According to the news report, Additional District Judge Saurabh Dwivedi also directed that the case be categorised as “most important” and heard on a daily basis. The Court also directed the prosecution to record evidence in the case at the earliest. The case will be heard next on January 6.

Akhlaq (50) was lynched by a mob over rumours of alleged cow slaughter and storing its meat at his home in Dadri’s Bisada village on September 28, 2015. This lynching, among the most prominent to dot the Modi era in Indian politics had caused a national outrage at the time.

Citizens for Justice and Peace has tracked the case closely and in this detailed legal overview questioned the state’s motive to withdraw the case, a decade after the shameful and ghastly lynching at Dadri in Western Uttar Pradesh. This analysis may be read here.

On October 15, the UP government had moved an application to withdraw prosecution in the case, citing reasons from ranged from allegedly “inconsistent statements by Akhlaq’s relatives” in naming the accused; the fact that no firearm or sharp weapon was recovered from the accused, to the lack of any enmity or hostility recorded between the accused and the victim.

Yesterday, the Indian Express had reported that the UP government has now made essentially the same argument that two of the accused had presented earlier. The Indian Express reported Monday that in its application to withdraw the case against the men accused of lynching Mohammad Akhlaq, the Uttar Pradesh government has made essentially the same argument that two of the accused had presented when they applied successfully for bail more than eight years ago

On September 28, 2015, a mob gathered outside his house after an announcement from the village temple alleged that he had slaughtered a cow. Akhlaq and his son Danish, who tried to intervene, were dragged out of their home and assaulted until they fell unconscious. Akhlaq later died at a Noida hospital, while Danish survived after suffering severe head injuries and undergoing major surgery.

Police had registered an FIR at Jarcha police station under sections of the Indian Penal Code (IPC ) 302 (murder), 307 (attempt to murder), 147 (rioting), 148 (rioting with deadly weapon), 149 (unlawful assembly), 323 (assault), 504 (intentional insult to disturb peace), among others, based on a complaint by Akhlaq’s wife, Ikraman.

The state police filed the charge sheet on December 23, 2015, before the magistrate court in Surajpur, naming 15 people, including a minor, in connection with the lynching. All the accused are currently out on bail. However, the charge sheet had not specifically mentioned cow meat, as the final forensic report was not available at the time.

Related:

The Lynching of Mohammed Akhlaq

Victims of Gautankwad: Pehlu Khan

Victims of Gautankwad: Alimuddin Ansari

Lynched in India

The post Dadri lynching: UP Court rejects state govt plea to withdraw charges against Akhlaq murder accused appeared first on SabrangIndia.

The Uttar Pradesh government claims to have only applied to withdraw the prosecution against Mohammad Akhlaq’s killers and that this request will be decided by a judge at the next hearing scheduled for December 12, 2025. However, when viewed through the lens of the history of this case, the timeline for this case, and the current political climate surrounding this case, it is evident that the actions taken by the Uttar Pradesh Government in withdrawing the prosecution against those responsible for lynching Mohammad Akhlaq are not only withdrawing from having any responsibility for pursuing justice but are also an example of how for the past 10 years the government has systematically neglected this case, given political support to those accused of this heinous crime and created an environment of hostility toward the family of Mohammad Akhlaq.

The circumstances surrounding the lynching of one man’s father are now much broader than that man’s father’s murder. The current circumstances have become a long-term narrative about what a state can create over time and distribute through state-sponsored actions, as well as about eliminating any ultimate responsibility associated with that state.

September 28, 2015: The Night that Violence knocked on a Family’s Door

A news announcement spread through the Bisada Temple loudspeaker about animals being slaughtered resulted in the instant transformation of an unsubstantiated rumour into a murder sentence. A mob descended on the home of 50-year-old Mohammad Akhlaq and his family within minutes of the announcement being made, and forcibly removed Akhlaq and his son from the property, beating both Mohammad and his son Danish with sticks and metal rods, not stopping until their bodies lay in a pool of their own blood on the street in front of their house. Akhlaq died as a result of the beating he received; Danish survived but required immediate neurosurgery. This particularly brutal act of violence was planned by those committing the act, as well as the community, through the use of whisper campaigns, political pressure, and the manipulation of the emotional appeal of cow-vigilantism. These events were reconstructed in detail by Sabrang in “Akhlaq’s Lynching: 7 Years On – Only 1 of 25 Witnesses Testifies; Trial Reaches Evidence Stage”.

