The proposal to withdraw the case against the men accused of lynching Mohammad Akhlaq is not merely a procedural misstep; it represents a fundamental and catastrophic failure of constitutional duty by the state. It is a cynical move that, if permitted, would transform a justice system designed to protect citizens into one that actively shields murderers and rewards mob violence.
I. The Legal Assault: Misuse of CrPC Section 321
The attempt to invoke Section 321 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC) is a grave legal distortion.
- The Framework: Section 321 grants the Public Prosecutor, with the consent of the Court, the power to withdraw from the prosecution of any person.
- The Mandate (The ‘Public Interest’ Test): Supreme Court rulings (such as those in Sheonandan Paswan v. State of Bihar and R. M. Tewari v. State (NCT of Delhi)) have established that this power must be exercised strictly to serve the larger public interest and must not be based on political motives or extraneous considerations.
- The Violation:
- No Public Interest in Murder: There is no conceivable “public interest” in abandoning a trial for murder and grievous hurt after the investigation, chargesheet, and framing of charges are complete and prosecution evidence has begun.
- The Precedent of Impunity: The only “public danger” served is the establishment of a chilling precedent: that organized, murderous violence is negotiable, and the state will eventually step in to protect the perpetrators.
- The Court’s Duty: The trial court is not a rubber stamp. It must independently assess whether the withdrawal is sought in good faith and serves public justice. To allow withdrawal at this advanced stage is to negate its own previous finding that a prima facie case for murder exists
II. The Moral Catastrophe: Harmony Built on Blood
The justification offered—”to restore communal harmony”—is an insult to the Constitution and a perverse inversion of justice.
- Harmony vs. Justice: Genuine social harmony cannot be purchased by burying murder. It is built on the bedrock of the Rule of Law, which demands that those who commit heinous crimes are brought to justice.
- Rewarding Mobs: This withdrawal proposal sends the unequivocal message that the state values political appeasement and the avoidance of communal tension more than the life of a citizen and the sanctity of his home. It implicitly legitimizes the mob’s actions by offering them legal amnesty.
- Betrayal of the Victim’s Family: The system, which is meant to be the custodian of the victim’s rights, is actively attempting to deny the Akhlaq family the justice they have endured years of harassment and legal battle to secure.
III. The Chilling Message: State Complicity
The context of this proposal—following reports of collusive delays, the social glorification of the accused, and pressure on the victim’s family—suggests a pattern of systemic failure.
- The System is Actively Betraying: The state is not merely failing Mohammad Akhlaq; it is actively betraying the concept of justice. The state, as the prosecuting authority, is the guardian of the public interest in a criminal trial. When it seeks to terminate a murder trial mid-way, it essentially signals that the Executive stands with the mob over the murdered.
- Echoes Far Beyond Bisada: If the system can be manipulated to save the accused in a highly publicized, documented case of lynching, the message to every future lynch mob across the country is devastatingly clear: Kill with impunity. Your political patrons will ensure your freedom.
The precedent being set is one where the very foundation of India’s democratic and constitutional edifice—the Rule of Law—is compromised, giving way to the tyranny of the mob and the complicity of the state.
