such as murder?
Answer:
Yes.
Section 190 is not restricted to minor offences.
If murder is committed by a member of an unlawful assembly and the requirements of Section 190 are established, other members may also be held guilty of murder.
However, the prosecution must prove the substantive offence and the necessary basis for collective liability.
The mere fact that a murder occurred during a group incident does not automatically establish liability against every person present.
Q39. Can Section 190 apply to offences other than murder?
Answer:
Yes.
The statutory wording refers generally to “an offence”.
Therefore, Section 190 may apply to different substantive offences, provided its requirements are satisfied.
The particular offence determines the punishment and other relevant consequences.
Part VI — Judicial Interpretation
Q40. What principle was discussed in Umesh Singh v. State of Bihar (2000)?
Answer:
The supplied commentary refers to Umesh Singh v. State of Bihar (2000).
According to the commentary, the Supreme Court explained that an accused whose case falls within the former Section 149 IPC, now Section 190 BNS, cannot escape liability merely by arguing that the accused did not personally commit the offence.
Where an offence is committed in prosecution of the common object, or is one the members knew was likely to be committed in prosecution of that object, the statutory rule of collective liability may apply.
The essential principle is that personal physical commission of the offence is not always necessary.
Memory
UMESH SINGH = NO PERSONAL OVERT ACT NECESSARILY REQUIRED
Q41. Does Umesh Singh mean every person present must be convicted?
Answer:
No.
The principle does not eliminate the requirement to prove membership and the statutory connection between the offence and the common object.
The accused’s case must actually fall within Section 190.
Mere presence or general association remains insufficient.
Q42. What principle was discussed in Shivjee Singh v. State of Bihar?
Answer:
The supplied commentary refers to:
Shivjee Singh v. State of Bihar, AIR 2009 SC 417
According to the supplied material, the Supreme Court emphasised that mere presence in an unlawful assembly does not automatically make a person liable.
The prosecution must establish the accused’s relevant membership and connection with the common object.
This principle protects persons from being convicted solely because they happened to be present near an unlawful assembly.
Memory
SHIVJEE SINGH = MERE PRESENCE IS NOT ENOUGH
Q43. What is the combined significance of Umesh Singh and Shivjee Singh?
Answer:
The two principles should be understood together.
Umesh Singh
A member of an unlawful assembly cannot necessarily escape liability merely because another member personally committed the offence.
Shivjee Singh
A person cannot automatically be convicted merely because that person was present at the scene.
Together, they demonstrate that Section 190 requires proof of the statutory conditions rather than proof of a personal overt act in every case.
Memory
NO PERSONAL ACT NECESSARILY REQUIRED
BUT MEMBERSHIP AND STATUTORY CONNECTION MUST BE PROVED
Part VII — Punishment and Classification
Q44. What is the punishment under Section 190?
Answer:
Section 190 does not prescribe a separate fixed term of imprisonment or fine.
The punishment depends upon the substantive offence for which the accused is held liable.
For example, where Section 190 operates in relation to murder, the punishment is governed by the applicable murder provision.
Where it operates in relation to another offence, the punishment follows that offence.
Memory
SECTION 190 DOES NOT HAVE ONE FIXED PUNISHMENT
Q45. Is Section 190 always cognizable?
Answer:
No fixed classification applies independently of the substantive offence.
According to the supplied classification, the offence is cognizable or non-cognizable according to the offence for which liability is imposed.
Therefore, the relevant substantive offence determines the classification.
Q46. Is Section 190 always non-bailable?
Answer:
No.
The supplied classification states that the bailable or non-bailable character depends upon the substantive offence.
Section 190 itself does not establish a universal non-bailable classification.
Q47. Which court may try an offence involving Section 190?
Answer:
According to the supplied classification, the case is triable by the court competent to try the substantive offence.
Therefore, there is no single court classification applicable to every case involving Section 190.
Q48. What is the classification memory formula?
Answer:
SECTION 190 = FOLLOW THE SUBSTANTIVE OFFENCE
COGNIZABILITY → SUBSTANTIVE OFFENCE
BAILABILITY → SUBSTANTIVE OFFENCE
TRIAL COURT → SUBSTANTIVE OFFENCE
PUNISHMENT → SUBSTANTIVE OFFENCE
Part VIII — Practical Illustrations
Q49. Example 1: Murder committed in prosecution of common object
Answer:
Six persons form an unlawful assembly with the common object of killing Z.
During the incident, A, one of the members, kills Z.
The remaining members do not personally strike Z.
Nevertheless, the other members may be held guilty of murder through Section 190 because the offence was committed in prosecution of the common object.
The prosecution must establish the unlawful assembly, membership at the relevant time and the necessary connection with the common object.
Q50. Example 2: Offence known to be likely
Answer:
Seven persons form an unlawful assembly with the common object of forcibly removing Z from disputed property.
