A crowd turns violent. One person in the group throws a stone, another swings a stick, and someone else fires a shot. Who is legally responsible? Under Indian criminal law, the answer is not limited to the person who actually acted. Section 190 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS), 2023, holds every member of an unlawful assembly liable for an offence committed by any one of them, as long as that offence was committed to achieve the group’s shared goal.

This provision replaced Section 149 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) when the BNS came into force on 1 July 2024. It is one of the most frequently invoked sections in riot, mob violence, and group assault cases across Indian courts, and it forms a core part of judiciary exam and law school syllabi. This article breaks down the text, ingredients, punishment, and leading Supreme Court judgments on Section 190 BNS in plain language, so you understand exactly how and when it applies.

What Is Section 190 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita?

Section 190 BNS falls under Chapter XI, titled “Of Offences Against the Public Tranquillity.” In simple words, it says that if any member of an unlawful assembly commits an offence while pursuing the group’s common object, or commits an offence that the members knew was likely to happen while pursuing that object, then every person who was a member of that assembly at the time is guilty of the same offence.

This is often called constructive liability or vicarious liability, because a person can be convicted for an act they did not personally commit, simply on the basis of their membership in the assembly and their shared purpose with it.

Section 190 BNS: Simplified Bare Provision

In plain terms, Section 190 BNS states that when an offence is committed by any member of an unlawful assembly in furtherance of the assembly’s common object, or is one that members knew was likely to be committed while pursuing that object, then everyone who was part of the assembly at that moment is treated as guilty of that same offence.

The provision does not create a new, separate crime with its own punishment. Instead, it attaches liability for an existing offence, such as assault, rioting, or murder, to every member of the assembly.

Understanding Unlawful Assembly First: Section 189 BNS

Section 190 cannot be understood in isolation. It builds on Section 189 BNS, which defines an unlawful assembly as a gathering of five or more persons who share a common object that falls into one of these categories:

1. To overawe, by criminal force or show of criminal force, the Central or State Government, Parliament, or any State Legislature, or any public servant exercising lawful power.
2. To resist the execution of any law or legal process.
3. To commit mischief, criminal trespass, or any other offence.
4. To use criminal force to take possession of property, deprive someone of a right of way, or enforce a real or supposed right.
5. To use criminal force to compel a person to do something they are not legally bound to do, or to stop them from doing something they are legally entitled to do.

An assembly that starts out lawful can turn unlawful later if its object changes mid-way, once five or more members share the new, unlawful purpose.

Essential Ingredients of Section 190 BNS

For a court to convict someone under Section 190 BNS, the prosecution must establish the following elements:

• An unlawful assembly existed. There must be five or more persons as defined under Section 189 BNS.
• A common object was shared. Every member did not need to plan the crime together in advance; it is enough that the object was adopted and shared by the group.
• An offence was actually committed. Some crime, such as assault, rioting, or murder, must have taken place.
• The offence connects to the common object. It must have been committed either to achieve the shared goal, or be something the members knew was a likely outcome of pursuing that goal.
• The accused was a member at the relevant time. Only those present in the assembly when the offence occurred can be fixed with liability. A person who left before the offence took place is not covered.

Mere presence at the scene is not enough on its own. Courts look at conduct, weapons carried, and behaviour before and during the incident to decide whether a person genuinely shared the common object or was merely an onlooker.

The Two Limbs of Section 190 BNS Explained

Section 190 operates through two distinct limbs, a distinction the Supreme Court has repeatedly stressed should never be blurred.

First Limb: Offence Committed in Prosecution of the Common Object

This covers acts done specifically to achieve the group’s shared goal. For instance, if the common object is to forcibly dispossess someone of land, and a member kills a person who resists, that killing is directly in prosecution of the object.

Second Limb: Offence the Members Knew Was Likely

This covers offences that go beyond the strict scope of the original object, but which the members were aware could reasonably happen while pursuing it. If a group carrying deadly weapons sets out to intimidate someone, and a member ends up seriously injuring a bystander, the other members may still be liable if such an outcome was a foreseeable consequence of the group’s conduct.

The word “knew” in this second limb requires actual, positive knowledge on the part of the members, not just a remote or speculative possibility.

Punishment Under Section 190 BNS

Section 190 BNS does not prescribe an independent punishment. Instead, every member found guilty under this section is punished exactly as if they had personally committed the underlying offence. So:

• If the offence committed by one member amounts to grievous hurt, every liable member is punished under the grievous hurt provision.
• If the offence amounts to murder, every liable member faces the punishment prescribed for murder, which can extend to life imprisonment or the death penalty, depending on the facts.

The sentence, therefore, depends entirely on the nature of the crime actually committed during the unlawful assembly’s activity.

Is Section 190 BNS Cognizable, Bailable and Compoundable?

The classification of an offence under Section 190 BNS mirrors the classification of the underlying offence committed. Broadly:

• It is treated the same way the primary offence (for example, hurt, rioting, or murder) is classified for cognizability and bailability.
• It is generally non-compoundable, meaning it cannot simply be settled between parties without court involvement, particularly where serious offences are involved.
• The trial is conducted by the court competent to try the underlying offence.

Section 190 BNS vs Section 149 IPC: What Actually Changed?

Legal practitioners and students often ask whether Section 190 BNS introduced any substantive change from the old Section 149 IPC. The short answer is no. The wording, principle, and application remain the same; only the section number and the surrounding statute have changed.