The FIR that was filed at the Jarcha Police Station references the appropriate sections related to charges of murder, attempted murder, rioting, and unlawful assembly. The nature of the charges against those involved in this act of violence was virtually disregarded from the day it occurred, and politicians, media, and community leaders received ample time to speculate on whether there were indeed any cow products found in Akhlaq’s home before the death of Akhlaq. Public and political perceptions and narratives surrounding the event changed shortly after the announcement of Akhlaq’s death. Sabrang’s “Meet Hari Om: Part of the Mob That Killed Mohd Akhlaque” further illuminated individual roles and admissions from those involved.

The use of the murder scene is an attempt to portray or manipulate the public perception of the incident as a religious act motivated by slights to the religion of Islam.

The Investigation: Charges Filed, yet Justice Already Compromised

The police in Gautam Buddha Nagar, in its first chargesheet, named 15 main accused, including a juvenile and a local BJP leader’s son, along with 25 witnesses. Four more accused were later added, bringing the total to 19. One of them died in 2016. The prosecution has appeared to take its course through the court system; however, beneath the surface, evidence is starting to show that political pressure has compromised the investigation, as well as apathy within the institutions involved.

The Forensic Report coming out of Mathura stated that the sample of red meat taken from the house of a man who was killed had belonged to “a cow or calf,” and it changed the trajectory of this case completely. The family of the victim immediately alleged that their sample was switched. Furthermore, the timing of when the forensic report was delivered raised suspicions because the mob attacked based on a rumour and not the forensic evidence from a laboratory; however, the public debate quickly shifted away from the circumstances surrounding the killing and focused on the purported evidence.

The major shift in this case happened in 2016 when a court in Surajpur ordered that an FIR be filed against the surviving family members of Akhlaq, and thus turned the focus of the case completely upside down. At that point, the surviving family members were already grieving, emotionally traumatized, and socially isolated, and now faced with the criminal allegations of cow slaughter. This whole methodology set forth a structure by which a lynching victim is presumed guilty, while the people who committed the act are presumed to be victims.

2015–2017: Delay, Bail, and the Slow Death of Due Process

The public often forgets that the justice system did not simply fail in 2025; it faltered every year since 2015.

Bail was granted to each of the accused, with repeated adjournments of court hearings and extremely slow progress in witness testimony. Sabrang’s reporting, including “All Killers of Mohammad Akhlaq Get Bail in Dadri Lynching”, captured how each bail order was met with political celebration, further chilling the environment for witnesses. As of December 2017, the trial had barely progressed past the evidence stage. Multiple important witnesses were reluctant to testify in a public courtroom and thus did not receive adequate witness protection. The handling of police transfers caused inconsistencies in the investigation and prosecution of the case. At the same time, the family of the victim suffered from social isolation in Bisada as a result of the crimes, ultimately ending in them being forced to leave their homes. The victim’s family reported receiving threats during this period, and in the village itself, residents celebrated when defendants were released from custody on bail, where they were photographed with local BJP leaders, recognized for their “innocent status” as Hindu youth, celebrated, and received garlands as gifts.

Each public display of support for the accused was another blow to the victim’s family and a message to the justice system.

National Outrage: The Award Wapsi Moment and a Fading Democratic Landscape

In October 2015, there was a lynching and it sparked one of the largest cultural protests of the decade, known as the Award Wapsi Movement. The writers who participated in this movement, such as Nayantara Sahgal, Ashok Vajpeyi, Sara Joseph, Shashi Deshpande and others, all returned their Sahitya Akademi awards to protest against the continued violence. Their action collectively raised awareness of a growing intolerance in the country and directly referred to the lynching of Akhlaq as a moment of moral decline.

The state’s response to the writers was hostile. The government ministers called all of the protesting writers “politically motivated”. An RSS publication even went so far as to quote from the Vedas to imply that cow slaughter justified the death penalty. The Chief Ministers of several states issued statements demanding that any Muslims who consume beef should “go to Pakistan”. These were not isolated statements or the thoughts of a few fringe political groups; they illustrate the political environment that was influencing decisions regarding this case.

