AI Overview...

Ipc Section for Offence of Stone Pelting

Section 143 IPC - Punishment for being a member of an unlawful assembly involved in stone pelting. It addresses the collective act of unlawful assembly members and their liability for offences committed in pursuit of a common object AKRAM vs STATE OF KARNATAKA - Karnataka, A.K. KHALEEL Vs STATE OF KERALA - Kerala.
Section 147 IPC - Punishment for rioting, which includes stone pelting as a form of violent conduct during riots or unlawful assemblies AKRAM vs STATE OF KARNATAKA - Karnataka, A.K. KHALEEL Vs STATE OF KERALA - Kerala.
Section 148 IPC - Related to rioting with a deadly weapon or in furtherance of unlawful assembly, possibly involving stone pelting as a form of violence AKRAM vs STATE OF KARNATAKA - Karnataka.
Section 149 IPC - Acts committed by members of an unlawful assembly, where each member is liable for offences committed in furtherance of the common object, including stone pelting AKRAM vs STATE OF KARNATAKA - Karnataka, A.K. KHALEEL Vs STATE OF KERALA - Kerala.
Section 333 IPC - Assault or use of force to deter public servants from performing their duty, sometimes linked with stone pelting during riots or protests Abdul Hashim vs State Of Kerala, Represented By Public Prosecutor, High Court Of Kerala - Kerala.
Section 3 of the Prevention of Damage to Public Property (PDPP) Act - Addresses offences related to damaging public property during unlawful assemblies, such as damage caused by stone pelting Abdul Hashim vs State Of Kerala, Represented By Public Prosecutor, High Court Of Kerala - Kerala, A.K. KHALEEL Vs STATE OF KERALA - Kerala.

Analysis and Conclusion

Stone pelting is primarily addressed under Sections 143, 147, 148, and 149 IPC, which deal with unlawful assembly, rioting, and acts committed in furtherance of such assembly. These sections establish liability for individuals involved in collective acts of violence, including stone pelting, especially when committed during riots or unlawful gatherings. Additionally, offences under Section 333 IPC and Section 3 of the PDPP Act can be invoked when stone pelting results in injury to public servants or damage to public property. The specific section invoked depends on the context—whether it involves rioting, causing injury, or damaging property.

References:- AKRAM vs STATE OF KARNATAKA - Karnataka- A.K. KHALEEL Vs STATE OF KERALA - Kerala

IPC Sections for Stone Pelting Offence Explained

Introduction

Stone pelting has become a common form of violence during protests, riots, or communal clashes in India. Whether it's aimed at public servants, vehicles, or individuals, such acts can lead to serious legal consequences under the Indian Penal Code (IPC). But what exactly is the IPC section for the offence of stone pelting? There isn't a single standalone section dedicated solely to stone pelting. Instead, it falls under various provisions depending on the context, such as whether it involves rioting, causing hurt, or damaging property.

This blog post breaks down the relevant IPC sections typically invoked in stone pelting cases, drawing from legal precedents and court judgments. We'll explore how courts interpret these acts, supported by real case insights. Note: This is general information for educational purposes and not specific legal advice. Consult a qualified lawyer for case-specific guidance.

What is the IPC Section for Offence of Stone Pelting?

The question What is IPC Section for Offence of Stone Pelting is frequently asked in the context of criminal law in India. Courts generally address stone pelting under provisions related to rioting, unlawful assembly, and voluntarily causing hurt. The applicable sections depend on factors like injuries caused, use of stones as dangerous weapons, and whether it occurs during a riot or protest.

Key IPC Sections Commonly Applied

Here are the primary sections under the IPC that prosecutors and courts rely on for stone pelting offences:

Section 323 IPC: Punishment for voluntarily causing hurt. This applies when stone pelting results in simple injuries, such as bruises or minor wounds. For instance, courts have linked stone pelting to this section when injuries are not grievous. Rani VS State of Himachal Pradesh - Crimes (2016)
Section 324 IPC: Voluntarily causing hurt by dangerous weapons or means. Stones can be considered dangerous weapons if thrown with force or from a height. In one case, an appellant was convicted under Section 324 IPC for using a stone to cause injury, sentenced to six months' rigorous imprisonment. Indar Ram VS State of Jharkhand - 2021 Supreme(Jhk) 1029 - 2021 0 Supreme(Jhk) 1029
Section 147 IPC: Punishment for rioting. Stone pelting during unlawful assemblies or riots often triggers this section, as it involves five or more persons using violence. Judgments frequently reference stone pelting as part of rioting under Sections 147, 148, and 149 IPC. Rani VS State of Himachal Pradesh - Crimes (2016)Shyam Lal VS State of U. P. - Allahabad (2019)
Section 149 IPC: Every member of an unlawful assembly is guilty of an offence committed in prosecution of the common object. Even if not directly throwing stones, participants in a group stone-pelting incident can be held liable. Shyam Lal VS State of U. P. - Allahabad (2019)
Section 143 IPC: Punishment for being a member of an unlawful assembly. This establishes collective liability for acts like stone pelting in pursuit of a common object. AKRAM vs STATE OF KARNATAKA - Karnataka A.K. KHALEEL Vs STATE OF KERALA - Kerala
Section 148 IPC: Rioting armed with a deadly weapon. If stones are used violently in a riot, this may apply. AKRAM vs STATE OF KARNATAKA - Karnataka

