Criminal Liability For Lynching Of Suspected Thieves
Lynching refers to the act of illegally killing or harming someone, usually by a mob, in a violent manner, often without a legal trial. In many instances, lynching is carried out under the assumption that the victim has committed a crime—typically, theft or some other alleged wrongdoing. This extra-judicial form of punishment, often based on suspicion or rumor, is illegal and is condemned worldwide.
In India, lynching has been a serious issue, especially in rural areas, where communities take the law into their own hands. Section 302 (Murder), Section 304 (Culpable homicide), and Section 323 (Punishment for voluntarily causing hurt) of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) are frequently used to prosecute individuals involved in lynching incidents. Moreover, India's Prevention of Mob Lynching Act (a bill currently proposed in some states) aims to address lynching specifically, although its passage and implementation remain inconsistent across regions.
The criminal liability for lynching is clear: murder (if the victim dies), or culpable homicide (if the victim survives but suffers serious harm). Additionally, participants in the mob who instigate or encourage the lynching can also face criminal liability for conspiracy, inciting violence, or criminal intimidation.
Below, we will explore detailed examples of lynching cases that led to criminal prosecution, including judicial decisions and the application of relevant sections of law.
**Case 1: The Dadri Lynching Case (2015)
In 2015, a man named Mohammad Akhlaq was brutally beaten to death by a mob in Bisara village, Dadri, Uttar Pradesh. The mob attacked Akhlaq, accusing him of slaughtering a cow and consuming beef, a crime under local laws in some parts of India. The lynching was based on unfounded rumors, and the accusation turned out to be completely false. Akhlaq's family claimed that the mob acted on misinformation fueled by communal tensions.
Charges and Prosecution: The perpetrators were charged under Section 302 (Murder), Section 307 (Attempt to murder), Section 34 (Acts done by several persons in furtherance of common intention), and Section 153A (Promoting enmity between different groups) of the Indian Penal Code. The police arrested multiple individuals involved in the incident, and the investigation led to charges against several others for inciting mob violence.
Court's Ruling: The trial is ongoing as of recent reports, but several individuals were initially arrested and later released on bail. However, the case highlights the growing challenge of dealing with mob violence in India, where suspicion or rumor can lead to extra-legal violence. The court's eventual verdict on this case is still awaited, but the focus remains on prosecuting both the perpetrators and those who instigated the violence.
Significance: This case highlights the criminal liability of mob violence where individuals act based on unverified rumors and take matters into their own hands, disregarding legal proceedings. It demonstrates how incitement to violence and murder or attempted murder charges are often applied in lynching cases.
**Case 2: The Alwar Lynching Case (2018)
In Alwar, Rajasthan, a man named Rakbar Khan, a 28-year-old Muslim, was attacked and lynched by a mob on suspicion of cow smuggling. Rakbar was allegedly transporting cows for slaughter, a claim that was later proven to be false. The mob brutally beat him, and he succumbed to his injuries. The incident became a significant example of mob violence motivated by religious intolerance.
Charges and Prosecution: The accused were charged under Section 302 (Murder), Section 307 (Attempt to murder), Section 323 (Voluntarily causing hurt), and Section 120B (Criminal conspiracy) of the IPC. Charges of murder and attempted murder were levied on the main perpetrators, while others in the mob were accused of being accomplices. The police were criticized for failing to prevent the incident and for not intervening earlier.
Court's Ruling: The trial is ongoing, with several accused being arrested and charged. While the case has not yet reached a conclusive judgment, it has generated significant public discourse about mob justice and the role of authorities in preventing such incidents. It also highlighted the dangers of vigilante justice, where law enforcement fails to intervene in situations where a mob is taking the law into its own hands.
Significance: This case reflects the criminal liability for lynching based on false accusations. It also shows the consequences of mobs acting in the name of law, often without evidence or a trial. The lack of intervention by law enforcement in preventing the violence was also a significant issue in the prosecution of those involved.