However, the anger and activism surrounding this event was short-lived. Today, ten years after the lynching took place and as a result, the state is withdrawing prosecution against those who committed the lynching, the anger expressed by people in 2015 has turned into a sense of quiet fear. Many of the once bold voices have become relatively quiet due to harassment, intimidation and surveillance. The transition from a period of protest to a time where most people are silent does not reflect a changing belief system; it is an indication that democracy has become less expansive.

Legal and Constitutional Problems with the Withdrawal

A major point of contention in regards to the state of Uttar Pradesh’s motion to dismiss was that there was no new exculpatory evidence in support of the defendant. Several media reports indicate that the state’s filing primarily relied on the assertion that there were “inconsistencies” in the witnesses’ testimonies and that social harmony was at risk. Such vague assertions do not meet the legal standards outlined in the jurisprudential interpretation of Section 321 of the CrPC. A defendant cannot be dismissed unless there is newly discovered evidence that would fundamentally alter the state’s case against him. In this case, the medical evidence substantiating Akhlaq and Danish’s injuries and the contemporaneous FIR, and the eyewitness accounts all consistently corroborate the state’s case against them. In similar instances, courts have continued to deny a motion for dismissal. A trial court should require that the state produce a complete and thorough review of the prosecution’s case file, as well as a detailed affidavit from the Prosecuting Attorney detailing changes to the evidence that would justify the dismissal of the case.

Further, the application seems to ignore the very explicit requirements laid out by the Supreme Court in Tehseen S. Poonawalla v. Union of India (2018). The Supreme Court held that mob lynching constitutes a separate social and constitutional emergency and requires immediate intervention. The Court ordered each state to create a “fast track mechanism” for lynching cases, appoint a nodal official, enforce preventive protocols, create strong witness protection systems, and hold police accountable for their failures

Withdrawal attempts in pending lynching trials must be considered in light of whether the state complied with the aforementioned Supreme Court’s orders. The Tehseen Poonawalla case mandates are binding on trial courts. The trial court in Gautam Buddha Nagar must consider whether the state has satisfied its obligations in this matter, and whether permitting withdrawal would defeat the entire remedial framework the Supreme Court established for addressing lynching.

In addition to the requirement to uphold statutory obligations, a factor that should also be of utmost importance for the state is whether the withdrawal has the potential to serve the ‘public interest’. Lynching is not just a crime committed against an individual; it also attacks the rule of law, social order, and equitable treatment of all individuals under the Constitution. A significant deterrent effect exists not just because offenders are punished, but because lynching demonstrates a systematic and transparent application of justice through our court systems. Discontinuation of a lynching prosecution has the potential to increase the likelihood of similar acts of vigilante violence. A decision by the court to withdraw this case must take into account how that decision will affect the larger community, particularly how it sends a message to vulnerable communities. In essence, Articles 14 and 21 of the Constitution impose a duty on the Government to provide protection for life and to ensure that all persons are treated equally under the law. Accordingly, if a withdrawal occurs without adequate justification, which can only be supported through the use of clear and convincing evidence, the function of the Criminal Justice System as a protector will be diminished.

Take into account the possible influence of political factors; as noted in Sabrang’s coverage of the ceremony honouring the defendants, there were reports of assurances given to the defendants, and those reports provide essential contextual background for this case. In addition to the reports from Sabrang, what is also important to take into account are the instances of political patronage that have been shown to exist, be it via public demonstrations of support for persons who were accused or by statements made by politicians elected into office, or through institutional signals indicating support.

In other words, the very existence of political patronage creates a duty upon the court to view any motion to withdraw from prosecution through the prism of “political expediency.” A court must exercise vigilance over any motion to withdraw from a criminal prosecution, especially if it appears that political factors were involved in the decision-making process for prosecuting the case. A court must ensure that there is a clear distinction between prosecutorial discretion exercised for legitimate purposes versus prosecutorial discretion exercised under pressure from the Executive. If the court finds that an order to withdraw from a criminal prosecution merely serves the purpose of political expediency and does not promote the cause of justice, the court should deny any request made for an order to withdraw.