The members know that serious violence against Z is likely to be committed while carrying out their objective.
During the incident, one member commits a violent offence.
If the prosecution proves that the particular offence was known to be likely in prosecution of the common object, Section 190 may extend liability to the other qualifying members.
Q51. Example 3: Mere bystander
Answer:
A crowd gathers near a marketplace.
Some persons form an unlawful assembly and commit an offence.
X is standing nearby but does not join the unlawful assembly.
X cannot automatically be held liable under Section 190 merely because X was present at the scene.
The prosecution must prove membership.
Q52. Example 4: Unrelated personal offence
Answer:
Six persons constitute an unlawful assembly for a particular unlawful objective.
During the incident, A attacks B because of a completely unrelated personal dispute.
If the attack is neither committed in prosecution of the common object nor an offence the members knew was likely to be committed in prosecution of that object, Section 190 does not automatically extend liability to the remaining members.
Q53. Example 5: Member joins after the offence
Answer:
Six persons constitute an unlawful assembly.
A member commits an offence at 10:00 a.m.
X joins the assembly at 10:15 a.m.
X’s later membership does not automatically make X liable under Section 190 for the offence completed before X joined.
The statutory requirement concerns membership at the time of the offence.
Q54. Example 6: Member withdraws before the offence
Answer:
X initially joins an unlawful assembly.
Before the substantive offence is committed, X genuinely withdraws from the assembly.
If X was no longer a member at the time of the offence, the express membership requirement of Section 190 is not satisfied.
Whether withdrawal actually occurred must be determined from the evidence.
Q55. Example 7: No personal overt act
Answer:
Eight persons form an unlawful assembly.
One member commits an offence in prosecution of the common object.
X is proved to be a member of the same unlawful assembly at the time, but X does not personally perform the criminal act.
X may nevertheless be liable under Section 190 if the statutory requirements are established.
The absence of a personal overt act does not automatically defeat liability.
Q56. Example 8: Mere possibility of an offence
Answer:
An unlawful assembly exists for a particular object.
One member unexpectedly commits an offence unrelated to that object.
The other members had no knowledge that such an offence was likely to be committed in prosecution of the common object.
The mere possibility that some offence might occur does not automatically establish collective liability.
Part IX — Important Comparisons
Q57. What is the difference between Section 189 and Section 190?
Answer:
Section 189 — Unlawful Assembly
Section 189 concerns the constitution of an unlawful assembly and the offences and punishments specified under that provision.
It identifies the statutory requirements of an unlawful assembly, including the required number of persons and common object.
Section 190 — Collective Liability
Section 190 determines when members of an unlawful assembly may be held guilty of a substantive offence committed by another member.
Memory
189 = UNLAWFUL ASSEMBLY
190 = LIABILITY FOR OFFENCE COMMITTED BY MEMBER
Q58. What is the difference between Section 190 and Section 191?
Answer:
Section 190
Concerns collective liability for substantive offences committed by members of unlawful assemblies in the circumstances specified by law.
Section 191
Defines and punishes rioting, which requires force or violence by an unlawful assembly or a member in prosecution of the common object.
Section 190 is not limited to rioting.
It may apply to other substantive offences where its requirements are established.
Memory
190 = COLLECTIVE LIABILITY FOR SUBSTANTIVE OFFENCE
191 = RIOTING
Q59. What is the difference between Section 190 and Section 3(5) BNS?
Answer:
Both provisions concern situations in which criminal liability may extend beyond the person who personally performs the criminal act.
However, their foundations differ.
Section 3(5) — Common Intention
Section 3(5) concerns a criminal act done by several persons in furtherance of the common intention of all.
Its focus is the common intention underlying the criminal act.
Section 190 — Common Object
Section 190 concerns membership of an unlawful assembly and an offence committed in prosecution of the common object, or one the members knew was likely to be committed in prosecution of that object.
It requires an unlawful assembly, which generally involves five or more persons.
Memory
3(5) = COMMON INTENTION
190 = UNLAWFUL ASSEMBLY + COMMON OBJECT/KNOWLEDGE
Q60. Does Section 190 require the same number of persons as Section 3(5)?
Answer:
No.
Section 190 depends upon the existence of an unlawful assembly under Section 189, which generally requires five or more persons.
Section 3(5), by contrast, concerns criminal acts done by several persons in furtherance of common intention and is not based upon the five-person requirement for unlawful assembly.
Q61. What is the difference between common intention and common object?
Answer:
Common Intention
Concerns a shared intention connected with the criminal act.
Common Object
Concerns the objective shared by members of an assembly.
For Section 190, the relevant object must be one that makes the assembly unlawful under Section 189.
Section 190 also expressly recognises the alternative based upon knowledge that an offence was likely to be committed in prosecution of the common object.
