Criminal Law Responses To Mob Justice Incidents
Introduction: Mob Justice
Mob justice (or lynching) refers to situations where a group of people takes the law into their own hands, often resulting in assault, injury, or death of the alleged offender without due process. Such acts are illegal and criminal, even if the victims are suspected of committing a crime.
Legal Framework
Indian Penal Code (IPC), 1860
Section 302: Punishment for murder if the victim dies.
Section 307: Attempt to murder.
Section 323 / 325 / 326: Voluntarily causing hurt, grievous hurt.
Section 147 / 148 / 149: Unlawful assembly, rioting, and collective liability.
Section 504 / 506: Insulting or criminal intimidation.
Criminal Procedure Code (CrPC), 1973
Sections 41, 156(1), and 202 guide police investigation and preventive action.
Guidelines from Courts
Supreme Court and High Courts have repeatedly emphasized that vigilantism is unconstitutional and cannot replace the rule of law.
Evidentiary Challenges
Identifying participants in a large mob.
Establishing the sequence of events during chaotic incidents.
Differentiating between primary offenders (those who inflicted harm) and secondary offenders (those who encouraged or abetted).
Reliance on CCTV footage, eyewitness statements, and social media content.
Case Studies
Case 1: Tehseen Poonawalla v. Union of India (2018)
Facts: Public interest litigation highlighting rise in mob lynching in India.
Legal Issue: Lack of effective state action and delayed prosecution in mob justice cases.
Judgment: Supreme Court directed all states to:
Register FIR immediately in lynching cases.
Conduct preliminary investigation to identify offenders.
Ensure speedy trials.
Significance: Laid down guidelines for police response, emphasizing prompt action against mob justice.
Case 2: Pradeep Sharma v. State of Maharashtra (2017)
Facts: Accused mob attacked a person suspected of theft in a local village. Victim sustained fatal injuries.
Charges: Sections 302, 147, 149 IPC (murder and rioting).
Prosecution: Eyewitnesses, local CCTV, and confessional statements were used.
Outcome: Primary offenders convicted for murder; secondary participants held liable under Section 149 IPC.
Significance: Courts reaffirmed collective liability under Section 149 IPC in mob justice incidents.
Case 3: Assam Lynching Cases (2019 – NRC-related)
Facts: Several incidents where suspected cattle thieves were attacked and killed by mobs.
Charges: Sections 302, 307, 149, 148, and 323 IPC.
Prosecution: Investigations used mobile video footage circulated on social media, coupled with forensic evidence.
Outcome: Multiple arrests; courts emphasized that suspicion alone cannot justify mob action.
Significance: Digital evidence and eyewitness accounts are crucial to prosecuting mob justice.
Case 4: Jharkhand Mob Killing of Suspected Thieves (2020)
Facts: A group of villagers attacked two suspected thieves, resulting in death and grievous injury.
Legal Issue: Determining who initiated violence and the role of each participant.
Judgment: Court convicted principal offenders for murder under Section 302 IPC; minor participants convicted for rioting and causing grievous hurt under Sections 323/147/148.
Significance: Distinction between primary and secondary liability helps in proportionate punishment.
Case 5: Rajasthan Mob Justice Case (2020 – Accused of Cow Slaughter)
Facts: Accused individuals suspected of slaughtering cows were beaten to death by a mob.
Charges: Sections 302, 147, 148, 149, 307 IPC.
Prosecution: Investigative agencies used CCTV footage, photographs, and social media video evidence.
Outcome: Conviction of 8 main offenders; others convicted under Section 149 IPC for participation in unlawful assembly.
Significance: Courts stressed that mob cannot take law into its own hands, and even “suspected offenders” are entitled to due process.
Case 6: Karnataka Mob Violence Case (2019 – Alleged Child Kidnap Rumor)
Facts: Rumor circulated on social media about child kidnappers; a mob attacked two men.
Evidentiary Challenge: Establishing the origin of the rumor and identifying instigators.
Outcome: Courts convicted 5 main attackers for murder and rioting; 10 others for aiding and abetting.
Significance: Social media rumors can escalate into criminal liability; courts can hold secondary actors accountable.
Case 7: Bihar Mob Justice Case (2018)
Facts: Suspected theft led to public assault; victim later died in hospital.
Charges: Section 302 IPC (murder), Sections 147, 148, 149 IPC (rioting and collective liability).
Judgment: Court emphasized preventive measures for police in riot-prone areas, including Section 144 CrPC to prevent gatherings.
Outcome: Conviction of main accused; police warned for negligence.
Significance: Courts encourage preventive policing to curb mob justice.
Key Principles from the Cases
Due Process Cannot Be Bypassed: Mob cannot replace investigation or judicial process.
Collective Liability: Section 149 IPC holds all members of a mob liable if a common object leads to murder or assault.
Primary vs Secondary Offenders: Courts differentiate between initiators of violence and participants who join later.
Use of Digital Evidence: CCTV, social media videos, and mobile footage are critical for identifying perpetrators.
Preventive Measures: Police can act under CrPC Section 144 to prevent unlawful assemblies and potential lynching.
Swift Prosecution Encouraged: Delayed action by authorities increases risk of mob justice repeating.
RELATED Blog
comments