The Survivors: A Family Forced into Silence and Displacement

Victims and Witnesses’ Rights also require Judicial Attention. The family of Mohammad Akhlaq has experienced significant social hostility and displacement, and has been subjected to delays caused by the judicial process for nearly 10 years. Their right to be heard cannot be extinguished solely because the State wishes to withdraw from the trial. Victim Impact Hearings have been required by Courts, and/or Intervention Applications have been allowed for cases that are of large Public Interest. In a case as emotionally charged and symbolic as the Dadri Lynching, the Trial Court has an obligation to provide an opportunity for the survivors to be heard before any decision on withdrawal is made. Providing an opportunity for survivors to be heard acknowledges their constitutional rights to be heard as participants in the justice system and as complainants.

Justice Delayed, Denied, and Now Intentionally Buried

Ten years ago, the brutal murder of Akhlaq led to the emergence of a violent clash between Hindu cow vigilantes and India’s Muslim community, bringing to light the inaction (or complicity) of India’s various governmental and judicial institutions at all levels. Therefore, the prosecution attempt by the State of India to withdraw prosecution against the accused in this case today is not just a legal step but finalizing the death knell of accountability.

The failure of the Justice System was a deliberate and systemic failure at ALL levels of the Indian Judiciary, Executive, and Legislative System. The Justice System failed by creating the accused families as the “accused”; the Justice System failed by honouring the accused; the Justice System failed when judgment was delayed for 10 years; and once again, the Justice System failed if the State successfully withdraws the prosecution against the accused men.

If the Court allows the State to withdraw the prosecution, not only does it allow fifteen men to go free of blame, but it endorses and supports a decade of continuous state violence against marginalized communities so that the so-called “majority” can avenge their “honour”. It sends a message to all marginalized communities that justice will always be conditional, temporary, and rescindable by the State at will.

A government that has been elected through a democratic means should be there to ensure the safety of its citizens. In the example of Mohammad Akhlaq, however, rather than protecting him, the government protected those who killed him by their indifference, inaction, and now erasing his memory.

Akhlaq was killed quickly due to violence. The violence done to Akhlaq by the failure of the system to find justice for him was done by a systematic approach to violence. Unless the courts take immediate action, Akhlaq will no longer have the chance to see justice served against those who killed him.

The judgment in Tehseen S. Poonawalla v. Union of India can be read here.

(The legal research team of CJP consists of lawyers and interns; this resource has been worked on by Preksha Bothara)

Related:                                                               

The Lynching of Mohammed Akhlaq

Another mob lynching of Muslim men in Jharkhand and UP

Ramzan shadowed by targeted violence: lynching, assaults, and harassment taint the holy month in India

Two separate incidents in West Bengal result in lynching of three Muslim men in 3 days

Akhlaq’s Lynching: 7 Years on, Only 1 of 25 Witnesses Testify as Trial Reaches Evidence Stage

Meet Hari Om, part of a Mob that killed Mohd Akhlaque

Akhlaq’s Killers from Dadri Assured Job in NTPC by BJP MLA: Impunity Surpassed

All Killers of Mohammed Akhlaq Get Bail : Dadri Lynching

FIR Against Akhlaq’s Family Travesty of Justice, UP Govt Must Intervene

The post A Decade after Bisada: Why Uttar Pradesh’s attempt to drop the Akhlaq lynching case defies law and constitution appeared first on SabrangIndia.

New Delhi: Time stands still in Dadri’s Bisahda village — fons et origo (the original source) of India’s mob lynching template — as this is the month of despair and desolation for octogenarian Asghari, who has been waiting for justice since seven years when misfortune befell her home on September 28, 2015, taking away her son, Mohammad Akhlaq.

Many in the village still hate to hear the name of the 45-year-old, who was mercilessly beaten to death by none other than co-villagers for allegedly slaughtering a calf and consuming and storing the beef in his fridge. 

A murderous mob of 15-20 people, infuriated by rumours, broke into his two-storey house at around 10:30 p.m when the family was preparing to go to bed after dinner. They smashed a sewing machine on Mohammad Danish’s head, the 29-year-old younger son of Akhlaq, who fell unconscious, blood oozing out with pieces of flesh (as narrated by sources in the know of the incident).

