The Bombay High Court has reaffirmed that mere presence in a crowd during a violent incident, without specific evidence linking an individual to criminal intent or action, cannot sustain the framing of serious charges such as attempt to murder. This judgment reinforces the threshold for discharge under Section 227 of the CrPC and curbs overbroad prosecution based on association rather than participation.
Background & Facts
The Dispute
The revision petitioners, five individuals from Nandurbar district, were named as accused in a case arising from a violent mob incident following the death of a 6th standard student due to electric shock at a government ashram school. The incident triggered a gathering of 100 - 150 people who allegedly resisted authorities attempting to shift the body for autopsy. The FIR, filed by a police official, did not name any of the petitioners. Their names appeared only after initial remands of other accused, with no direct eyewitness identification or forensic link.
Procedural History
- 28 August 2018: FIR registered at Taloda Police Station under Sections 307, 353, 332, 333, 143, 147, 149, 186, 109, 504 IPC and Sections 37(1)(3), 135 Maharashtra Police Act.
- 2023: Chargesheet filed naming all five petitioners despite absence from original FIR.
- 14 July 2023: Additional Sessions Judge, Shahada, rejected petitioners’ application for discharge under Section 227 CrPC.
- 2023: Revision petition filed under Sections 397 and 401 CrPC before Bombay High Court, Aurangabad Bench.
Relief Sought
The petitioners sought discharge from all charges, arguing that no incriminating material linked them to the alleged assault, their names were added post-investigation without basis, and witness statements were hearsay or from government officials with no direct observation of their conduct.
The Legal Issue
The central question was whether Section 227 of the CrPC permits framing of charges against individuals whose names appear in the chargesheet solely due to their presence in a large mob, absent any specific evidence of participation, intent, or actus reus.
Arguments Presented
For the Petitioner
Counsel argued that the prosecution failed to establish a prima facie case against the petitioners. No witness identified them as assailants. The FIR did not mention them. Their inclusion was retrospective and based on association with the crowd. Relied on Dilawar Balu Kurane v. State of Maharashtra and P. Vijayan v. State of Kerala to assert that the court must sift evidence to detect grave suspicion - not mere suspicion - and that presence alone cannot substitute for material evidence.
For the Respondent
The State contended that the mob’s violent conduct was documented through injured witnesses and video footage, and that names of participants in large-scale mob violence are often added during investigation. Cited State of Karnataka v. M.R. Hiremath to argue that the court must assume prosecution evidence as true at the discharge stage and that the totality of circumstances - including the nature of the offence and the presence of petitioners at the scene - justified proceeding to trial.
The Court's Analysis
The Court undertook a rigorous review of the legal standards governing discharge under Section 227 CrPC, emphasizing that the stage is not for a mini-trial but for determining whether the prosecution’s evidence, if accepted at face value, discloses a grave suspicion of guilt. The Court quoted Amit Kapoor v. Ramesh Chander:
"At the initial stage of framing of a charge, the court is concerned not with proof but with a strong suspicion that the accused has committed an offence, which, if put to trial, could prove him guilty. All that the court has to see is that the material on record and the facts would be compatible with the innocence of the accused or not."
The Court found that the prosecution’s case against the petitioners rested entirely on their presence in a crowd of 100 - 150 people. No witness statement directly implicated any petitioner in assault, threat, or conspiracy. The video footage referenced by the State did not identify them. The Court held that mere association with a mob, without evidence of active participation, intent, or overt act, cannot satisfy the threshold of grave suspicion required under Section 227 CrPC. The trial court had erred by conflating presence with participation and by failing to apply the settled principles in P. Vijayan and Dilawar Balu Kurane. The Court further noted that the prosecution’s reliance on hearsay statements of police and government officials, without corroboration, was insufficient to sustain charges under Section 307 IPC.
The Verdict
The petitioners succeeded. The Court held that presence in a crowd during a violent incident, without specific evidence of participation or intent, does not constitute grave suspicion under Section 227 CrPC. The order refusing discharge was set aside, and the petitioners were discharged from all charges.
What This Means For Similar Cases
Presence Alone Cannot Justify Charges
- Practitioners must challenge charges where accused are named solely due to proximity to a mob, especially in cases involving large gatherings.
- Prosecution must provide direct identification, video evidence, or forensic linkage to establish individual culpability.
- Courts must strictly apply the "grave suspicion" standard - not "mere suspicion" - at the discharge stage.
Documentary Evidence Must Be Specific
- Video footage or photographs must clearly identify the accused; generic crowd shots are insufficient.
- Statements from officials who did not witness the accused committing acts are inadmissible as substantive evidence at this stage.
- Hearsay or second-hand accounts cannot substitute for eyewitness testimony.
Discharge Is a Shield Against Overreach
- This judgment reinforces that Section 227 CrPC is a critical safeguard against indiscriminate prosecution.
- Lawyers should routinely file discharge applications in mob violence cases where clients were not named in the FIR or identified by witnesses.
- Courts must resist pressure to proceed to trial in high-profile cases without meeting the minimal threshold of material evidence.