Additional sections may come into play based on severity:

Section 326 IPC: Voluntarily causing grievous hurt by dangerous weapons. Used when stones cause serious injuries like fractures. Courts have noted cases where stone injuries amounted to grievous hurt. Mani VS State of Kerala - Kerala (2015)Dattaram Maruti Sakpal VS State of Maharashtra - Bombay (2005)
Section 333 IPC: Voluntarily causing grievous hurt to deter public servants from duty. Common in protests where stones are pelted at police. Abdul Hashim vs State Of Kerala, Represented By Public Prosecutor, High Court Of Kerala - Kerala

Stone Pelting in Court Judgments: Real-World Applications

Indian courts have consistently prosecuted stone pelting under these sections, often combining them with other laws. Let's examine insights from key cases:

In a notable judgment, stone pelting was part of unlawful acts during riots, leading to convictions under Sections 147, 148, and 149 IPC. The court emphasized collective responsibility. Rani VS State of Himachal Pradesh - Crimes (2016)

Another case involved an accused pelting stones at a victim, resulting in injuries to the left parietal region and ear, though acquitted under other sections like 294 and 506-B IPC due to insufficient evidence. This highlights how evidence strength determines outcomes. Bhersiya VS State of M. P. - 2024 Supreme(MP) 428 - 2024 0 Supreme(MP) 428

During protests, stone pelting on police vehicles invoked Sections 353/325/34 IPC and Section 3 of the Prevention of Damage to Public Property (PDPP) Act. No damage report led to acquittal, underscoring the need for proof. Yangbiu Takik, S/o. Late Yangbiu Tadik VS State of A. P. , Represented by Public Prosecutor - 2021 Supreme(Gau) 402 - 2021 0 Supreme(Gau) 402

In a bail application, applicants were accused of stone pelting and assaulting a deceased with stones and weapons under Section 302 IPC, showing escalation to murder charges. RASID MOHAMMAD @ KALLU Vs STATE OF CHHATTISGARH - 2024 Supreme(Online)(CG) 9104 - 2024 Supreme(Online)(CG) 9104

Eye-witness accounts in a murder case described an applicant pelting stones, with a black stone seized, leading to charges under Section 302 IPC. Chotu Lodhi vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh - 2023 Supreme(Online)(MP) 1291 - 2023 Supreme(Online)(MP) 1291

Protests violating Section 144 CrPC involved stone pelting, charged under Sections 147, 149, 353, 188, 307, etc., despite no injuries. VIVEK ANAND SINGH vs THE STATE OF JHARKHAND - Jharkhand

General roles of stone pelting in group offences led to Section 304 IPC charges when a stone accidentally killed an outsider. AMAN Vs State - Allahabad

Stones as weapons in assaults caused fatal injuries, like penetrating the back and aorta. Amiruddin VS State (Delhi Admn. ) - 2019 Supreme(SC) 2270 - 2019 0 Supreme(SC) 2270

These examples illustrate that stone pelting is contextual—ranging from simple hurt to grievous crimes—and often prosecuted alongside PDPP Act for property damage. Abdul Hashim vs State Of Kerala, Represented By Public Prosecutor, High Court Of Kerala - Kerala A.K. KHALEEL Vs STATE OF KERALA - Kerala

When Does Stone Pelting Escalate to Serious Charges?

No Injury: Primarily Sections 143, 147, 149 IPC for unlawful assembly/rioting.
Simple Hurt: Add Section 323 IPC.
Dangerous Use: Section 324 or 326 IPC if grievous.
Against Police/Public Property: Section 333 IPC or PDPP Act Section 3.
Fatal Outcome: Sections 304/302 IPC possible. AMAN Vs State - Allahabad

Courts stress evidence like eyewitnesses, injury reports, and FIRs. Lack of corroboration, as in vehicle damage cases without reports, can lead to acquittals. Yangbiu Takik, S/o. Late Yangbiu Tadik VS State of A. P. , Represented by Public Prosecutor - 2021 Supreme(Gau) 402 - 2021 0 Supreme(Gau) 402 Shripat Barku Bhagat VS State of Maharashtra - 2015 Supreme(Bom) 1043 - 2015 0 Supreme(Bom) 1043

