Case Law On Convictions For Attacks And Murders During Political Unrest

11 Oct 2025 --
0 Comments

🧾 INTRODUCTION

Political unrest often leads to violent incidents such as riots, murders, arson, and assaults. In such cases, the Indian Penal Code (IPC) and Criminal Procedure Code (CrPC) provide the legal framework for prosecution.
Key provisions include:

Section 302 IPC – Punishment for murder

Section 149 IPC – Every member of an unlawful assembly guilty of offence committed in prosecution of common object

Section 120B IPC – Criminal conspiracy

Section 34 IPC – Common intention

Courts have consistently emphasized that political motivation cannot justify violence or murder, and the perpetrators are held individually and collectively liable.

⚖️ 1. Kehar Singh & Ors. v. State (Delhi Administration) (1988) 3 SCC 609

Facts:

This case arose from the assassination of Prime Minister Indira Gandhi on October 31, 1984, by her bodyguards Satwant Singh and Beant Singh. The act led to widespread political turmoil and riots across the country. Kehar Singh was charged with conspiracy.

Issues:

Whether the accused were guilty of murder and criminal conspiracy under Sections 302 and 120B IPC.

Judgment:

The Supreme Court upheld the death sentence of Kehar Singh and Satwant Singh.
It held that:

Political motivation does not reduce culpability.

The crime was a pre-planned political assassination, executed with full knowledge and intent.

Conspiracy was established through circumstantial evidence showing prior meetings and ideological influence.

Significance:

This case established that politically motivated murders are treated as aggravated offences, as they threaten the constitutional fabric and public order.

⚖️ 2. State of Gujarat v. Gulbarg Society & Others (Best Bakery Case) (2004) 4 SCC 158

Facts:

This case concerned the 2002 Gujarat riots, where a mob set fire to the Best Bakery in Vadodara, killing 14 people during political and communal unrest.

Issues:

Whether the accused could be convicted despite hostile witnesses and compromised investigation.

Judgment:

The Supreme Court ordered a retrial due to:

Biased and defective investigation

Intimidation of witnesses

Failure of prosecution due to political pressure

On retrial, several accused were convicted.

Significance:

This judgment highlighted that political unrest cannot justify mob violence, and the State must ensure a fair trial even in politically sensitive situations.
The Court emphasized the duty of the judiciary to rise above political influence to protect justice.

⚖️ 3. State (NCT of Delhi) v. Navjot Sandhu @ Afsan Guru (2005) 11 SCC 600

(Also known as the Parliament Attack Case)

Facts:

On December 13, 2001, terrorists attacked the Indian Parliament, resulting in deaths of security personnel. The attack was politically motivated, intended to destabilize the Indian government.

Issues:

Whether the accused could be convicted for conspiracy, murder, and waging war against the State.

Judgment:

The Supreme Court convicted Afzal Guru under Sections 121 (waging war), 121A (conspiracy), 302 (murder), and 120B (criminal conspiracy) IPC.
Death penalty was upheld for Afzal Guru.

Significance:

This case demonstrated that politically driven attacks against institutions of democracy amount to acts of terrorism, punishable with the highest degree of severity.
The Court reiterated that political ideology or dissent cannot justify violence.

⚖️ 4. Manoj Narula v. Union of India (2014) 9 SCC 1

Facts:

This case arose from public interest litigation seeking the removal of ministers with criminal records, especially those accused in political violence or riots.

Issues:

Can persons accused of serious crimes, including murder during political unrest, hold ministerial office?

Judgment:

The Court held that while the Constitution does not bar such appointments, it is a matter of constitutional morality.
It observed that political leaders must act with integrity, and violence during political movements is incompatible with democratic responsibility.

Significance:

Though not a murder conviction itself, this case highlighted judicial recognition that political violence undermines democracy and accountability must be enforced at the highest levels.

⚖️ 5. State of Karnataka v. K. Yarappa Reddy (1999) 8 SCC 715

Facts:

This case involved politically motivated communal violence in Karnataka. The accused, members of a political group, attacked civilians leading to deaths and destruction.

Issues:

Whether the accused could escape liability due to police failure and political interference.

Judgment:

The Court convicted the accused under Sections 302 and 149 IPC. It ruled:

Political chaos does not excuse criminal conduct.

Every member of a violent mob is equally liable for the common object of murder.

Significance:

This judgment reinforced that collective liability applies in political riots where individual acts are part of a shared criminal design.

⚖️ 6. Zahira Habibullah Sheikh v. State of Gujarat (2006) 3 SCC 374

Facts:

Known as the Best Bakery Retrial Case, this was a follow-up to earlier proceedings. Zahira, a key witness, had turned hostile due to fear and threats.

Judgment:

The Supreme Court held that failure of justice due to political pressure or fear cannot be tolerated.
The retrial resulted in convictions and established that the right to a fair trial overrides political considerations.