No Witness Identified His Role In Assault or Truck Fire: Jharkhand HC Sets Aside Mob-Case Conviction

Following a road accident near Noamundi, a crowd allegedly restrained the truck driver and threatened to set him and the truck on fire.

Police personnel who intervened were attacked, and the truck was set ablaze.

The appellant was later convicted under Sections 435, 440, 225, 148 and 353 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC), with the sentences ordered to run concurrently

The informant and other witnesses attributed the assault and arson to Charan Laguri and Sona Ram Laguri; the Investigating Officer testified that a petrol can belonging to the appellant had been seized

The Court applied the prosecution’s obligation to prove guilt beyond reasonable doubt and the principle that suspicion, however strong, cannot substitute for legal proof

It further held that mere presence in a crowd or association with persons involved in an occurrence does not, without proof of the accused’s participation and the requisite offence ingredients, justify conviction

The convictions at issue were under Sections 435, 440, 225, 148 and 353 IPC

The eyewitness and police testimony described violence and the setting of the truck on fire, but identified Charan Laguri and Sona Ram Laguri—not the appellant—as the persons who assaulted the informant.

No witness attributed to the appellant any specific act of assault, arson or other participation.

Although the Investigating Officer stated that a petrol can seized at the scene belonged to the appellant, the Court concluded that the evidence did not establish the appellant’s guilt beyond reasonable doubt.

Mere presence or association with the crowd was insufficient to sustain the convictions.

It set aside the trial court’s judgment and order, allowed the appeal, and discharged the appellant and his sureties from their bail obligations.