Allahabad High Court questions posthumous robbery charges against lynching victim

The Allahabad High Court has raised concerns over the registration of a robbery case against Aurangzeb alias Farid, 11 days after his death. The court has also placed a stay on the arrest of Farid's brother in connection to the case, adding complexity to the already controversial incident.

Details of incident

On June 18, 35-year-old Aurangzeb, a resident of Aligarh, was beaten to death by a mob who suspected him of attempting theft. The attack occurred after local Hindu men allegedly caught him trying to rob a trader’s house. Following the brutal lynching, a video of the incident went viral, raising serious questions about the motivations behind the assault.

इलाहाबाद हाईकोर्ट ने UP सरकार से पूछा है कि मरने के 11 दिन बाद औरंगजेब उर्फ फरीद पर डकैती का मुकदमा कैसे दर्ज किया?

हाईकोर्ट ने फरीद के भाई की अरेस्टिंग पर भी रोक लगाई।

अलीगढ़ में 18 जून को भीड़ ने चोर के शक में औरंगजेब को पीट–पीटकर मार डाला था।
pic.twitter.com/x1HZOoRoOI

— Sachin Gupta (@SachinGuptaUP) September 10, 2024

Despite Aurangzeb's death, an FIR was lodged against him and six other Muslim men on June 29, charging them under sections 354 (assault with intent to outrage a woman's modesty) and 395 (dacoity) of the Indian Penal Code. The complaint was filed by Laxmi Rani Mittal, who accused Aurangzeb and his companions of looting her house on the night of the incident. She further alleged that Aurangzeb sustained injuries while slipping on a staircase as he attempted to flee.

However, the FIR and its details directly contradict the findings from the initial police investigation and the viral video footage. The victim's family had already filed an FIR, reporting Aurangzeb's lynching at the hands of the mob. The discrepancies between the two accounts have raised suspicion about the timing and validity of the charges filed posthumously against the deceased.

The High Court’s intervention has brought the spotlight on how such charges were framed against a dead man, raising concerns about potential bias and injustice in the case.