Home  /  Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita  /  Section 190

Section 190: Member of Unlawful Assembly Guilty of Offence Committed in Prosecution

Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita • Chapter X: Of Offences Against Public Tranquillity • Official Statutory Text & Legal Guide

Chapter X: Of Offences Against Public Tranquillity
Court by which offence triable
According as offence is bailable or non-bailable
According as offence is cognizable or non-cognizable
Formerly Sec 149 IPC
Section 189 All 358 Sections of Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita Section 191

Legal Commentary & Landmark Judgments: Section 190

Section 190 embodies the bedrock doctrine of Constructive Group Liability (formerly Section 149 IPC), establishing that if an offence is committed by any member of an unlawful assembly in prosecution of the common object of that assembly, or such as the members knew to be likely to be committed in prosecution of that object, every person who, at the time of the committing of that offence, is a member of the same assembly, is guilty of that offence.

  • Constructive Vicarious Liability: Creates vicarious liability across all members of an unlawful assembly for acts committed by any individual member.
  • Two Alternative Limbs: Offence must be committed: (1) In prosecution of the common object, OR (2) Such as the members knew to be likely to be committed in prosecution of that object.
  • Active Membership Required: The accused must be an active member of the unlawful assembly sharing the common object at the moment the offence is committed.
Key Landmark Precedents:
  • Mizaji v. State of U.P. (AIR 1959 SC 572): A Constitution Bench held that Section 149 IPC (Section 190 BNS) has two limbs: (1) acts done in prosecution of common object, and (2) acts known to be likely; if an armed assembly goes to dispossess rivals, every member knows death is likely to be caused.
  • Alauddin Mian v. State of Bihar (1989) 3 SCC 5: The Supreme Court held that where a co-accused commits a sudden, unexpected murder of a third person not connected with the common object, other members cannot be constructively convicted of that murder under Section 149.
  • Gangadhar Behera v. State of Orissa (2002) 8 SCC 381: Affirmed that common object does not require prior meeting of minds like Section 3; it can be gathered from the weapons carried, slogans shouted, and conduct at the scene.
  • Charan Singh v. State of U.P. (2004) 4 SCC 205: Held that passive bystanders witnessing a village riot cannot be roped into Section 149 without proof of active participation or sharing of common object.
Courtroom Practice & Strategic Litigation Guidance:

In defending an accused roped into a murder charge via Section 190 BNS, establish lack of sharing: prove that your client was unarmed, stood at a distance, and that the fatal shot was an unexpected individual frolic of one assailant that went beyond the shared common object.

Section 189 All 358 Sections of Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita Section 191