Withdrawal Of Murder Charges Can Lead To More Lynchings: Akhlaq’s Family To Court

The family of Mohammad Akhlaq Saifi has pushed back against the Uttar Pradesh government’s move to close the lynching case. The family on Thursday filed petitions in the Allahabad High Court as well as before a fast-track court in Noida, challenging the state government’s plea to withdraw murder charges against those accused of killing Akhlaq on September 28, 2015. The fast-track court admitted the objection and fixed December 23 as the next date of hearing.

In its plea, the family has argued that allowing withdrawal in such a case would set a precedent that effectively legitimises impunity in cases of mob violence, ultimately leading to more lynchings.

For Akhlaq’s family, the state’s attempt to withdraw the case is not merely a legal manoeuvre but a moral retreat—one that risks turning a crime that once shocked the nation into a forgotten footnote. The Allahabad High Court is expected to take up the matter after the winter recess.

In its application seeking withdrawal, the Uttar Pradesh government has argued that the case lacks evidence, citing the absence of firearms, alleged inconsistencies in forensic reports on the meat recovered from Akhlaq’s house, and the need to maintain communal harmony. The family has rejected this reasoning, asking pointedly whether a death caused by repeated blows with sticks can be treated as a lesser crime.

The family argues that the government’s plea amounts to a misuse of discretion under criminal law. They contend that the executive cannot abandon prosecution in a case involving murder and mob violence merely by invoking vague claims of “public interest” or “communal harmony.”

One of the central arguments in the family petition is that the state’s reasoning is legally flawed and morally indefensible. The family asks whether killing a person with sticks and bricks—as opposed to firearms—can ever make the offence less serious. The petition stresses that the cause of death was violent assault and that the manner of killing does not reduce culpability.

The family also disputes the government’s claim that the case lacks evidence, pointing out that the trial has barely progressed, with only one key witness examined so far. The petition argues that the state cannot cite “lack of evidence” when it has itself failed to ensure a timely and effective trial.

The petition further challenges the state’s reliance on disputed forensic reports regarding the meat recovered from Akhlaq’s house, arguing that even if the findings were inconclusive, they have no bearing on the charge of murder, which rests on eyewitness accounts and the circumstances of the assault.

The family contends that withdrawing prosecution in a case that became a national symbol of lynching and communal violence would seriously undermine public confidence in the justice system. The petition asserts that public interest is served by seeing the trial through, not by quietly closing it.

Akhlaq was dragged out of his home in Bisada village after a temple announcement claimed he had slaughtered a cow. He was beaten to death with sticks and bricks; his son Danish was left critically injured. The killing sparked national outrage and became a symbol of mob violence that later came to define a broader political and social phenomenon.