When 200 Are Pelting Stones, How Do You Pick Faces?: MP High Court Slams Police for Vague Identifications in Mob Case

“Suspicion Cannot Replace Proof”, - Madhya Pradesh High Court at Gwalior delivered a stinging rebuke to investigative lapses and vague witness testimonies in a decades-old case concerning mob violence. In State of Madhya Pradesh v. Ripudaman Singh and Others (CRA No. 893 of 2005), Justice Rajendra Kumar Vani dismissed the State’s criminal appeal against the acquittal of 11 accused in a 1990 case involving allegations of rioting, stone-pelting, and assault on police officers during a public protest. The Court reaffirmed that mere presence in a crowd or being named by inconsistent testimonies does not amount to proof beyond reasonable doubt.

“Identification Without Clarity Is No Identification at All”

At the heart of the case lay a 1990 incident in Chachoda where a crowd of 150 to 200 persons blocked the AB Road, shouting slogans and allegedly pelting stones at police officers. While the State argued that the accused were part of this violent mob, the High Court found the identification of the accused deeply problematic.

The Court noted with scathing clarity: “When there was a mob of 150–200 persons who were pelting stones, how these witnesses identified the accused persons is not clarified… especially when the accused persons were not known to these persons earlier.”

The High Court observed that each police witness named only 2–3 individuals and did not identify all the accused. The inconsistencies in testimonies by Head Constables and SHO Bajrangsahay Dubey were too glaring to overlook. Importantly, the first entry in the police logbook (Rojnamcha Sanha), which formed the basis of the FIR, was never produced—casting a long shadow over the integrity of the prosecution's narrative.

“A Missing Rojnamcha Is Not a Minor Gap — It’s a Gaping Hole in the Prosecution”

Justice Vani underlined a cardinal failure of the State — the non-production of the police station diary or duty certificates. These would have confirmed whether officers were indeed on duty and would have substantiated their claims of official capacity under Sections 353 and 332 IPC.

“Though the witnesses have stated that they were performing their official duties, the concerned Rojnamcha Sanha entries as well as their duty certificates ought to have been produced… the prosecution failed to bring such material evidence on record.”

The absence of such crucial documentation not only weakened the case but raised concerns about due process and fairness of investigation.

“Acquittal Is the Norm, Not the Exception — Unless Clearly Wrong”

While the State sought a reversal of acquittal, the Court reminded that overturning an acquittal is a judicially cautious exercise, not to be undertaken unless the decision is patently perverse or unreasonable.

Quoting from the Supreme Court’s precedent in State of Gujarat v. Jayrajbhai Punjabhai Varu, the Court stressed: “Unless the conclusions of the trial court are palpably wrong or manifestly erroneous or demonstrably unsustainable, the appellate court should not interfere.”

Similarly, the Court cited Rajesh Prasad v. State of Bihar, affirming: “It is the obligation of the prosecution to establish its case beyond reasonable doubt, and it has to stand on its own legs.”

The High Court held that the prosecution failed miserably to prove individual roles in a chaotic situation, where crowd dynamics blurred personal accountability.

No Evidence, No Conviction

In dismissing the State’s appeal, the High Court concluded: “The acquittal of the present respondents rests on cogent and well-reasoned grounds, warranting no interference… no perversity or illegality is apparent in the impugned judgment.”

This verdict not only upholds the foundational criminal law principle of “innocent until proven guilty” but also sends a stern message to police and prosecuting authorities: vague allegations and half-hearted documentation cannot substitute a solid, lawfully built case.

In an era where crowd violence is politically and socially sensitive, the Madhya Pradesh High Court’s judgment reinforces constitutional discipline — that guilt, especially in a mob scenario, must be individually established. A name in an FIR or a face in a crowd cannot convict a citizen.

Date of Decision: 14 May 2025