**Case 3: The Jharkhand Lynching Case (2018)
In 2018, in the Latehar district of Jharkhand, a mob lynched two men, Tariq and Imtiaz, on suspicion of being child abductors. The rumor of child abductions had spread across the region, and several people fell victim to such mob violence in the months that followed. Despite the lack of any evidence that the victims were involved in abductions, they were brutally beaten and killed.
Charges and Prosecution: The accused were charged under Section 302 (Murder), Section 307 (Attempt to murder), Section 323 (Causing hurt), and Section 120B (Criminal conspiracy) of the Indian Penal Code. The law enforcement agencies arrested several individuals involved in the mob, and charges of criminal conspiracy were leveled against the organizers of the lynch mob.
Court's Ruling: Several individuals were arrested and prosecuted for their roles in the lynching, though the case faced challenges in gathering enough evidence to secure convictions. The trial is still ongoing, but the case has drawn attention to the increasing violence motivated by rumors and the need for stronger legal frameworks to prevent mob violence.
Significance: This case highlights the criminal liability for lynching based on unsubstantiated rumors, particularly when children's safety concerns are involved. It also shows the difficulties faced by authorities in controlling mob behavior when emotions run high, and public sentiment leads to extra-judicial punishment.
**Case 4: The Dhule Lynching Case (2014)
In Dhule, Maharashtra, a mob lynched two men, Nikhil and Ravi, after they were falsely accused of being child kidnappers. The accusation was based on rumors that the two men were seen in the village, allegedly talking to children. However, the claims were never substantiated. The mob, which included several locals, brutally attacked the two men, resulting in their deaths.
Charges and Prosecution: The perpetrators were charged with murder (under Section 302 of the IPC) and criminal conspiracy (under Section 120B). Additionally, the mob was charged with causing hurt (under Section 323), unlawful assembly (under Section 149), and mischief by fire (if they destroyed property during the attack).
Court's Ruling: The case was brought to trial, with several individuals arrested for their roles in the lynching. The court convicted some of the perpetrators, sentencing them to rigorous imprisonment and fines. The case was notable for its swift legal proceedings, though there were concerns that not all individuals involved in the mob violence were brought to justice.
Significance: This case is important because it underscores the criminal liability for lynching based on rumors and false accusations. The convictions and sentences reinforced the principle that taking the law into one’s own hands is punishable under Indian law, regardless of the alleged crime committed.
**Case 5: The Meghalaya Lynching Case (2018)
In Meghalaya, a mob killed a man who was suspected of being a child trafficker. The victim was reportedly an outsider, and local residents believed he was abducting children. The mob detained him, subjected him to physical abuse, and eventually killed him. The man was found to be innocent; no evidence of child trafficking was found.
Charges and Prosecution: The involved individuals were charged with murder (under Section 302 of the IPC), voluntary causing hurt (under Section 323), and unlawful assembly (under Section 149). Several individuals were arrested and charged for inciting violence and participating in the lynching.
Court's Ruling: The case led to public outcry, and the authorities were under significant pressure to bring justice. The perpetrators were eventually convicted and sentenced to imprisonment, though not all individuals involved were brought to trial. The case also prompted a renewed focus on the lawlessness of mob justice and the need for stronger mechanisms to prevent such acts.
Significance: The Meghalaya lynching case highlights the consequences of false accusations and rumor-driven violence. The case also reveals the complexities of prosecuting individuals involved in mob violence, especially in areas where law enforcement may not always be immediately available.
Conclusion
Lynching, often based on unverified suspicions and rumors, is a grave violation of human rights and a crime under Indian law. Criminal liability for lynching is clear and includes charges of murder, attempted murder, and culpable homicide, depending on the outcome for the victim. The role of law enforcement in preventing such crimes and ensuring the swift prosecution of those responsible is critical.
While these cases highlight the increasing criminal liability for lynching, they also show the importance of judicial and law enforcement actions in holding mob participants accountable for their violent actions. Ultimately, stronger laws, prompt investigations, and public awareness are necessary to prevent and address this form of vigilantism.
RELATED Blog
comments