Analysis: Legal Framework and Trends

Stone pelting is primarily tackled under Sections 143, 147, 148, and 149 IPC, focusing on group violence. Injury-related sections (323, 324) address individual harm, while PDPP Act covers property. Trends show stricter application during protests or elections. AKRAM vs STATE OF KARNATAKA - Karnataka A.K. KHALEEL Vs STATE OF KERALA - Kerala

Defenses often hinge on lack of direct evidence or common object proof, as in cases acquitted for insufficient panchnama or witness support. Ramesh Bhai Atmaram Vaghela VS State Of Gujarat - 2012 Supreme(Guj) 670 - 2012 0 Supreme(Guj) 670

Conclusion and Key Takeaways

While no single IPC section covers stone pelting exclusively, combinations like Sections 147, 149, 323, and 324 IPC form the backbone of prosecutions. Context is key—rioting amplifies charges, injuries escalate punishment.

Key Takeaways:- Stone pelting = Unlawful assembly/rioting (143, 147, 149 IPC) + hurt sections (323/324).- Evidence matters: Injuries, witnesses, FIRs crucial.- May invoke PDPP Act for property damage.

Stay informed, but for legal matters, seek professional advice. Understanding these provisions promotes responsible civic behavior.

#IPCLaw, #StonePelting, #IndianPenalCode

Chotu Lodhi vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh - 2023 Supreme(Online)(MP) 1291

After Merg report was submitted, crime No.17/2022 was registered for the offence punishable under Section 302 of IPC. Applicant has been arrested. A black stone was seized from his possession. After investigation, charge-sheet has been filed. ... Statement of another eye-witness Umesh has also been recorded before the trial Court who in his examination-in-chief has stated that he saw present applicant pelting#....

VIVEK ANAND SINGH vs THE STATE OF JHARKHAND

pelting. ... 144 of the Cr.P.C. and thereafter resorting stone pelting and also Indian Penal Code, Section 3 of the Jharkhand State Epidemic Disease (Covid 19) offence registered under Sections 147, 149, 353, 188, 307, 427, 269, 270 of the there is nothing on record to suggest that anybody sustained any injury on account of stone

AMAN Vs State

Four persons are alleged to have been involved in committing the offence and all of them have been imputed general role of stone pelting. ... Now it so happened some stone was throw from the applicant's side to the other side, by chance, hit some outsider who sustained injury. On account of his death, a case was registered, inter-alia, under Section 304 IPC initially. ... However, ....

AAYUSH UPENDRA RATHOD V/s STATE OF GUJARAT - 2025 Supreme(GUJ) 89

(5) Nothing is required to be recovered or discovered; 5. Considering the aforesaid aspects and the law laid down by the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Siddharam Satlingappa Mhetre vs. State of Maharashtra and Ors. reported in (2011) 1 SCC 6941, wherein the Hon’ble Apex Court reiterated the law laid down by the Constitution Bench in the case of Shri Gurubaksh Singh Sibbia & Ors. reported in (1980) 2 SCC 665 and also the decision in the case of Sushila Aggarwal v. State (NCT of Delhi) repo....

Amiruddin VS State (Delhi Admn. ) - 2019 Supreme(SC) 2270

The blow was given with so much force that it went through the back, through the lungs and hit the main aorta causing loss of blood which ultimately led to the death of Rajinder Kumar. However, according to the evidence which has been led by the eye-witnesses, the matter was pacified and thereafter the eye-witnesses along with the deceased were returning to their homes when at about 3.45 pm, the Appellant suddenly came from behind shouting he would settle the matter once and for all and gave a....

State of Gujarat VS Bilal Ismail Abdul Majid Sujela @ Bilal Haji - 2017 Supreme(Guj) 1723

Comes out and sees thousands of people charging towards “A” Cabin and proceeds towards the train; notices pelting stones by miscreants. Goes to guard lobby and telephonically apprises his officials about stone pelting and sought extra force to counteract stone pelting 15.

Shripat Barku Bhagat VS State of Maharashtra - 2015 Supreme(Bom) 1043

If indeed stone pelting had taken place, there ought to have been some other persons who had suffered some injuries as a result thereof. Though Ganpat did not support the prosecution case, that a First Information Report in which the appellant was shown as the accused came to be lodged immediately after the incident, cannot be doubted and this shows that an accusation was levelled immediately against the appellant. What for the stone pelting had allegedly, taken place and who were th....

Ramesh Bhai Atmaram Vaghela VS State Of Gujarat - 2012 Supreme(Guj) 670

This witness does not reveal anything about any occurrence that has taken place near the house of Ramesh. The evidence of these three witnesses therefore, if taken collectively viz., Bhanuben and Madhuben would not explore any confidence. Similarly, she does not say anything about what is stated by Madhuben about pelting of stone and what is stated by Madhuben about pelting of stone does not find support from the Panchnama of place of incident. If both the groups were pelting....