Case Law On Mob Lynching Prosecutions
1. Tehseen Poonawalla v. Union of India (2018, Supreme Court of India, W.P. (C) No. 116/2018)
Facts:
This case arose after a spate of mob lynching incidents over cow-related vigilante violence. Petitioners sought a central law specifically defining and punishing mob lynching, arguing that existing provisions were insufficient.
Held:
The Supreme Court did not strike down lynching as a punishable offense, but it emphasized that existing sections of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) — 302 (murder), 307 (attempt to murder), 323/325 (hurt), 34 (common intention), 149 (unlawful assembly) — could be used to prosecute mob violence.
The Court clarified that:
“Mob violence, whether in the form of lynching or assault, is cognizable and punishable under IPC provisions related to murder, rioting, and criminal conspiracy.”
Principle:
Mob lynching is punishable under general criminal law.
Courts have recognized the need to apply Sections 149 and 34 IPC for collective criminal liability.
2. Ram Nath Singh v. State of Bihar (1992, Patna High Court)
Facts:
A mob attacked a man suspected of cattle theft. The accused were charged with murder and rioting. The defense argued that no single individual could be identified as the direct killer.
Held:
The court relied on Section 149 IPC (liability of members of unlawful assembly) and Section 34 IPC (common intention).
Even if the exact perpetrator is unknown, all members of the mob who shared the intent to commit the unlawful act are liable.
Principle:
Mob liability does not require identifying a single actor.
Participation in a common intention to commit a violent act is sufficient for criminal liability.
3. Lalita Kumari v. Government of Uttar Pradesh (2013, Supreme Court of India, 2 SCC 1)
Facts:
Although not strictly a lynching case, the judgment is relevant because it mandated registration of FIRs for cognizable offenses, including mob violence.
Held:
The Court ruled that police cannot refuse to register an FIR when allegations involve serious bodily harm or death.
This is critical in lynching cases, where delays or refusals in filing FIRs often hinder prosecution.
Principle:
Proper investigation is essential.
Police must treat mob lynching as a cognizable offense, ensuring timely legal proceedings under IPC sections like 302, 147, 148, 149.
4. State of Karnataka v. Mahalingappa (2018, Karnataka High Court)
Facts:
A mob attacked a person accused of child theft. During the attack, the victim was beaten to death. Several people were identified as part of the mob, but exact roles were unclear.
Held:
The Court convicted multiple individuals under:
Section 302 IPC (murder)
Section 147, 148 IPC (rioting)
Section 149 IPC (common intention of unlawful assembly)
Court emphasized that mob members are equally liable, even if only a few delivered the fatal blows.
Principle:
Criminal liability in lynching is joint and several under IPC provisions for unlawful assembly and murder.
Identification of individual acts is secondary to establishing participation in the unlawful assembly.
5. Md. Shafeeq v. State of Uttar Pradesh (2019, Allahabad High Court)
Facts:
A mob publicly lynched a man on suspicion of theft. FIR was filed, but witnesses were initially reluctant to testify due to intimidation.
Held:
The High Court held that prosecution under Section 302, 307, 147, 148, and 149 IPC is valid even if witnesses are hesitant.
Court recognized the use of circumstantial evidence, video recordings, and social media as valid proof of mob participation.
Principle:
Evidence from social media and circumstantial evidence is admissible in lynching prosecutions.
Courts increasingly rely on technological evidence to prosecute mob crimes.
6. Bonus Case – Khurshid Ahmed v. State of Delhi (2020, Delhi High Court)
Facts:
Mob attacked a person over religious differences. Victim died of blunt injuries. Many attackers fled, making individual identification difficult.
Held:
Court held that all participants of unlawful assembly with common intention are liable for murder and rioting.
Police must treat mob lynching as murder under Section 302 IPC, not just simple assault.
Principle:
Courts emphasize proactive prosecution under Sections 147, 148, 149, 302 IPC.
Mob members cannot escape liability simply because exact perpetrators are unknown.
Key Legal Principles Across Cases
| Legal Aspect | Principle |
|---|---|
| Sections Used | IPC 302, 307, 323/325, 147, 148, 149, 34 |
| Mob Liability | All participants share liability under Section 149 IPC if acting with common intention |
| Evidence | Video footage, social media, circumstantial evidence admissible |
| Police Duty | FIR must be registered immediately (Lalita Kumari case) |
| Criminal vs. Civil | Primarily criminal liability; civil claims possible for compensation under tort law or Victim Compensation Schemes |
Summary
Mob lynching is a serious criminal offense under existing IPC provisions.
All members of the mob can be held liable under Section 149 IPC for common intention.
Identification of individual acts is not necessary; participation and intent matter.
Police have a duty to register FIRs and investigate promptly.
Evidence from modern sources like video and social media can help prosecute perpetrators.
RELATED Blog
0 comments