Supreme Court Upholds 8-Year Sentence in Vigilantism Case
In a landmark judgment, the Supreme Court of India dismissed a plea by a man challenging his 8-year imprisonment for causing the death of a rape accused’s brother, calling the victim “innocent.” The verdict reinforces the judiciary’s zero-tolerance stance against vigilantism and extrajudicial violence.
Case Background: Mob Attack on Innocent Victim
The incident traces back to 2015 when Rajesh Kumar (name changed) and a mob attacked the brother of a man accused of rape in their village. The rape accused had fled, and in retaliation, the mob fatally assaulted his younger brother.
Kumar was convicted under IPC Section 304 (culpable homicide) and sentenced by the trial court, a decision upheld by the Punjab & Haryana High Court. He later appealed to the Supreme Court, claiming his actions were driven by outrage over the rape and not intent to kill.
Supreme Court’s Firm Stand Against Mob Justice
A bench of Justices B.R. Gavai and Sandeep Mehta rejected the appeal, stating:
“The victim was innocent and unrelated to the rape case. Taking the law into one’s hands is unacceptable. Vigilantism undermines the legal system.”
The court stressed that India’s judiciary is capable of handling heinous crimes, and mob violence only breeds anarchy.
Legal & Social Impact: A Warning Against Vigilantism
The ruling comes amid rising incidents of mob lynching and attacks on accused individuals’ families. Legal experts hailed the judgment as a safeguard for due process.
Senior Advocate Rajeev Dhavan noted:
“This verdict reaffirms that justice must follow legal procedures, not public anger.”
Public & Activist Reactions
While some applaud the court for protecting innocent lives, others express frustration over delayed justice in rape cases.
Women’s rights activist Kavita Krishnan argued:
“The solution is faster trials, not mob violence.”
Key Takeaway: Rule of Law Above All
The Supreme Court’s decision sets a critical precedent against mob justice, emphasizing that no one can bypass legal channels, regardless of the crime.
