A 'Different' Series By Sushmita #5: Rioting Vs Affray

Coverage of this Article

Difference between Rioting and Affray

-Under section 146 of IPC “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”.

Case laws for rioting

-In Vijay Singh Mankotia v. State of Himachal Pradesh,More than 200 political party members gathered on a public roadway for a strike against the state administration.

Case laws for Affray

-There was a rebuttal in Jagannath Shah v. State of Bihar between two brothers arguing and assaulting each other on a public road in a town.

Conclusion

-The offences such as rioting and affray are committed against society.

Difference between Rioting and Affray

Case laws for rioting

• In Vijay Singh Mankotia v. State of Himachal Pradesh,More than 200 political party members gathered on a public roadway for a strike against the state administration. However, it ended up causing unlawful restraints for other people who were travelling by the highway. Thus, according to the Himachal Pradesh High Court, it amounted to public annoyance and rioting. A prima facie case was established against the petitioners for committing crimes under section 147 of the Indian Penal Code.
• The five components of rioting were laid down inField v Receiver of Metropolitan Police:

1. It must have a minimum of five persons.
2. There must be a common motive.
3. The desire to assist one another by using force against anybody who stands in the way of their common objective.
4. The initiation of that common goal
5. The display of this force or aggression should alarm at least one individual of ordinary firmness.

Case laws for Affray

• There was a rebuttal in Jagannath Shah v. State of Bihar between two brothers arguing and assaulting each other on a public road in a town. A large crowd had gathered around them. Even though the traffic was disrupted and a rush was generated, there was no physical altercation between them. The Court ruled and remarked that the conduct did not include a fight and was just verbal; therefore, lacking the essential elements of affray, no affray offence was committed.
• Three guys were fighting in the case of State v. Meer Singh, which resulted in the locality's tranquilly being disturbed. Both accused parties admitted that they were fighting in a Gali and that in such a fight, it is evident that they would disrupt the public quiet and that they would have to suffer as a result of their actions. Thus they sought a conviction for affray.

Conclusion

The offences such as rioting and affray are committed against society. Hence, disturbing the peace of community. The offences such as unlawful assembly, unlawful restraint, rioting and affray are sort of similar to an extent. The essentials for societal growth are peace and tranquilly. Because society cannot give individuals the chance to grow and develop to their full potential if there is a disorder or other similar hindrances, maintaining peace and calm are necessary for every community and nation.

A group of people commits these offences. For instance, in rioting, there must be a minimum of five persons involved while committing any crime, and in the affray, a minimum of two persons are applied. Rioting is dealt with under sections 146 and 147 of the IPC. It generally occurs as a form of protest or response to a perceived danger or grievance. A common intention and object of committing a crime are among the most significant factors in rioting. Rioting is punishable by three years in prison, a fine, or both under section 148 of the IPC. This is a cognizable offence that a first-class magistrate might prosecute. Affray and its punishment are covered by sections 159 and 160 of the IPC, 1860.