Memory
COMMON INTENTION = SECTION 3(5)
COMMON OBJECT = SECTION 190 READ WITH SECTION 189
Q62. How does Section 190 differ from criminal conspiracy under Section 61?
Answer:
Section 61 — Criminal Conspiracy
Concerns an agreement between persons to pursue an object or course of conduct falling within the statutory definition of criminal conspiracy.
Section 190 — Unlawful Assembly Liability
Concerns an offence committed by a member of an unlawful assembly in prosecution of the common object, or known by the members to be likely to be committed in prosecution of that object.
The foundation of conspiracy is the prohibited agreement.
The foundation of Section 190 is qualifying membership of an unlawful assembly and the statutory connection with the offence.
Memory
61 = AGREEMENT
190 = UNLAWFUL ASSEMBLY + COMMON OBJECT/KNOWLEDGE
Key Provisions (Study Notes)
1. Nature of Section 190
Section 190 establishes the principle of constructive or vicarious criminal liability for offences committed by members of unlawful assemblies.
It does not prescribe a separate fixed punishment.
2. Essential Requirements
UNLAWFUL ASSEMBLY
- ●
OFFENCE COMMITTED BY A MEMBER
- ●
ACCUSED’S MEMBERSHIP AT THE TIME
- ●
COMMON OBJECT OR KNOWLEDGE OF LIKELIHOOD
3. First Basis of Liability
The offence is committed in prosecution of the common object of the unlawful assembly.
4. Second Basis of Liability
The offence is one that the members knew was likely to be committed in prosecution of that common object.
5. Personal Overt Act
A personal overt act by every member is not necessarily required.
6. Mere Presence
Mere presence at the scene does not automatically establish membership or liability.
7. Relevant Time
The accused must be a member of the same unlawful assembly at the time the offence is committed.
8. Punishment
Punishment follows the substantive offence.
9. Classification
Cognizability, bailability and trial court depend upon the substantive offence.
10. IPC Equivalent
SECTION 190 BNS = SECTION 149 IPC
11. Judicial Principles from Supplied Commentary
Umesh Singh v. State of Bihar (2000): Personal commission of the offence is not necessarily required where the conditions of collective liability are satisfied.
Shivjee Singh v. State of Bihar, AIR 2009 SC 417: Mere presence is insufficient without the required connection to the unlawful assembly and its common object.
Quick Revision Notes
Section: 190 BNS.
Title: Every member of unlawful assembly guilty of offence committed in prosecution of common object.
IPC Equivalent: Section 149 IPC.
Nature: Constructive or vicarious criminal liability.
Minimum Assembly Size: Five or more persons, subject to the statutory requirements of unlawful assembly.
First Basis: Offence committed in prosecution of common object.
Second Basis: Offence known by members to be likely to be committed in prosecution of common object.
Membership Requirement: Accused must be a member at the time of the offence.
Personal Overt Act: Not necessarily required.
Mere Presence: Insufficient by itself.
Punishment: According to the substantive offence.
Cognizability: According to the substantive offence.
Bailability: According to the substantive offence.
Trial Court: Court competent to try the substantive offence.
Important Case Principle: Collective liability does not eliminate the requirement to prove membership and the relevant statutory connection.
Exam Traps
Trap 1 — Section 190 creates a separate offence with a fixed punishment
Incorrect.
Section 190 primarily establishes a rule of collective liability.
Punishment follows the substantive offence.
Trap 2 — Every person present at the scene is guilty
Incorrect.
Mere presence is insufficient.
Trap 3 — Every member must personally commit the offence
Incorrect.
Personal physical commission is not necessarily required.
Trap 4 — Any offence committed by one member automatically makes all members guilty
Incorrect.
The offence must satisfy one of the two statutory alternatives.
Trap 5 — Common object and common intention are identical
Incorrect.
They are distinct legal concepts.
Trap 6 — Section 190 applies to any gathering of two persons
Incorrect.
Section 190 requires an unlawful assembly under Section 189.
Trap 7 — Five persons gathering together automatically constitute an unlawful assembly
Incorrect.
The prescribed unlawful common object must also exist.
Trap 8 — Every offence must be expressly planned in advance
Incorrect.
The second alternative covers offences that members knew were likely to be committed in prosecution of the common object.
Trap 9 — A mere remote possibility of an offence establishes liability
Incorrect.
The second alternative requires knowledge of likelihood.
Trap 10 — Membership at any time is sufficient
Incorrect.
The statute expressly requires membership at the time of commission of the offence.
Trap 11 — A person joining after the offence is automatically liable
Incorrect.
Later membership alone does not satisfy the requirement of membership at the time of the completed offence.
Trap 12 — A person who genuinely withdraws before the offence must still be liable
Incorrect.