Presuming him to be dead, they said, the mob’s fury focused on Akhlaq, who was attacked with iron rods and sticks. One of the attackers charged menacingly toward Shaista (27) and tried to molest her. She resisted and batted him away.

It was also reported that a larger mob was waiting for the victims outside, and the time was running out as sirens of police vans began reverberating. They held Akhlaq (who was bleeding profusely but still conscious), stripped him and began dragging him out of the ransacked room by his feet.

As the mob dragged Akhlaq to the ground floor, his head hit each of the 14 concrete steps of the staircase. “This was the worst torture for Akhlaq’s mother, wife and daughter,” they told NewsClick.

While Akhlaq succumbed to injuries, Danish survived the assault had had to undergo multiple complicated brain surgeries. He had a fractured skull with bleeding in the frontal lobe.

An loudspeaker announcement from a local temple — asking residents of the village to gather near a transformer in response to the rumour of cow slaughter — had led to the incident, the sources said.

Seven years later, a cursory walk along the alleys and pathways in the village of Uttar Pradesh’s Gautam Buddha Nagar district still makes one believe that little has changed over the years.

Muslim-sounding names and nomenclatures among the locals sting villagers to the core even now, justifying the fears of the family, who expressed surprise over the sudden change of atmosphere in her village.

This correspondent, as he was saying, “this is Akhlaq’s village” during his piece to camera, was interrupted by a passer-by who wanted the sentence to be corrected. “This is Bisahda, not Akhlaq’s village,” he said furiously.

A SNAIL-PACED TRIAL

Seven years after the killing, trial in the case (FIR No. 241/2015, PS Jarcha), which that began only last year, has now reached the evidence stage. While the first charge sheet was filed by the Uttar Pradesh Police in December 2015, the charges could be framed only in February 2021.

The key eye-witnesses (Asghari, Ikraman — Akhlaq’s wife, Danish and Shaista) were supposed to depose before a fast-track court at Surajpur District and Sessions Court in Greater Noida on March 25, 2021, but could not do so because the court summons could not reach them.

Advocate Yusuf Saifi, the informant lawyer of the deceased family, told NewsClick: “Though the court had issued summons, the police failed to ensure that those were delivered to the family on time. The deposition was then rescheduled for April, but again it could not happen.”

Finally, Akhlaq’s daughter Shaista was able to testify before Additional District Judge (fast track court-1) Ranvijay Pratap Singh from June 16 this year. Her testimonies continued for three days.

Saifi said Shaista would be followed by the deposition of her mother, her brother and grandmother.

“As an eye-witness, she corroborated the sequence of events. She recounted witnessing her father being assaulted and pulled out of the house to be killed. She named the accused who carried out the brutal killing. One of the defence lawyers cross-examined her as well,” the lawyer said.

She had previously recorded her statement under Section 164 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC).

Apart from the eye-witnesses, 25 other witnesses include policemen, doctors, etc. The statements of the accused, too, have to be recorded.

“The testimony of the accused will also be recorded as they have presented evidence in their defence,” he added.

Asked about the reasons behind the delay, Saifi said the defence tried its best to ensure that charges were not framed on one pretext or the other.

“Their lawyers were putting up several discharge applications. They also filed applications seeking a CBI investigation and direction to register a case against the deceased family for possessing beef. Other pleas were also filed. While a majority of their prayers were dismissed, yet a few were allowed,” he added.

In addition, he said, the lawyers’ strike in September last year and the transfer of judges compounded the delay.

“Once all the depositions happen, the judgment will be reserved. We hope the matter will be concluded in the next seven-eight months,” he added.

GLARING DEFIANCE OF SC GUIDELINES

Observing that “hate crimes as a product of intolerance, ideological dominance and prejudice ought not to be tolerated; lest it results in a reign of terror”, the Supreme Court in 2018 in Tehseen S. Poonawalla Vs. Union of India & Ors. had issued a slew of directions, including preventive, remedial and punitive steps, to deal with the crime. But the guidelines seem to have no meaning in Uttar Pradesh.

