The UP government’s decision to withdraw the case in connection with the murder and lynching of Mohammad Akhlaq, with the permission of the Governor, made senior Communist Party of India (Marxist) leader Brinda Karat write to President Droupadi Murmu, seeking her intervention into the matter, as despite witness evidence having been recorded against the accused, they now stand to slip away from the law after a killing that had once shaken the country.
In her communication to the President, Karat raised serious objections to the role played by Uttar Pradesh Governor Anandiben Patel in granting permission to the Adityanath government to move the court for withdrawal of the case, even as the trial was under way and crucial testimony had already been placed on record, which, she argued, amounted to an attempt to derail the judicial process rather than allow it to reach its logical conclusion.
Mohammad Akhlaq, a resident of Bisahada village in Gautam Budh Nagar district, was lynched by a mob outside his home on September 28, 2015, following allegations linked to beef consumption, while his son Danish sustained grievous injuries in the same attack, and the case was registered under multiple sections of the Indian Penal Code, including murder, attempt to murder, rioting and criminal trespass, leading to widespread outrage and assurances from the state at the time that those responsible would be punished.
As the trial progressed, a chargesheet was filed and proceedings commenced, and in 2022, the victim’s daughter, who was a direct witness, deposed before the court, identifying and naming the accused, with two other direct witnesses yet to record their statements, thereby placing the case at an advanced and substantive stage rather than one dependent on conjecture or incomplete investigation.
Despite this, the state government recently decided to withdraw the prosecution, citing grounds such as the absence of firearms, lack of personal animosity and the claim that continuing the case could disturb communal harmony, even though Karat pointed out that repeated delays by the prosecution in summoning witnesses were now being cited as justification for abandonment of the case itself.
In her letter, Karat contended that the move represented a misuse of Section 321 of the Code of Criminal Procedure and warned that allowing such reasoning to prevail would set a dangerous precedent, potentially enabling the withdrawal of other mob lynching cases on similarly tenuous grounds, thereby hollowing out the rule of law.
She further questioned whether the Governor, as a constitutional authority, ought to have advised the government against withdrawing a case involving murder and mob violence, rather than granting permission, and urged the President to intervene and ask the Governor to reconsider and withdraw the approval already given.
The urgency of the appeal was underscored by the fact that an affidavit filed by the state government, with the Governor’s consent, was scheduled to be considered by a district court in Greater Noida, although the hearing was postponed following a request from the prosecution, leaving the fate of the case, and the promise of justice to the victim’s family, hanging in the balance.