In a significant judgment addressing vigilante violence carried out in the name of preventing cattle transportation, a Sessions Court in Madhya Pradesh’s Narmadapuram district has convicted seven men and sentenced them to life imprisonment for the 2022 lynching of Najir Ahmed, who was assaulted along with two others on suspicion of cow smuggling.
The judgment, delivered on June 12, 2026 by First Additional Sessions Judge Tabassum Khan, found Deepak alias Baba Kevat, Ajay alias Ajju Rathore, Prakash Kaushal, Pawan Batham, Amar alias Bhola Batham, Kanhaiya Batham and Ballu alias Anuj Raghuvanshi guilty of offences under Sections 148 (rioting armed with deadly weapons), 307 read with 149 (attempt to murder with common object) and 302 read with 149 (murder with common object) of the Indian Penal Code.
At the sentencing stage, the Court made a particularly noteworthy observation, recording that the prosecution had successfully established that the accused had committed mob lynching. The Court identified several aggravating circumstances, including the formation of an unlawful assembly armed with deadly weapons, the extreme brutality inflicted upon the victims, the fatal injuries suffered by Najir Ahmed, and the injuries caused to the surviving victims.
Background: Attack on cattle transporters
According to the prosecution case, on the intervening night of August 2 and 3, 2022, truck driver Sheikh Lala was transporting cattle along with Najir Ahmed and Sheikh Mustaq from Nandarwada towards Maharashtra. Around 12:30 a.m., when their vehicle reached near Barakhad village in Seoni Malwa, a group of villagers intercepted the truck.
The occupants were allegedly dragged out and assaulted with lathis and wooden sticks. All three men sustained injuries. Najir Ahmed suffered severe head and bodily injuries and later died during treatment. Sheikh Lala and Sheikh Mustaq survived but sustained serious injuries.
Following the incident, police registered an FIR initially against unknown persons under provisions relating to rioting, wrongful restraint, attempt to murder and murder. During the investigation, officers collected physical evidence from the scene, including bloodstained soil and weapons, recorded witness statements, secured medical records, and obtained the dying declarations of the injured survivors.
Evidence relied upon by the court
The Court’s findings rested upon a combination of eyewitness testimony, medical evidence, forensic examination and recoveries made during the investigation.
The two surviving victims, Sheikh Lala and Sheikh Mustaq, consistently stated that a crowd had stopped their vehicle and assaulted them. Their accounts were corroborated by medical evidence documenting multiple injuries sustained during the attack.
Medical records showed that Najir Ahmed was brought to hospital in a critical and unconscious condition. Doctors noted extensive injuries, including swelling on the face and head, lacerated wounds, contusions and severe trauma. The post-mortem examination revealed multiple external and internal injuries, including skull fractures and significant head trauma.
“Arguments have been presented by the learned counsel for the accused persons that in the P.M. report (Ex. P–68–C) of the deceased Nazir, the cause of death is recorded as asphyxiation due to vomit blocking the throat, which makes it clear that the death of the deceased Nazir did not occur due to the injuries sustained by him. In this context, it is observable that although Dr. Shekhar Raghuvanshi (PW–22) admitted in paragraph 14 of his cross-examination that his opinion was given to the effect that his death occurred due to asphyxiation caused by vomit blocking the throat of deceased Nazir Ahmed, he made no statement to the effect that the injuries sustained by the deceased were insufficient to cause death, nor was any such suggestion given to the said doctor by the defense. From the aforementioned P.M. report (Ex. P–68–C), it is proved that the deceased sustained external and internal injuries, and it is also clear from the evidence of Dr. Shekhar Raghuvanshi (PW–22) that the deceased was brought in an unconscious state, his condition was highly critical, and his oxygen level as well as B.P. were unrecordable; thus, this argument of the defense is not acceptable that the death of the deceased did not occur due to the injuries sustained by him.” (Para 22) (Paragraph translated from Hindi to English)
The defence attempted to argue that Najir Ahmed’s death was caused by asphyxiation due to choking on vomit rather than by injuries sustained during the assault. The Court rejected this contention. It held that although the post-mortem referred to choking as the immediate mechanism of death, the evidence clearly established that Najir Ahmed had been brought to hospital in a grievously injured and unconscious state after the assault. The Court found that the fatal sequence of events was directly attributable to the brutal attack and that the injuries inflicted by the accused could not be separated from the death that followed.
The Court further relied on forensic evidence. Blood-stained weapons, clothing and other articles seized during the investigation were subjected to forensic examination. Human blood was detected on several seized items, including articles recovered from the accused and the deceased’s clothing. The Court noted that the accused failed to offer any satisfactory explanation for the presence of human blood on the recovered materials.