The statutory membership requirement must be assessed at the relevant time.
Trap 13 — Section 190 is always cognizable
Incorrect.
Classification follows the substantive offence.
Trap 14 — Section 190 is always non-bailable
Incorrect.
Bailability follows the substantive offence.
Trap 15 — Section 190 is always triable by a Magistrate of the First Class
Incorrect.
The trial court depends upon the substantive offence.
Trap 16 — Section 190 applies only to rioting
Incorrect.
It may extend liability for other substantive offences when the statutory conditions are satisfied.
Trap 17 — Section 190 and Section 191 are identical
Incorrect.
190 = COLLECTIVE LIABILITY
191 = RIOTING
Trap 18 — Section 190 corresponds to Section 190 IPC
Incorrect.
SECTION 190 BNS = SECTION 149 IPC
Trap 19 — Umesh Singh means everyone at the scene is automatically guilty
Incorrect.
The principle concerning absence of a personal overt act applies only where the statutory requirements are established.
Trap 20 — Shivjee Singh means a member cannot be liable without personally committing an overt act
Incorrect.
The case principle highlighted in the supplied commentary concerns the insufficiency of mere presence.
It does not eliminate the statutory rule of collective liability.
High-Yield Sequence: Sections 189–205
189 = UNLAWFUL ASSEMBLY
190 = EVERY MEMBER LIABLE FOR QUALIFYING OFFENCE
191 = RIOTING
192 = PROVOCATION TO CAUSE RIOTING
193 = LANDOWNER / BENEFICIARY / AGENT LIABILITY FOR RIOT-RELATED OMISSIONS
194 = AFFRAY
195 = ASSAULT OR OBSTRUCT PUBLIC SERVANT SUPPRESSING RIOT
196 = PROMOTING ENMITY BETWEEN GROUPS
197 = IMPUTATIONS PREJUDICIAL TO NATIONAL INTEGRATION
198 = PUBLIC SERVANT DISOBEYING LAW TO CAUSE INJURY
199 = PUBLIC SERVANT DISOBEYING INVESTIGATION LAW
200 = NON-TREATMENT OF VICTIM
201 = INCORRECT OFFICIAL DOCUMENT
202 = PUBLIC SERVANT UNLAWFULLY ENGAGING IN TRADE
203 = PUBLIC SERVANT UNLAWFULLY BUYING OR BIDDING
204 = PERSONATING PUBLIC SERVANT
205 = WEARING PUBLIC-SERVANT GARB OR CARRYING TOKEN
Memory Chain
ASSEMBLE → COLLECTIVE LIABILITY → RIOT → PROVOKE → LAND DUTY → FIGHT → SUPPRESS → ENMITY → INTEGRATION → DISOBEY → INVESTIGATE → TREAT → RECORD → TRADE → BUY → PERSONATE → DISGUISE
Ultimate Memory Formula
SECTION 190 — FIRST ALTERNATIVE
UNLAWFUL ASSEMBLY
- ●
ACCUSED IS MEMBER AT THE TIME
- ●
OFFENCE COMMITTED BY MEMBER
- ●
IN PROSECUTION OF COMMON OBJECT
= SECTION 190 LIABILITY
SECTION 190 — SECOND ALTERNATIVE
UNLAWFUL ASSEMBLY
- ●
ACCUSED IS MEMBER AT THE TIME
- ●
OFFENCE COMMITTED BY MEMBER
- ●
MEMBERS KNEW OFFENCE WAS LIKELY IN PROSECUTION OF COMMON OBJECT
= SECTION 190 LIABILITY
PUNISHMENT AND CLASSIFICATION
PUNISHMENT = SUBSTANTIVE OFFENCE
COGNIZABILITY = SUBSTANTIVE OFFENCE
BAILABILITY = SUBSTANTIVE OFFENCE
TRIAL COURT = SUBSTANTIVE OFFENCE
Key Takeaway
Section 190 BNS establishes the principle of collective criminal liability for offences committed by members of unlawful assemblies.
The provision applies where an offence is committed by a member in prosecution of the common object, or where the members knew that such an offence was likely to be committed in prosecution of that object.
The accused need not personally perform the criminal act.
However, the prosecution must establish the accused’s membership in the unlawful assembly at the time of the offence and the required statutory connection.
Mere presence is insufficient.
Section 190 does not prescribe a separate fixed punishment. The punishment and procedural classification follow the substantive offence.
According to the supplied comments, Section 190 corresponds to Section 149 IPC, and the provision remains substantively unchanged.
Final Memory Line
“190 = UNLAWFUL ASSEMBLY + MEMBERSHIP AT THE TIME + OFFENCE IN PURSUIT OF COMMON OBJECT OR KNOWN LIKELY OFFENCE — EVERY QUALIFYING MEMBER MAY BE GUILTY.”
