Insufficient evidence cannot substantiate charges of unlawful assembly and related offences under the IPC.

ORDER

Dated this the 08^th day of December, 2025 The petitioner, a practicing Advocate and a social activist, is arraigned as accused No.4 in Crime No.2224 of 2017 registered at the Ernakulam Town North Police Station for offences punishable under Sections 283 , 143, 147 and 149 of the IPC , now pending as C.C.No.1693 of 2018 on the files of the Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate Court, Ernakulam.

2. The crime was registered on the allegation that, at 06:00 pm on 02.12.2017, the petitioner along with the other accused formed into an unlawful assembly in front of the State Bank of India office near North Police Station, Ernakulam. Thereafter, the accused marched on the road shouting slogans, causing disturbance to pedestrians and obstruction to the movement of vehicles.

3. Learned Counsel for the petitioner contends that the crime was registered suo motu by the Police and the allegations even if accepted, will not constitute any of the alleged offences. It is contended that for an assembly of persons to become unlawful, those persons should be having any of the objects mentioned in Section 141 of the IPC . The offence under Section 283 of the will also not be attracted, since, except the statements of the Policemen recorded on a day after the alleged incident, that too based on hearsay, there is no independent evidence regarding commission of the offence punishable under Section 283 . In support of the argument, reliance is placed on the decision in Preetha K. K. and Others v. State of Kerala and Another [2016 (2) KHC

808].

4. I heard the learned Public Prosecutor also.

5. As rightly pointed out by the learned Counsel for the petitioner, while the incident is alleged to have occurred at 06:00 pm on 02.12.2017, the statements of the Policemen, who alone are the witnesses, was recorded the next day. Those witnesses only stated that the Sub Inspector, who is the de facto complainant, had told them about the unlawful assembly and disturbance caused by the accused on the previous day. Moreover, even in the First Information Statement of the Sub Inspector, the allegation is only that the accused marched on the road and caused obstruction to the movement of pedestrians and vehicles. It is also stated that when Police attempted to arrest the accused, they left the scene.

6. The question therefore is whether marching on the road and shouting slogans will make an assembly of persons ‘unlawful assembly’. Here, the definition of unlawful assembly in Section 141 of IPC , extracted below, assumes relevance;

“141. Unlawful assembly.—An assembly of more persons is designated an “unlawful assembly”, if the common object of the persons composing that assembly is—

First.—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 Second.—To resist the execution of any law, or of any legal process; or Third.—To commit any mischief or criminal trespass, or other offence; or Fourth.—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 Fifth.—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.”

7. Going by the Final Report filed in th