Aspect	Section 149 IPC (Old Law)	Section 190 BNS (New Law)
Statute	Indian Penal Code, 1860	Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023
Core principle	Constructive liability for unlawful assembly	Constructive liability for unlawful assembly
Minimum members	Five or more	Five or more
Basis of definition	Section 141 IPC	Section 189 BNS
Two limbs (prosecution of object and known likelihood)	Present	Present, unchanged
Independent punishment	None; tied to underlying offence	None; tied to underlying offence
Effective date	Repealed from 1 July 2024	In force from 1 July 2024

In effect, anyone researching case law on this topic should treat judgments on Section 149 IPC as directly applicable to Section 190 BNS, since courts have confirmed there is no change in the substance of the provision.

Landmark Case Laws on Common Object and Constructive Liability

Because Section 190 BNS carries forward the exact wording of Section 149 IPC, decades of Supreme Court precedent continue to guide how it is interpreted.

Mizaji v. State of Uttar Pradesh (1959)

In this case, the Supreme Court explained the two limbs of the provision in detail. The accused were part of a group that set out to forcibly take possession of a disputed field, prepared to use lethal force if resisted. When one member shot and killed a man who came in their way, the Court held that the killing was in prosecution of the common object, and all members of the assembly were held equally liable, illustrating how far constructive liability can extend even to a capital offence.

Masalti v. State of Uttar Pradesh (1964)

This judgment clarified that a person does not need to perform an active or violent act to be convicted with the aid of this section. What matters is proof of membership in the unlawful assembly and a shared common object; passive participation with knowledge of the group’s purpose is sufficient for liability.

Zainul v. State of Bihar (2025)

In a more recent ruling, the Supreme Court reinforced that courts must carefully distinguish an innocent bystander from an actual member of an unlawful assembly. It reiterated that in large crowd or mob violence cases, courts should generally look for consistent testimony from two or more reliable witnesses before attaching group liability, protecting individuals who were merely present from being wrongly convicted alongside genuine participants.

How Courts Determine “Common Object”

Since a common object is rarely written down or spoken aloud, courts infer it from surrounding circumstances, including:

• The nature of weapons carried by the group
• Whether the group arrived together and acted in a coordinated manner
• Statements, gestures, or conduct before and during the incident
• The background dispute or motive shared by the group
• The consistency of eyewitness accounts describing the group’s behaviour

There is no requirement of prior planning or a formal meeting of minds. It is enough that the object was adopted and shared by all members at the time the offence took place.

Common Object vs Common Intention: A Key Distinction

Students and practitioners often confuse Section 190 BNS (common object) with the provision on common intention (Section 3(5) BNS, earlier Section 34 IPC). The difference is important:

• Common intention requires a prior meeting of minds between the accused, even if formed moments before the act, and does not require any minimum number of people.
• Common object under Section 190 BNS requires five or more persons and does not need a pre-arranged plan; a shared purpose adopted collectively at the time is sufficient.

Both provisions create liability for the acts of another, but they operate on different legal foundations and are pleaded differently in a charge sheet.

A Practical Example

Suppose seven people gather outside a shopkeeper’s house intending to intimidate him into vacating a rented property he refuses to leave. During the confrontation, one person in the group strikes the shopkeeper with a rod, causing grievous injury. Even though only one person delivered the blow, the remaining six can be held liable under Section 190 BNS if the court finds that causing injury was a foreseeable consequence of their shared object to forcibly evict him, and that they were present and aware of that possibility.

Why Section 190 BNS Matters

This provision plays an important role in maintaining public order because it discourages people from joining mobs or group actions with the assumption that only the person who strikes the final blow will face consequences. It reflects a broader legal principle: when people knowingly become part of a group pursuing an unlawful purpose, they accept a degree of responsibility for what that group does together.

At the same time, courts remain cautious about misuse, particularly in cases involving large crowds, protests, or communal incidents, where innocent bystanders can be wrongly implicated. This is why recent judgments continue to emphasise reliable, corroborated evidence before convicting someone solely on the basis of assembly membership.

Conclusion

Section 190 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita carries forward, almost word for word, the principle that once formed the backbone of Section 149 IPC. It ensures that every member of an unlawful assembly can be held accountable for an offence committed in pursuit of their shared, unlawful purpose, whether that offence was the direct goal of the group or a foreseeable consequence of pursuing it. Understanding its two limbs, its connection to Section 189 BNS, and the substantial body of Supreme Court precedent behind it is essential for law students, litigators, and anyone trying to understand how group criminal liability works in India today.

Frequently Asked Questions

What is Section 190 of the BNS?

Section 190 BNS makes every member of an unlawful assembly guilty of an offence committed by any member in pursuit of the group’s common object, or one the members knew was likely.

What was Section 190 BNS called under the old law?

It corresponds exactly to Section 149 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860, which was repealed when the BNS came into force on 1 July 2024.

How many people are needed for an unlawful assembly?

At least five persons are required, along with a shared common object as defined under Section 189 BNS.

Does Section 190 BNS prescribe its own punishment?

No. It attaches the punishment of the actual offence committed, such as hurt or murder, to every liable member of the assembly.

Can a person be convicted under Section 190 BNS without committing any violent act?

Yes. Mere membership of the unlawful assembly with a shared common object at the time the offence was committed is sufficient for liability.

What is the difference between common object and common intention?

Common object needs five or more people with a shared, adopted purpose, while common intention can involve any number of people who formed a prior meeting of minds before the act.

Is Section 190 BNS bailable?

Its bailability depends on the underlying offence committed during the unlawful assembly’s activity, since the section itself borrows the classification of that offence.

Can someone who left the assembly before the offence still be held liable?

No. Liability under Section 190 BNS applies only to those who were members of the assembly at the time the offence was actually committed.