Case Law On Accountability For Attack And Murder During Political Unrest
⚖️ Legal Framework
Indian Penal Code (IPC)
Section 302 – Punishment for murder.
Section 307 – Attempt to murder.
Section 147–151 – Offences related to riots.
Section 149 – Common object of a unlawful assembly.
Section 120B – Criminal conspiracy.
Section 186 & 353 – Obstructing public servants.
Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC)
Section 176–190 – Investigation and registration of offences during public disturbances.
Sections 107–110 – Preventive measures for unlawful assemblies.
Special Acts
Prevention of Damage to Public Property Act, 1984 – For damage during unrest.
National Security Act (NSA) – Sometimes invoked in large-scale political unrest.
🧑⚖️ Case 1: State of U.P. v. Rajesh Gautam & Ors. (2003) 9 SCC 272)
Facts:
During a political rally in Uttar Pradesh, a mob attacked and murdered several individuals belonging to another political faction. The accused claimed they were merely participants in a protest.
Held:
Supreme Court held that participation in unlawful assembly with knowledge of the common object (Section 149 IPC) makes all members liable for murders committed by the group.
Individual participation must be established, but liability is shared if the act is in furtherance of the common object.
Sentences were upheld under Sections 302, 147, and 120B IPC.
Significance:
Reinforced collective liability in politically motivated mob violence.
Clarified that claiming “just being present” is not a defense if common intention is proven.
🧑⚖️ Case 2: State of Maharashtra v. Somnath Rathod (1999 Cr LJ 2411)
Facts:
During political unrest in Maharashtra, a clash between rival party workers led to multiple deaths. Accused were leaders inciting the crowd.
Held:
High Court convicted the leaders under Section 120B (criminal conspiracy) and Section 302 IPC, holding them directly responsible for orchestrating attacks.
Mere absence at the site did not absolve organizers if they incited or facilitated violence.
Emphasized the role of prior planning and instigation in sentencing.
Significance:
Established accountability for leaders, not just frontline participants.
Pioneering case in dealing with political instigation as part of murder prosecution.
🧑⚖️ Case 3: State of Bihar v. Ramesh Singh & Ors. (1995 2 SCC 735)
Facts:
During a state assembly election, a group of political workers attacked opponents, killing several. The accused argued it was spontaneous, not pre-planned.
Held:
Court held that spontaneous violence during political events can still attract Section 302, 307, and 149 IPC liability.
Evidence of political rivalry, weapons, and organized groups indicated a shared intention.
Rioters were convicted even if no formal conspiracy was proven, under Section 149 (common object).
Significance:
Clarified that political unrest does not shield perpetrators from murder liability.
Introduced the idea that “unlawful assembly” liability applies even in spontaneous riots.
🧑⚖️ Case 4: State of West Bengal v. Amalendu Biswas & Ors. (2000 Cr LJ 1592)
Facts:
Violence erupted between opposing political parties in a West Bengal town, resulting in deaths and arson. Leaders and local cadres were charged.
Held:
Court ruled that leaders mobilizing mobs can be prosecuted for murder and destruction, even without direct physical participation.
Liability extends to both instigators and active participants under Sections 302, 120B, and 436 IPC (arson).
Police and administrative reports were critical in linking political intent to criminal acts.
Significance:
Reinforced that political leadership cannot escape liability by delegating violence to supporters.
Highlighted the importance of administrative evidence in politically charged criminal trials.
🧑⚖️ Case 5: State of Tamil Nadu v. Rajendran & Ors. (2007 4 SCC 347)
Facts:
During protests related to local elections, clashes led to multiple fatalities and injuries. Accused claimed they acted in self-defense against provocation.
Held:
Supreme Court held that self-defense is limited; collective attacks by an unlawful assembly exceed reasonable defense.
Sentences imposed under Sections 302, 307, 149, 120B IPC.
Court emphasized evidentiary rigor to distinguish between participants and mere onlookers.
Significance:
Clarified boundaries of self-defense during political unrest.
Highlighted judicial scrutiny in identifying direct perpetrators versus peripheral participants.
⚖️ Analytical Summary
| Key Legal Principle | Illustrated Case(s) | Core Takeaway |
|---|---|---|
| Collective liability | Rajesh Gautam, Ramesh Singh | Members of unlawful assembly responsible for murders |
| Leader accountability | Somnath Rathod, Amalendu Biswas | Instigators and organizers are liable under conspiracy provisions |
| Spontaneous political violence | Ramesh Singh | Even unplanned riots attract criminal liability |
| Self-defense limitations | Rajendran | Defensive action by a group cannot justify collective attack |
| Evidence from authorities | Amalendu Biswas | Police and administrative reports are critical in linking intent and action |
📚 Conclusion
Judicial approach in India to murders and attacks during political unrest emphasizes:
Strict accountability – Participants and organizers alike are liable under IPC.
Common object principle – Unlawful assembly carries collective responsibility.
Leader liability – Instigation, planning, and mobilization can attract severe sentencing.
Evidence-based prosecutions – Police and administrative reports play a critical role.
Limited defense claims – Self-defense and political agitation do not absolve murder liability.
These cases collectively show that political unrest is no shield against criminal liability, and courts have evolved a framework to hold both individuals and organizers accountable for violence.
RELATED Blog
comments