“According to the F.S.L. report Ex. P–103, Benzidine/Phenolphthalein and Crystal tests were performed on the said exhibits. According to the said report, human blood was found on A, B, C, D, E, F, $G_1$, $G_2$, I, K, $N_1$, and $N_2$. According to the said report, the stains on H, J, L, and M were disintegrated. In this manner, on the basis of the aforementioned F.S.L. report Ex. P–103, the presence of human blood on the aforementioned items seized from the accused persons is confirmed.” (Para 78) (Paragraph translated from Hindi to English)
“In the present case, blood-stained items were seized directly from the houses under the possession of the accused persons, on which human blood was found. The seizure proceedings have been duly proved by the prosecution, and according to the F.S.L. report, the chain of custody of the seized exhibits also remained intact. The police station daily log entry (Rojnamcha Sanha) of the proceedings from the date of the incident has also been produced. Under these circumstances, the burden of proof to provide an explanation was upon the accused persons, which was not given. Therefore, the aforementioned legal precedents are not applicable to the present case.” (Para 84) (Paragraph translated from Hindi to English)
Common object and unlawful assembly
A central issue before the Court was whether the accused could be held collectively liable for murder under Sections 302 and 149 IPC.
After evaluating the evidence, the Court concluded that the accused had formed; an unlawful assembly armed with lathis and dandas and had acted in furtherance of a common object. The attack was neither spontaneous nor isolated. Rather, the group acted collectively, used force and violence, and jointly assaulted the victims.
The Court held that the prosecution had proved beyond reasonable doubt that the accused, acting as members of an unlawful assembly, intentionally assaulted Najir Ahmed with sticks and clubs in a manner that was sufficient in the ordinary course of nature to cause death. It further found that the assaults on Sheikh Lala and Sheikh Mustaq amounted to an attempt to murder.
“An observation of all the circumstances available on the record establishes the involvement of the accused persons and that the death of the deceased Nazir Ahmed was caused due to the assault. Both the other injured victims, Shekh Lala and Sayyad Mushtaq, were also present along with the deceased. It stands proved that injuries were caused to the injured Shekh Lala on the neck and chest, and to the injured Sayyad Mushtaq on the head, arm, and other vital parts. Therefore, looking at the weapons used by the accused persons, the nature of the injuries of the injured victims, and the facts and circumstances leading to the death of their other companion Nazir Ahmed, the intention of the accused persons to commit murder can be inferred.” (Para 93) (Paragraph translated from Hindi to English)
In one of the key findings of the judgment, the Court observed that the accused, armed with deadly weapons, had formed an unlawful assembly, committed rioting and, in prosecution of their common object, murdered Najir Ahmed while attempting to murder the two surviving victims.
Court recognises mob lynching as an aggravating circumstance
The sentencing portion of the judgment is particularly significant because the Court expressly characterised the crime as a case of mob lynching. While considering punishment, Judge Tabassum Khan identified the following aggravating factors:
- The prosecution had proved that the accused committed mob lynching.
- The accused formed an unlawful assembly armed with deadly weapons and engaged in rioting.
- The assault was carried out with exceptional brutality.
- Najir Ahmed suffered extensive injuries that resulted in his death.
- The attack also caused serious injuries to other victims.
The Court observed that the violence inflicted upon the victims reflected a high degree of brutality and collective criminality, warranting severe punishment.
Why the court rejected the death penalty
Despite finding the accused guilty of murder in a mob-lynching incident, the Court declined to impose capital punishment. Relying upon the established “rarest of rare” doctrine governing death penalty cases, the Court held that the circumstances did not justify the imposition of the death sentence. Instead, it sentenced all seven convicts to imprisonment for life under Section 302 read with Section 149 IPC.
“For murder, there is a provision up to the death penalty, but in the legal precedent Bachan Singh Versus State of Punjab A.I.R. 1980 S.C. 898, it has been held by the Honorable Supreme Court that the death penalty should be awarded only in the “rarest of rare cases”. In the legal precedent Santosh Kumar Singh Versus State through C.B.I. (2010) 9 SCC 747, it has also been opined that when the court has to choose an alternative between life imprisonment and the death penalty, the option of life imprisonment should generally be chosen, unless there are such exceptional circumstances that make the death penalty inevitable. In this regard, the legal precedent Machi Singh Versus State of Punjab (1983) 3 SCC 470 is also followed.” (Para 102) (Paragraph translated from Hindi to English)
The convicts were also sentenced to ten years’ rigorous imprisonment under Section 307 read with Section 149 IPC for the attempted murder of the surviving victims, and three years’ rigorous imprisonment under Section 148 IPC for rioting while armed with deadly weapons. Fines were additionally imposed.
Significance of the judgment
The judgment stands out for two reasons. First, it represents a rare instance where a trial court has explicitly described the offence as mob lynching and treated that finding as a distinct aggravating circumstance while determining punishment. Second, the Court’s reasoning underscores the application of collective liability principles under Section 149 IPC to vigilante violence carried out by groups acting in concert.
At a time when incidents of violence linked to allegations of cattle transportation and cow smuggling continue to generate legal and constitutional concerns, the ruling sends a clear message that vigilante groups cannot substitute themselves for law enforcement and that collective violence resulting in death will attract the gravest criminal consequences under the law.
The complete judgment may be read below:
Illustration by Rahul Awasthi / The Telegraph
Related:
Mob lynching: Three separate incidents surface, even minors and partially disabled Muslims not safe
Another cow lynching in Nashik, one dead
Maharashtra’s shame: Cow lynching episode reported in Nashik
Allahabad HC points out misuse of cow slaughter law
K’taka: Bail to cow vigilante, Puneeth Kerehalli, accused of killing Muslim man
Cow vigilantism casts its ugly shadow on Maharashtra
Allahabad HC calls out misuse of law in cow slaughter case as only cow dung recovered from scene