Gauhati High Court Quashes Discharge Of Accused, Orders Framing Of Murder Charges In 2018 Tezu Police Station Lynching Case
Sanchayita Lahkar
The High Court of Gauhati, Single Bench of Justice Pranjal Das, while allowing a criminal petition by the State against a trial court order that had dropped key charges, directed that six accused in the 2018 Tezu incident face a full trial for alleged conspiracy, obstruction of public servants and murder arising from the mob lynching of two persons then in police custody on suspicion of rape and murder of a minor. The Court observed that investigation materials, including eyewitness accounts and call data records, gave rise to grave suspicion about the accused being part of the unlawful assembly that stormed the police station, removed the undertrial prisoners and participated in the subsequent violence, warranting additional charges.
The case arises from the incident following the alleged rape and murder of a 5½-year-old girl, after which Tezu Police Station registered a case under provisions of the IPC and POCSO Act. Two suspects were arrested on 18.02.2018 and kept in police lock-up. On 19.02.2018, a crowd of around a thousand people armed with rods, pipes, hammers, and sticks surrounded the police station, overpowered the police, removed the suspects from custody, and lynched them. Property in the police station was also damaged, and some police personnel sustained injuries.
Another case was then registered against the mob under various IPC sections and the PDPP Act, and the investigation—initially by local police and later by SIT—identified the six respondents as accused based on eyewitness accounts and other materials. A charge sheet was submitted alleging offences including conspiracy, rioting, trespass, obstruction of public servants, destruction of evidence, and murder. During consideration of charge, the respondents sought discharge under Section 227 CrPC.
The trial court framed charges only for rioting, unlawful assembly, common object, and trespass while discharging them from charges of conspiracy, house-trespass, obstructing public servants, and murder. Aggrieved, the State challenged the discharge before the High Court. The prosecution relied on statements of eyewitnesses, CDR analysis, and disclosure of meetings prior to the incident. The defence contended that there was no material showing participation in the lynching.
The Court recorded that “a huge crowd of about thousand people armed with iron rods, pipes, hammers, wooden sticks surrounded the Tezu police station, overpowered the police officers and after going inside the police station took out the said two accused persons and lynched them to death.” It noted that “the mob even dragged the dead bodies… to the town square and burnt the dead bodies.”
The Court examined the investigation materials and stated that “the names of the six respondents herein came up as being involved in the crime during investigation from the statements of eyewitnesses and other relevant materials.” It observed that the charge sheet narrated materials found against each respondent individually, including CDR analysis showing frequent contact among co-accused on the day of the incident, eyewitness statements identifying them as part of the mob, and indications of participation in meetings before the incident.
The Court recorded the legal position that “an order framing charge does not have to be in great detail… the Judge is not required to record detailed reasons as to why such charge is framed.” However, it noted that discharge requires proper reasoning, quoting that “the moment the order of discharge is passed it is imperative to record the reasons.”
Referring to precedents, the Court stated that the Judge has the power “to sift and weigh the evidence for the limited purpose of finding out whether or not a prima facie case against the accused has been made out,” and that if materials disclose “grave suspicion against the accused,” charges should be framed; but if materials raise only suspicion, discharge may be justified.
Upon scrutiny, the Court recorded that there were “significant implicating materials… that the respondents/accused persons were part of this unlawful assembly,” and that the materials indicated obstruction of police and vandalism. It further stated that it was unable to hold that there was “no grave suspicion… that besides being member of the unlawful assembly, they also shared the common object… of vandalizing the police station and killing the accused UTPs.”
The Court observed that the materials “would not justify discharging the respondents/accused persons – of the offense of conspiracy; preventing or obstructing public servant on duty… [and] committing the murder of the two UTPs.” It recorded that the materials revealed triable issues and stated that it “would not be justified – to not even proceed against the respondents/accused persons with regard to these penal provisions.”
The Court stated that “the order dated 13-05-2022 passed by the learned trial court, not framing charges against the respondents/accused under sections 120(B)/452/353/302 IPC, is found to be suffering from infirmity and to that extent, the order is hereby interfered with.”
“The learned trial court shall frame additional charges against the respondents/accused under sections 120(B)/452/353/302 IPC, in addition to the charges already framed, and thereby proceed with the trial. The instant criminal petition filed by the State is allowed and disposed of on the aforesaid terms.”
Advocates Representing the Parties
For the Petitioner: Mr. L. Kurdu, Special Public Prosecutor (SIT)
For the Respondents: Ms. N. Danggen, Amicus Curiae / Legal Aid Counsel
Case Title: State of Arunachal Pradesh vs. Legam Takaliang & Others
Neutral Citation: 2025: GAU-AP:1264
Case Number: Crl.Petn./118/2022
Bench: Justice Pranjal Das
