The Allahabad High Court has been approached by the wife of Mohammad Akhlaq, the victim of the 2015 Dadri mob lynching, challenging the Uttar Pradesh Government’s decision and the prosecution’s application in the trial court seeking withdrawal of charges against the accused in the case. Akhlaq was lynched by a mob in the Bisada area of Gautam Buddh Nagar in 2015 on suspicion that he had eaten and stored beef, a case that sparked widespread national attention. Decades after the incident, the State filed an application before the trial court under Section 321 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, seeking permission to withdraw the prosecution against those accused of involvement in the killing, prompting strong opposition from the victim’s family. The High Court challenge was prompted by the State’s decision to seek to discontinue the case, which has been pending in the trial court, and by related administrative approval obtained for the withdrawal application.
In her petition before the High Court, Akhlaq’s wife contended that the government’s move to withdraw the charges was legally unsound and undermined the pursuit of justice in a case of mob violence and murder. The family’s challenge argued that permitting withdrawal in a matter involving violent death and alleged communal overtones would set a disturbing precedent, diluting accountability for egregious criminal conduct. The petition noted that the prosecution’s reasons for seeking withdrawal, including assertions about alleged inconsistencies and contradictions in eyewitness testimony and forensic evidence, were insufficient to justify ending the prosecution of serious offences such as murder and rioting, particularly where eyewitness accounts and circumstances of the assault clearly pointed to culpability by named accused. The wife urged the High Court to intervene and ensure that the charges against the accused are not allowed to be withdrawn improperly, arguing that public interest and the rule of law require the trial to proceed to its conclusion.
The challenge reflects broader controversy over the State’s rationale in seeking to withdraw the case. In its filing before the trial court, the prosecution referenced perceived discrepancies in statements recorded from key witnesses regarding the number and identity of accused persons, a line of argument that had earlier been relied upon by defence counsel in separate bail proceedings. The family’s petition to the High Court emphasised that such procedural or evidentiary issues should not hasten the abandonment of charges in a mob lynching case where a man was beaten to death by a group of individuals and his son was left injured. They maintained that the trial had barely progressed with only limited witness testimony and that the prosecution’s shift to seek withdrawal, after years of opposing defence contentions at earlier stages, was inequitable.
The High Court is set to consider the legal validity of the State’s withdrawal application and the family’s plea to quash or restrain any such discontinuance of charges. Proceedings are expected to focus on whether the prosecution’s grounds for withdrawal adequately justify the abandonment of charges in a case involving violent death, whether proper procedural safeguards and consent of the trial court have been or will be obtained, and the broader impact of allowing withdrawal on accountability in serious criminal matters. The matter has drawn attention from civil society and legal commentators, who emphasise that discontinuance of prosecution in such a high-profile case could undermine public confidence in the justice system and in the principled application of criminal law to cases of mob violence and lynching.
0 Comments
Thank you for your response. It will help us to improve in the future.