The court had ruled cases of lynching and mob violence shall be specifically tried by designated court/fast track courts earmarked for that purpose in each district. The trial shall preferably be concluded within six months.

The case was sent to the special court in April 2016 for a hearing. Forget six months, the matter has not reached its conclusion even after seven years of the incident.

Advocate Saifi said none of its provisions was being followed. “The guidelines say that a nodal officer, who could be an IPS officer, has to overlook the progress of the case. That has not happened. I even gave a copy of the SC guidelines to the Senior Superintendent of Police two years ago, but he did not take any action. Though the case is being heard by a fast-track court, the progress is extremely slow,” he said.

LACKADAISICAL PROSECUTION?

After Inspector Subodh Kumar Singh, the investigating officer of the case, was transferred to Varanasi all of a sudden, no further progress was made in the matter.

Singh had a key role as the investigating officer in the Akhlaq murder case. He had arrested all the 10 accused named by the victim’s family.

Apart from the 10 named accused, the complainant Ikraman had said there were others as well in the group whom they did not recognise.

Ironically, as per some journalists who have extensively covered the incident, no attempts were made to identify and apprehend them.

All the accused were granted bail by the Allahabad High Court after the prosecution failed to strongly oppose it.

“My understanding is that the case has been weakened by the prosecution from the stage of FIR itself. The merit of a case is not what crucial facts you and I know; it depends on the case the police have prepared — registration of the FIR, evidence collection and filing of the charge sheet. The court delivers its verdict on the basis of these documents. The manner in which the case is progressing, my fear is that it would result in acquittals. The court proceedings so far prepare us for the final disappointment,” Mohammad Ali, who covered the case extensively for The Hindu and is writing a book on it, told NewsClick.

Asked what disappointed him to the extent that he is predicting acquittal in the case, he said it was the “first case of lynching that had attracted the world’s attention”.

“Shockingly, all the accused were enlarged on bail in just one year or two, and the prosecution kept acting like a mute spectator. It was a murder case, after all. The accused were glorified, given a heroic welcome and even got a job at the NTPC. One of them (Ravin Sisodia) who died in judicial custody was given a martyr’s burial, with his body draped in tricolour,” he said, adding that the tragedy of the case is that a soldier (Akhlaq’s elder son, Sartaj) of the Indian Air Force is running from pillar to post to get justice for his father’s murder.

Asked if the family also wants to move on as it is not seemingly pursuing the case aggressively, Ali said it was only logical that the already traumatised family would try to give up.

A WATERTIGHT CASE?

The police claimed they had prepared a watertight case against the accused, and it would result in convictions. “We have done a professional investigation and will secure convictions. The culprits will have to pay the price of what they have done,” a senior police official, refusing to be named, told NewsClick.

CONSPIRACY THEORY

The sister of Inspector Subodh Kumar Singh, who was killed on December 3, 2018, by a Right wing mob incensed over cow carcasses in Bulandshahr, had earlier alleged that her brother was “murdered because he was investigating the Dadri lynching case”.

And the conspiracy to eliminate his brother, she had further alleged, was hatched by the Uttar Pradesh police.

Being an investigating officer in Akhlaq’s lynching case, Singh was one of the prime government witnesses. He was witness number one in the case.

ATTEMPTS TO ‘STRIKE A COMPROMISE’

All the 18 accused (through their relatives) are learnt to have reached out to Akhlaq’s family 40-odd times seeking a compromise.

In June 2016, a case of cow slaughter was registered against Akhlaq’s family members (Ikarama, Danish, Shaista and Jaan Mohammad, who is the deceased brother) on the directions of the district court on the complaint of one Surajpal.

However, the Allahabad High Court restrained the police from taking any coercive action against the family.

The accused have been projecting Akhlaq’s family as those who killed the cow and have been allegedly pressuring them saying they will withdraw their case of cow slaughter if cases against them are taken back.

However, the police concluded three months after booking Akhlaq’s family for cow slaughter that there was no evidence to prove that Akhlaq and his family ever slaughtered a cow.

Courtesy: Newsclick

The post Akhlaq’s Lynching: 7 Years on, Only 1 of 25 Witnesses Testify as Trial Reaches Evidence Stage appeared first on SabrangIndia.